It's a NEW Day!!

October 30, 2004 01:59 PM

I think I've figured it out. This country needs to be run by really good third-grade teachers.

I know it's fashionable in the twenty-first century to run around all drama-queeny, acting like we are facing a more complicated, confusing world than anyone has ever faced before. But frankly, I think that's crap. Whether it's at the office, in church, in the media, or in the White House, the dilemmas we face are essentially the same as those of every nine-year-old in the country. And I think that if we had the self-respect to adopt amongst ourselves as adults the same rules that we expect our school children to follow, we'd find ourselves healthier, safer, saner, and happier people.

There are many such rules that could be usefully implemented by all societies. But I suspect that starting with the following two would probably clear up most world problems:

Rule number one . . . NO HITTING. It is the most basic accepted truth of classroom society that no civilized activity of any kind can take place while violence is occurring. Not only does hitting create physical injury and intense psychological distress for the individual victim, but it creates a climate of fear for all students, a level of environmental anxiety that detracts from their ability to enjoy any other pursuit.

Rule number two . . . NO NAME CALLING. On every level except the physical, name calling is just as bad as hitting, and just as destructive to the classroom environment.

It is important to recognize, though (from a third-grade perspective), that the style with which a rule is implemented is every bit as important as the rule itself. That's what distinguishes an excellent teacher from a petty tyrant. The rule of law, which most would say is one of the main pre-conditions for the existence of any true civilization, is ultimately of very limited value unless it is informed by a broader platform of human wisdom.

For example, even if we agree that hitting and name calling are unacceptable, we must recognize that children and adults everywhere throughout history have always had the impulse to commit these acts. Punishing offenders after the fact may inspire some future offenders to better control similar impulses. But asking an individual to bear sole responsibility for consistently controlling an organic impulse, one that may have been reinforced by hundreds of thousands of years of biological evolution, is not a reliable strategy. For example, you can forcefully tell the hormonal teenager to practice abstinence, and your instruction might be followed. But I sure wouldn't put money on it.

Hitters and name-callers who persist in their conduct need to be removed from the classroom. But "punishment" of individuals should be about 10% of the response to an act of violence or insult. The other 90% should be an effort to determine what internal dynamics lead to such impulses, and then to build societal structures that will encourage more healthy and acceptable outlets for those internal dynamics.

For example, many acts of hitting and name-calling arise because a child has emotional concerns that are difficult to express, or that have been expressed but ignored. A daily "group time," where the class sits together in a safe environment of respectful open communication to share the emotional concerns of the day will prevent far more future offenses than the spectacle of public punishment.

Osama bin Laden is a hitter. He is a repeat hitter, one who feels he is justified in hitting and has expressed his intent to continue hitting. He needs to be removed from the classroom. And to the extent that force is necessary to place him in a position where he can no longer hurt people, that force must be fully engaged. (Force, as I see it, is distinct from violence . . . and that's a whole other essay.)

But if we think punishing every known violent offender on the planet is going to protect us from violence, then we are lacking the foresight and wisdom of any good third-grade teacher.

In his most recent videotape, Mr. bin Laden has been very forthcoming about the motives for his violent acts. He sees those motives as valid justifications for violent behavior. This line of thinking must be rejected by any civilized society.

But in the bigger picture, his message is a valuable insight into the psychology and history of people who use violence in the way that he does. In the case of Mr. bin Laden, we see someone who was raised in a society that values violence as a response to certain perceived social problems, someone whose spirituality enshrines violence as a valid strategy for achieving divine favor, someone who has been the victim of violence himself, and who has watched those around him suffer violence at the hands of "superpowers" like Russia and the US. And, of course, he has at various times been supported and encouraged in his violent acts by world governments . . . including the US government, which was glad to support his participation in violence against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 80's.

If we do not take advantage of the insights presented to us by this tape (supplemented, of course, by our own prudent research and analysis), we can capture and even kill every so-called "terrorist" we can find, but we will never be safe.

Since 9/11, our government and some of our churches have chosen to embrace violence more strongly than they have for more than sixty years as a valid solution to certain problems. Many Americans and their loved ones have been the victims of mass violence on our own soil, and are perpetrating and experiencing violence right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have become unrepentant name callers, throwing around the insult "terrorist" in the same way that bin Laden throws around the insult "infidel." And the "sound bites" that seem to be the staple strategy for both candidates in the current Presidential campaign are rarely anything more than playground name-calling with a big budget.

The result, I fear, is that we may eventually accomplish the "small task" of disarming bin Laden and his organization, but in the process completely fail at the "big task" of discouraging new bin Ladens. The drift of our society toward violent solutions is not only encouraging violence against America, but creating within America an environment that bears unpleasant similarities to the one which produced bin Laden. I fear that the US since 9/11 has become, due to the choices of its own cultural leaders, a more fertile breeding ground for home-grown violent offenders.

I do believe, though, that this trend can easily be reversed. The beauty of American democracy is that we get what most of us vote for. And between votes, we can make our ideas heard in any number of public contexts.

All we need to do is decide to abide by the classroom rules. Once we adopt that behavior for ourselves, and inform our elected leaders that we expect it of them, change will come quickly.

Decide for yourself. And then VOTE!!

TRACKBACK (0)


	October 30, 2004 01:59 PM I think I've figured it out. This country needs to be run by really good third-grade teachers. I know it's fashionable in the twenty-first century to run around all drama-queeny, acting like we are facing a more complicated, confusing world than anyone has ever faced before. But frankly, I think that's crap. Whether it's at the office, in church, in the media, or in the White House, the dilemmas we face are essentially the same as those of every nine-year-old in the country. And I think that if we had the self-respect to adopt amongst ourselves as adults the same rules that we expect our school children to follow, we'd find ourselves healthier, safer, saner, and happier people. There are many such rules that could be usefully implemented by all societies. But I suspect that starting with the following two would probably clear up most world problems: Rule number one . . . NO HITTING. It is the most basic accepted truth of classroom society that no civilized activity of any kind can take place while violence is occurring. Not only does hitting create physical injury and intense psychological distress for the individual victim, but it creates a climate of fear for all students, a level of environmental anxiety that detracts from their ability to enjoy any other pursuit. Rule number two . . . NO NAME CALLING. On every level except the physical, name calling is just as bad as hitting, and just as destructive to the classroom environment. It is important to recognize, though (from a third-grade perspective), that the style with which a rule is implemented is every bit as important as the rule itself. That's what distinguishes an excellent teacher from a petty tyrant. The rule of law, which most would say is one of the main pre-conditions for the existence of any true civilization, is ultimately of very limited value unless it is informed by a broader platform of human wisdom. For example, even if we agree that hitting and name calling are unacceptable, we must recognize that children and adults everywhere throughout history have always had the impulse to commit these acts. Punishing offenders after the fact may inspire some future offenders to better control similar impulses. But asking an individual to bear sole responsibility for consistently controlling an organic impulse, one that may have been reinforced by hundreds of thousands of years of biological evolution, is not a reliable strategy. For example, you can forcefully tell the hormonal teenager to practice abstinence, and your instruction might be followed. But I sure wouldn't put money on it. Hitters and name-callers who persist in their conduct need to be removed from the classroom. But "punishment" of individuals should be about 10% of the response to an act of violence or insult. The other 90% should be an effort to determine what internal dynamics lead to such impulses, and then to build societal structures that will encourage more healthy and acceptable outlets for those internal dynamics. For example, many acts of hitting and name-calling arise because a child has emotional concerns that are difficult to express, or that have been expressed but ignored. A daily "group time," where the class sits together in a safe environment of respectful open communication to share the emotional concerns of the day will prevent far more future offenses than the spectacle of public punishment. Osama bin Laden is a hitter. He is a repeat hitter, one who feels he is justified in hitting and has expressed his intent to continue hitting. He needs to be removed from the classroom. And to the extent that force is necessary to place him in a position where he can no longer hurt people, that force must be fully engaged. (Force, as I see it, is distinct from violence . . . and that's a whole other essay.) But if we think punishing every known violent offender on the planet is going to protect us from violence, then we are lacking the foresight and wisdom of any good third-grade teacher. In his most recent videotape, Mr. bin Laden has been very forthcoming about the motives for his violent acts. He sees those motives as valid justifications for violent behavior. This line of thinking must be rejected by any civilized society. But in the bigger picture, his message is a valuable insight into the psychology and history of people who use violence in the way that he does. In the case of Mr. bin Laden, we see someone who was raised in a society that values violence as a response to certain perceived social problems, someone whose spirituality enshrines violence as a valid strategy for achieving divine favor, someone who has been the victim of violence himself, and who has watched those around him suffer violence at the hands of "superpowers" like Russia and the US. And, of course, he has at various times been supported and encouraged in his violent acts by world governments . . . including the US government, which was glad to support his participation in violence against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 80's. If we do not take advantage of the insights presented to us by this tape (supplemented, of course, by our own prudent research and analysis), we can capture and even kill every so-called "terrorist" we can find, but we will never be safe. Since 9/11, our government and some of our churches have chosen to embrace violence more strongly than they have for more than sixty years as a valid solution to certain problems. Many Americans and their loved ones have been the victims of mass violence on our own soil, and are perpetrating and experiencing violence right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have become unrepentant name callers, throwing around the insult "terrorist" in the same way that bin Laden throws around the insult "infidel." And the "sound bites" that seem to be the staple strategy for both candidates in the current Presidential campaign are rarely anything more than playground name-calling with a big budget. The result, I fear, is that we may eventually accomplish the "small task" of disarming bin Laden and his organization, but in the process completely fail at the "big task" of discouraging new bin Ladens. The drift of our society toward violent solutions is not only encouraging violence against America, but creating within America an environment that bears unpleasant similarities to the one which produced bin Laden. I fear that the US since 9/11 has become, due to the choices of its own cultural leaders, a more fertile breeding ground for home-grown violent offenders. I do believe, though, that this trend can easily be reversed. The beauty of American democracy is that we get what most of us vote for. And between votes, we can make our ideas heard in any number of public contexts. All we need to do is decide to abide by the classroom rules. Once we adopt that behavior for ourselves, and inform our elected leaders that we expect it of them, change will come quickly. Decide for yourself. And then VOTE!! TRACKBACK (0)		Your Words