In political science, a constructivist is someone who locates the reasons for governmental and societal decisions in the construction of identities and ideas. In other words, you are not a Republican or a Democrat because you like their policies. You are a Republican or a Democrat because they project a constructed social image that accords with your view of the world and then you adopt the policies that go along with that view. I was a constructivist before I knew what it meant. I remember when I was stationed - and living - on the USS Shenandoah, a destroyer tender with a crew of 1200 people and they armed the Masters at Arms at sea. Masters at Arms are Navy Police. Typically, they wear a sidearm on watch on the quarterdeck in port. Why on Earth would they need to carry a weapon around the ship when we are in the middle of the ocean? Arent we all in the same Navy, on the same ship? There arent that many of us ... what kind of message does that send? What does it say that the leadership of the ship thinks about the crew? I complained bitterly about it, but no one saw my point, but to me its the first step down a bad road. If you think you need armed police to control the crew of a naval warship ... wow. This morning, I was greeted on FB by two things that really made me think. One was an excellent article by the Washington Post about how the Missouri Highway Patrol turned things around in Ferguson last night. The Captain in charge, Ronald Johnson, marched with the protesters, hugged people, and declared, “When I see a young lady cry because of fear of this uniform, that’s a problem. We’ve got to solve that.” Things ere very different simply because of a change in appearance and attitude. I wish as many people were sharing that story as shared the pictures of violence from the night before. Second, a friend called the cop who a racist pig. I doubt sincerely that that is the case. As a constructivist, I dont believe that individuals are solely responsible for their actions. In fact, I dont think there is such a thing as an individual. Doubt it? What language are you thinking in? The very thoughts inside your head, the innermost and most secret part of what it means to be you occur in a language that shapes and constructs how you think, and that language was constructed by others. In the same manner, when people take actions, they take actions within an institutional framework. For a cop, that framework includes how they are spoken to on the street, how they are spoken to by their superiors, how they are trained, the way they dress and look, the attitudes they learn, their standard operating procedures, what they view as their primary role and hundreds of other factors. It is possible to commit a deeply racist act without being a racist. This is the nature of institutional racism. The rules and standard operating procedures of institutions lead to negative outcomes even when individuals have good intentions. Constructivism emphatically does NOT wave individual responsibility. People are responsible for their actions. Instead, it recognizes that punishment of the individual responsible is the beginning of the process, not the end. Too often in America, we blame an individual without looking at the systemic issues that influenced his actions. For instance, when the Italian cruise ship the Costa Concordia crashed, many blamed the captain for his cowardice. And, there is no doubt that, by his own admission, he panicked (he is now teaching courses in how not to panic, ironically). He has to live with that. But, WHY did he panic? The best way to avoid panic is intensive training. Did he receive that or was the company more focused on customer service then on safety? Did he have the proper equipment? Was the equipment maintained? Was the crew well trained? What kind of environment did the company create for safety? THESE are the questions that matter and if one merely punishes the individual without looking at the institutions, then one has done worse then nothing. It is the same thing in Missouri. There are pictures out this morning that seem to show Michael Brown threatening a store clerk. I am sure we will immediately here cries of thug (the Rights new version of the N-word). Maybe Michael Brown was a criminal. That doesnt mean he deserved to die in the street. Maybe he was completely innocent, that doesnt mean the cop who shot him was a criminal who should be in jail the rest of his life. We simply dont know what happened yet but, I am certain that both parties will bear some responsibility and that the truth will be in the middle. The solution to this, and to the multitude of problems like it, is to focus not on the specifics of this one case but on the institutions, on the rules and systems that allow this to happen. For instance, there is no doubt that - across America - police find it more acceptable to shoot than they used to and that there is a racist dimension to this in that more blacks are shot than whites. In my mind, police dont get to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. You run him down, you get backup. The ONLY excuse to shoot is if you think you will be shot. I dont think police departments hold that viewpoint any longer and that, to me, is the kind of institutional mindset that must be corrected. There is no doubt that the actions of the Ferguson police escalated this situation, as seen by how well it went last night. There is no excuse for the looting and violence that took place, but that looting and violence is itself influenced by a long-standing culture of fear and oppression. Both sides of the equation must be addressed. Police departments need to see themselves as part of the community, there to protect and serve, but citizens also need to see that police are mostly good people trying to do a tough job. Fix the institutions, dont scapegoat the individuals.
Posted on: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:41:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015