Extended thoughts in response to recent shootings
Debates about gun violence, as with many other public debates, present causes, factors and influences in the form of false dichotomies: "Either it's this, or it's this." In reality, it is "both – and." Actually, it's even more like "both – and – and – and..". Not only is this inclusive approach more in line with reality; it also allows us to look at multiple points of possible intervention, which is the only thing that can lend us a sense of hope, anyway.
For example, a few days ago, a young man walked into my alma mater, Seattle Pacific University, killed a student with a gun and injured others. A way to think about this is by asking the question: "What are all of the factors, individually and cumulatively, that contributed to the tipping of scales in the direction of this man desiring, choosing, and being able to carry out this act?" The factors we might consider can include literally everything, from family conditions into which he was born, to major events during development of his identity and the formation of the deep emotional templates that shape his capacity for attachment and relationship, to interactions with teachers and peers, to what coping strategies were available to him during stress, and which direction his fantasies took when he wanted to escape.
We can look at events closer to the incident itself, such as how the plan was born in his thinking, what transpired on the day it was carried out, and, yes, at what point and how he came into possession of the gun. We can then imagine--realistically--that even one variation (but likely more) in this mix of ingredients might have shifted his reality just enough in another direction, so that he either 1) would not have come up with this idea, 2) would not have thought it desirable, 3) would not have chosen to act on it, 4) would not have been able to carry it out--or, more likely, 5) some combination of the preceding would have altered his internal or situational landscape in such a way that he would end up amongst the 99.999 percent of people who never do such a thing.
From here, we can wonder what form some of these meaningful variations might have assumed. If, for example, he had been taken under the wing of a caring mentor when he was in fourth grade, had been involved in particular community youth activities, had had clear access to counseling at critical moments, had two or three friends who were intimate enough to ask him slightly awkward questions about what he was thinking or feeling, or had been smiled at by a stranger as he waited at a stoplight on that morning (or a combination of the above, or of countless other possible variations), might it have been just enough to shift the balance in a critical way? It is not inconceivable.
If you could co-author details of his developmental history, what elements would you tweak to make it more likely that things would cascade towards a positive outlook and outcome for this young man? What programs would you want to see funded and available to him? What laws would you want to implement, in order to shape a cultural landscape more capable of nurturing his development towards being empathetic, reflective, and able to tolerate feelings of discomfort without acting out aggressively? What safeguards and restrictions would you want in place if, despite these efforts, he was still intent on inflicting harm? There could be a million points of possible intervention to consider. These considerations could then guide us towards understanding the significance of the private and public attitudes, actions, messages, and policies we are communicating and living out at each moment--through which we slowly shape a culture that, in turn, is slowly and decisively shaping us.
This is the kind of cultural conversation we need to have. It is not altogether likely we will have it, though, because to do so requires we become aware and acknowledge that potentially any and all things we do--down to the details of what seem to us to be trivial interactions--matter.
For example, a few days ago, a young man walked into my alma mater, Seattle Pacific University, killed a student with a gun and injured others. A way to think about this is by asking the question: "What are all of the factors, individually and cumulatively, that contributed to the tipping of scales in the direction of this man desiring, choosing, and being able to carry out this act?" The factors we might consider can include literally everything, from family conditions into which he was born, to major events during development of his identity and the formation of the deep emotional templates that shape his capacity for attachment and relationship, to interactions with teachers and peers, to what coping strategies were available to him during stress, and which direction his fantasies took when he wanted to escape.
We can look at events closer to the incident itself, such as how the plan was born in his thinking, what transpired on the day it was carried out, and, yes, at what point and how he came into possession of the gun. We can then imagine--realistically--that even one variation (but likely more) in this mix of ingredients might have shifted his reality just enough in another direction, so that he either 1) would not have come up with this idea, 2) would not have thought it desirable, 3) would not have chosen to act on it, 4) would not have been able to carry it out--or, more likely, 5) some combination of the preceding would have altered his internal or situational landscape in such a way that he would end up amongst the 99.999 percent of people who never do such a thing.
From here, we can wonder what form some of these meaningful variations might have assumed. If, for example, he had been taken under the wing of a caring mentor when he was in fourth grade, had been involved in particular community youth activities, had had clear access to counseling at critical moments, had two or three friends who were intimate enough to ask him slightly awkward questions about what he was thinking or feeling, or had been smiled at by a stranger as he waited at a stoplight on that morning (or a combination of the above, or of countless other possible variations), might it have been just enough to shift the balance in a critical way? It is not inconceivable.
If you could co-author details of his developmental history, what elements would you tweak to make it more likely that things would cascade towards a positive outlook and outcome for this young man? What programs would you want to see funded and available to him? What laws would you want to implement, in order to shape a cultural landscape more capable of nurturing his development towards being empathetic, reflective, and able to tolerate feelings of discomfort without acting out aggressively? What safeguards and restrictions would you want in place if, despite these efforts, he was still intent on inflicting harm? There could be a million points of possible intervention to consider. These considerations could then guide us towards understanding the significance of the private and public attitudes, actions, messages, and policies we are communicating and living out at each moment--through which we slowly shape a culture that, in turn, is slowly and decisively shaping us.
This is the kind of cultural conversation we need to have. It is not altogether likely we will have it, though, because to do so requires we become aware and acknowledge that potentially any and all things we do--down to the details of what seem to us to be trivial interactions--matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to comment.