Oracle, Optimist, Ostrich, or Obfuscator? Part 3.

Dragging Guantanamo captive.  Image by Shane T. McCoy and is in the public domain.
Dragging Guantanamo captive.
Image by Shane T. McCoy and is in the public domain.

Among the types of violence that Steven Pinker designates as “rare to non-existent in the west” is that chilling form  of inhumanity, torture. Yet the  western nation in which he lives and writes, the United States, seems up to its eyeballs in the perpetration of the dirty deeds.

Anyone remember what members of the U.S. military did in Abu Ghraib?

And how about Guantanamo Bay? Have you seen the Senate Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program that chillingly confirmed horrendous acts of torture at Guantanamo and various “black sites”?

Torture, including prolonged solitary confinement, is also flourishing in  penal institutions across the fifty states.

Immigrant children are physically and sexually abused while being held in detention until their fates can be resolved.

Both men’s and women’s prisons are hotbeds for rape and other forms of torture.

Sexual abuse is on the rise in juvenile correctional facilities;  according to one report, the majority of the abusers are women.

And who will deny that police torture people in the streets, in paddy wagons, and in their stations?

According to Pinker,  “The 18th century saw the widespread abolition of judicial torture, including the famous prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” in the eighth amendment of the U.S. Constitution (emphasis added).” He praises our enlightened society for recognizing that torture is wrong. But really, should we smugly pat ourselves on our backs if today’s judicial system no longer makes explicit recommendations of torture as a punishment for people they decide are guilty of something (e.g., being the “wrong” color), when its decisions often spawn it?

Pinker’s reassurances do not leave me hopeful for the imminent demise of torture in our institutions.  The genuine optimists,  like Nancy Arvold, Maria Rotella, Stephen Soldz, Prison Hunger Strike Solidarity, and Psychologists for Social Responsibility, work tirelessly to end torture, but resistance to reforms persist.  

Underplaying the problem as Pinker does seems itself to be cruel but not unusual, although we should celebrate the genuine good news when it comes.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

 

The Crime of Punishment*

In the The Crime of Punishment originally published in 1966, Dr. Karl Menninger pondered the question of whether violence was spreading in spite of our legal and court systems or because of those systems. He concluded, “I suspect that all the crimes committed by all the jailed criminals do not equal in total social damage that of the crimes committed against them.” Reissued in 2007, his book is as relevant to all levels of violence today as in the sixties.

In a second book, Men Who Batter, Nason-Clark and Fisher-Townsend (p.7) argue that when battering men believe they are not getting what they deserve, they use power and control to punish their partners or to maintain dominance.” Weaving themselves through case material from male batterers are two interrelated themes reflecting powerful forces in the broader ecological (largely patriarchal) context in which wife battering and other forms of violence take place: respect (including self-respect) and punishment.

Hicks1 (2011, p. 5) has defined respect as something to be earned, yet in patriarchal cultures, it appears that many individuals, groups, and even governments consider respect as something to which they are entitled—by virtue, for example, of their superior strength or power. Indeed, within such cultures, the powerful often seem to confound respect with fear—that is, evidence of another’s fear may be seen as the respect to which the powerful or those desiring power believe they are entitled.

Many of the men’s narratives in the Nason-Clark and Fisher-Townsend study emphasize disillusionment with the punitive nature of traditional batterer intervention programs. One batterer involved in a traditional (patriarchal) program explained, “I felt that they were doing just exactly what I was there for—they were saying they were addressing power and control and abuse, and they were [using those same tools] against me….They were abusing me….” (p.110). Other men described harsh experiences of “being cut down, demoralized, treated like you were dirt…” (p.107). By contrast, participants in STOP programs (state-approved faith-based intervention programs) were more likely to comment, “They are not here to punish you. They are here to help you” (p.109).

As the authors state, “when they first enter any program—and especially a mandated one—most of the men are defensive, unsure what to expect, angered at having been ordered to come, feeling sorry for themselves, and a long way from developing empathy for those they have hurt” (p.131). However, in contrast to more punitive models of treatment, all aspects of the STOP Program were structured around its guiding virtue of respect. When one man was asked about what he had learned from the STOP program, he responded by stating, “I have learned respect for myself first of all, and for everybody around me…” (p.118).

Extending from their frequently troubled childhoods through involvement in the criminal justice and other punitive systems, the men share stories providing valuable insight into the factors fueling a batterer’s violent behavior and the aspects of intervention most likely to foster positive change. These aspects include developing a sense of accountability that may be a good model for all individuals and groups who confuse fear with respect and rely on punishment to “correct” particular behaviors in others–regardless of whether they engage in those same behaviors themselves, or not.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

*Parts of this post were adapted from a book review by Malley-Morrison and Samkavitz “Copyright American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal PsycCRITIQUES. It is not the copy of record. Information about the journal is at http://www.apa.org/psyccritiques/.”

1.Hicks, D. (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Still Elusive : Unalienable Rights

Bureau of Engraving and Printing engraved vignette of John Trumbull’s painting Declaration of Independence (c. 1818). Engraving by Frederick Girsch.
Image is by Frederick Girsch and is in the public domain.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”

These are among the best-known words in the English language and provided the thrust for revolution against an oppressive foreign power.

I am willing to celebrate these words and the potential they invoked for a great new society. But I think it is also important to recognize the extent that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been denied to many people within the United States throughout its history. So in addition to celebrating the Declaration, I will celebrate the creation of several other documents and long for the day when their promises are fulfilled:

The US Constitution
The Emancipation Proclamation
The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
• The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women’s Right to Vote

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology