Serena’s idiosyncrasy

Prof Ramesh Deosaran

Idiosyncrasy. This is described as “a way of behaviour or thought peculiar to an individual.” It is also described as “an abnormal reaction of an individual to a specific food or drug.” My interest is on the first definition as it relates to tennis champion Serena Williams. Have you ever noticed how certain people get forgiveness while others receive disapproval for the same behaviour?

Of course, as in court trials, it depends not only on the person but also on the circumstances, for example, self defence or accidental. But in social psychology, there is more – allowing some to deviate from expected standards of conduct because of idiosyncrasy credits earned. That is, Gopaul luck is not Seepaul luck.

Two weeks ago, 36-year-old tennis star Serena Williams’ verbal confrontation with referee Carlos Ramos while angrily crashing her racket before thousands watching her championship match against 20-year old Naomi Osaka attracted world-wide controversy – front page headlines with in-between charges and counter-charges of misbehaviour and sex discrimination. The referee docked some points from her. Walking up to him, she called him “a thief,” etc. He also complained about her coach unlawfully sending signals to her from the bench. She lost the match 6-2, 6-4. Tears flowed from both Williams and Osaka.

Forgiving Williams, Osaka said Williams was always her “idol.” And for all that, Serena’s courtyard behaviour was not only seen as “idiosyncratic,” peculiar to such players. But it was more, especially with the recent controversy still hanging over her tight, “sleek cat suit” at the French Open Championship.

Male players get away with worse than that in double standards, said several columnists, excusing the champion. Championship tennis is a stressful game so her outburst should be forgiven, said others. This referee should understand the emotions just as other referees did, some wrote. However, a few others, including former tennis stars, criticised Serena’s courtyard behaviour. It’s not becoming, they argued. That US Open incident will remain a historical one.

The question remains: Were it someone else other than Serena Williams, would the same amount of understanding and forgiveness be given? One national columnist in a front page headline, boldly summarised the answer this way: “Serena has earned her anger,” (Rosie DiManio, Toronto Star, September 13). A conclusion which really exemplifies what “idiosyncrasy credit” means. It means that if a person becomes an outstanding high achiever, a champion, a loved athlete, scientist or politician, that person would have gained enough “credits” to “misbehave” or cross the line of good behaviour and be forgiven or tolerated at least.

People would see the behaviour as idiosyncratic, even amusing (eg Mohammed Ali, Tubal Uriah Butler, Eric Williams, Bhadase Maraj, etc). Now, we are not necessarily talking about murder, high-level fraud, Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein-type behaviours. Idiosyncratic credits that are earned become allowances for personal oddities, eccentricities, capricious behaviours – even obscene language, outright boasting, temper flares, etc. The zone of tolerance gets expanded, but not for everybody. It is for those who have “earned” it.

Of course, people do forgive others in everyday life – be they relatives, friends, spouses etc who have been very kind, hardworking, helpful to others, etc. That is, they have earned some behavioural credits which deserve forgiveness when they deviate. In fact, the use of idiosyncrasy credits can be profitably used in staff management. Forgiveness or disciplinary action is dependent.

But the Serena Williams’ phenomenon is a starry illustration. Serena has become such a great star, winning one award after another, attracting devoted fans all over the world, giving pleasure to so many – earning so many credits – that in the overall behavioural equation, prominent voices felt she should be understood, forgiven. It is simply justice.

Citing Serena as “the greatest female athlete in the world, the greatest female tennis player ever,” etc, the columnist concluded: “The lady has earned it, even if this was not her most admirable episode. Williams is a ruthless competitor. It’s what makes her magnificent, An angry black woman. Some people just can’t swallow that.” Interestingly, therefore, human behaviour is never an isolated, objective act. Like the theory of relativity itself, it depends, for example, on the observer and the circumstances. In her deviation, Serena’s idiosyncrasy credits provide a sky-high illustration of the immunity earned.