
One afternoon, while I was working at an historic house museum, a group of six friends came in for a guided tour, which is the only way of seeing the house. The maximum tour size is fifteen, with a preference for groups of six or more to pre-book. This particular tour was only half full and could accommodate these six, which I was happy to do, but a senior staff member stepped in and insisted they would have to split up into two groups, with half going on a tour an hour later. After much kerfuffle, they were eventually all allowed to join the departing tour.
I later posited to the site manager that surely the primary goal of the museum was to provide our visitors with a positive experience, which we could most successfully achieve by accommodating them to the best of our ability, within reason. She agreed and promised to look into the matter.
That evening, by coincidence, I experienced a similar ‘barring of entry’ at a free community clothes swap, having neglected to pre-register for a specific entry time slot. I’ve been going to these swaps regularly, and timed entry was only ever occasionally requested but had seemingly now become a hard rule. I was asked to wait, but even after half an hour of watching the pre-registered flutter in, the gatekeeper still refused to let me enter, though there was clearly plenty of space. She was completely unsympathetic and I left, disappointed, with my big bag of clothes in tow.
It seems that amidst our claims to be a freer and more inclusive society, we’re becoming more and more bound by rules. Rules are a set of logical guidelines to follow, reflecting a space or institution’s values, principles and practical considerations. Such rules are meant to provide a safe and equitable access, though many rules often seem to exist more for litigious or even arbitrary reasons.
While rules clearly have a legitimate function, they should not be inflexible, and there should be scope, within reason, to adapt them to meet individual, real-life circumstances. The danger is that if we become so wedded to the rules, our kneejerk reaction is to defer to them dispassionately, rather than to consider if there is a way to exercise compassion and help find a more favourable solution.
Last weekend, for instance, I asked a ‘water refilling station’ booth at a festival if they would watch my bike for a minute (there being nowhere to park it) while I ran to the washroom and they said no, they were not authorized to do so. Fortunately, the adjacent booth said, ‘sure, no problem.’ What a difference it makes when we bend official rules in favour of helping someone in need and to provide a better outcome.
Even with our best efforts to ‘follow the rules’, we are all imperfect and make mistakes, and I think, particularly as service providers, we should all endeavor to try and help members of the public with their individual needs as best as possible. A desire to help and to provide a positive solution should truly be the number one rule governing our actions.