A lot of people think America is addicted to McDonalds, or TV, or porn. And we may very well be...But America's number one addiction, the 500 pound monkey on our backs, is punishment. We LOVE punishment, we love to see no-good shits get theirs, even - especially - if we do or at one time did the very same thing we're hollering about.
This ranges from the public to the personal. Publicly speaking, we have 5% of the world's population, and 25% of the world's incarcerated population. We lock kids up (as recently happened in Alabama) for TWENTY-SIX YEARS for a pound of pot. Given that the kid is 19, he'll be middle-aged when, or if, he gets out. His whole life is gone. For a pound of pot.
A large minority of the population believes that this is reasonable.
We arrest 6 year olds on felony charges for acting out in class...Then Facebook and Twitter and all the other social media sites fill up with outrage that would be appropriate if the people expressing that outrage hadn't spent their entire lives voting for asshats who promise to "Get Tough On Crime" in a system that is already VERY tough on anything even remotely resembling a crime. Hell, they RAN OUT of crimes, so now they're after 6 year olds.
THIS IS WHAT YOU SCREAMED FOR, AMERICA! THIS IS WHAT YOU DEMANDED! WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING NOW?
In the private sector, we punish people by firing them. Not just for things like non-performance or being drunk on the job, but also for posting things we don't like on social media. Or for having the wrong friends and/or political beliefs. Or for expecting a living wage.
Hell, we even punish our own friends and families. And not always by obvious physical abuse, but also by withholding attention or affection, to show them WHAT. By deciding that they need to feel your disdain for a while, so they won't do whatever it was they did to give you the urge to punish them. Then we wake up one day, wondering where everyone went and why we're so alone.
It's not a mystery where they went, really. They're in jail. Or under a bridge, eating from garbage cans. Or they got sick of our emotional manipulation and just, you know, went away. But we console ourselves that they deserved the punishment they got, because they were no-good shits anyway, and we are an island, we are better off without their company.
And THAT, friends, is how you get the utterly psychotic society that frightens and depresses you so much.
If only there was some guy, some important historical figure maybe, who was renowned for teaching people about forgiveness.
If a guy like that existed, they'd nail him to a tree.
I don't remember the Buddha being nailed to a tree.
Of course, the question that arises from this is why? What is it about America in particular that makes it love the whip, and not only love the whip but dream about inflicting it on others.
Obviously, that's not a small question. There's a lot of angles to consider. Puritanism, capitalism, frontier life, slavery...all of these and more certainly form part of the picture.
Quote from: Cain on May 07, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
I don't remember the Buddha being nailed to a tree.
Of course, the question that arises from this is why? What is it about America in particular that makes it love the whip, and not only love the whip but dream about inflicting it on others.
Obviously, that's not a small question. There's a lot of angles to consider. Puritanism, capitalism, frontier life, slavery...all of these and more certainly form part of the picture.
It's the rugged individualist thing again. It's basically one of the main causes for most of our societal insanity.
So many mittens, Roger.
The gospel of RWHN.
You could argue we got obsessed with punishment in part because the Masters tricked us into thinking we were the ones doing the punishing.
It used to be that we cheered for the Sovereign who punishes the Criminal because we wanted a strong authority to protect us from lawlessness and chaos. But when Power manifests itself into a physical space, like a public execution, that power can be resisted. After the French Revolution people wanted a legal structure which wasn't (a) so dependent on the whims of a sovereign and (b) vulnerable to resistance. That's where Judges come from. And oddly enough, people still wanted to lynch judges. So that's where Juries come from.
The Jury and the Chain Gang serve the same purpose - so that the public feels it is somehow responsible for authorizing the control and punishment of a criminal's body (and therefore soul). The chain gang was invented so that criminals could labor in public, making the public feel that they were being served by the justice system. It exposed the criminal to the gaze and judgment of the public, which as we know, is a normalizing force. The compulsion to be a good citizen comes not from the president, but from our fellow citizens. So we cheer for prisons, punishment, discipline. We all want a disciplined society, right? Sure we do. So do us all a favor, and if you see somebody breaking the law, help ruin them forever.
Funny thing about chain gangs: they are now considered too soft. Why should they get to be outside, in the sun, enjoying the day and getting an honest day's work? Let 'em sit inside and rot.
No shit.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 07, 2014, 08:59:44 PM
You could argue we got obsessed with punishment in part because the Masters tricked us into thinking we were the ones doing the punishing.
It used to be that we cheered for the Sovereign who punishes the Criminal because we wanted a strong authority to protect us from lawlessness and chaos. But when Power manifests itself into a physical space, like a public execution, that power can be resisted. After the French Revolution people wanted a legal structure which wasn't (a) so dependent on the whims of a sovereign and (b) vulnerable to resistance. That's where Judges come from. And oddly enough, people still wanted to lynch judges. So that's where Juries come from.
The Jury and the Chain Gang serve the same purpose - so that the public feels it is somehow responsible for authorizing the control and punishment of a criminal's body (and therefore soul). The chain gang was invented so that criminals could labor in public, making the public feel that they were being served by the justice system. It exposed the criminal to the gaze and judgment of the public, which as we know, is a normalizing force. The compulsion to be a good citizen comes not from the president, but from our fellow citizens. So we cheer for prisons, punishment, discipline. We all want a disciplined society, right? Sure we do. So do us all a favor, and if you see somebody breaking the law, help ruin them forever.
This. Exactly this. Can I repost this with attribution?
Roger, would it be okay to use the Notes on and Inconvenient Universe series for something like a half page or big words with attribution? You keep being in my brain and saying things better than I could hope to.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 07, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
Roger, would it be okay to use the Notes on and Inconvenient Universe series for something like a half page or big words with attribution? You keep being in my brain and saying things better than I could hope to.
Sure.
I've been saving the big one for #5, which will be posted tomorrow. It's the one I've been building up to.
I've been arguing this with people a lot in the last few months, and let me tell you, they can get really fucking angry when you challenge them on exactly why punishment is acceptable.
Quote from: Hoopla on May 07, 2014, 11:10:05 PM
I've been arguing this with people a lot in the last few months, and let me tell you, they can get really fucking angry when you challenge them on exactly why punishment is acceptable.
You're challenging a lifetime of conditioning...Both that punishment is the only approach, and that punishment is something that happens - and SHOULD happen as much as possible - to other people.
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 07, 2014, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on May 07, 2014, 11:10:05 PM
I've been arguing this with people a lot in the last few months, and let me tell you, they can get really fucking angry when you challenge them on exactly why punishment is acceptable.
You're challenging a lifetime of conditioning...Both that punishment is the only approach, and that punishment is something that happens - and SHOULD happen as much as possible - to other people.
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.
It started for me about fourteen years ago when I had my first office job. I had done something wrong, can't remember what now, and my employer said verbatim "I need to punish you", which was such a frankly ludicrous thing to hear that I began to laugh. It didn't go over well.
But yeah, that's me...
Hoopla
-challenging people's lifetime of conditioning since 1975
This has really been stewing in me for a while now. Great to see it crystallized in rant form.
Quote from: Cainad (dec.) on May 08, 2014, 02:35:57 AM
This has really been stewing in me for a while now. Great to see it crystallized in rant form.
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/pdcom1.jpg)
:lulz:
This rant is a rant that is dear to my heart and my interests, and so, so, so unbearably true.
At least this is a thing that has become A THING, now, and there are people who are thinking and talking and even researching this punishment fetish we have, which runs as an undercurrent through, perhaps not surprisingly, most social structures in which the dominant culture is one that is historically derived from a desert society. The punishment fetish seems largely to stem from cultures that are shaped by the ideology of a universe that is vast, monotonous, and arbitrarily cruel; temperate societies lack many of the most horrific features of desert societies, and also, interestingly, seem to be less pervasive and resilient, perhaps for the same reasons that they are more kind and egalitarian.
Evolution doesn't have morals.
We also may be the only species that has the potential option of planning our own evolution, which may be a far more important distinction than any other heretofore made about the differences between humans and other animals.
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 08, 2014, 06:50:09 AM
This rant is a rant that is dear to my heart and my interests, and so, so, so unbearably true.
At least this is a thing that has become A THING, now, and there are people who are thinking and talking and even researching this punishment fetish we have, which runs as an undercurrent through, perhaps not surprisingly, most social structures in which the dominant culture is one that is historically derived from a desert society. The punishment fetish seems largely to stem from cultures that are shaped by the ideology of a universe that is vast, monotonous, and arbitrarily cruel; temperate societies lack many of the most horrific features of desert societies, and also, interestingly, seem to be less pervasive and resilient, perhaps for the same reasons that they are more kind and egalitarian.
Evolution doesn't have morals.
The bold part is something I've noticed an encouraging general trend towards. Lots of things have become A THING, recently. I see them dumbed down to bullet points and spread through social media. Knowledge, often leading to self awareness, is disseminating into the general population in a way it never did before.
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 08, 2014, 06:50:09 AM
This rant is a rant that is dear to my heart and my interests, and so, so, so unbearably true.
At least this is a thing that has become A THING, now, and there are people who are thinking and talking and even researching this punishment fetish we have, which runs as an undercurrent through, perhaps not surprisingly, most social structures in which the dominant culture is one that is historically derived from a desert society. The punishment fetish seems largely to stem from cultures that are shaped by the ideology of a universe that is vast, monotonous, and arbitrarily cruel; temperate societies lack many of the most horrific features of desert societies, and also, interestingly, seem to be less pervasive and resilient, perhaps for the same reasons that they are more kind and egalitarian.
Evolution doesn't have morals.
I wonder if that also goes back to a more basic need for security. Punishment enforces internal social cohesion (at a cost) which contributes to group survivability.
I've been reading some interesting literature in political science about how American foreign policy seems to exhibit a deep insecurity complex with regards to the world. Here (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/unfounded-fears-and-threat-inflation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=unfounded-fears-and-threat-inflation#rssowlmlink)'s an example:
QuoteFor many analysts of U.S. foreign policy, one belief has remained constant at least since World War II: we are living in dangerous times. Many of those who make and/or comment on U.S. foreign policy maintain that the world is full of enemies and evil, so this (whenever this is) is no time to relax....Constant repetition of this idea has over time generated genuine belief in leaders and followers alike, and substantial, sometimes amorphous fear. A 2009 poll found that nearly 60 percent–and full half of the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)–considered the world more dangerous than it was during the Cold War. (p.25)
As Larison notes:
QuoteThe absence of real major threats gives us the luxury of exaggerating existing dangers to the U.S. That habit of exaggerating existing threats then feeds the belief that the world is much more dangerous for us now than when the U.S. faced a hostile superpower, and that it is becoming more so all the time. Because every minor, manageable threat is built up into a menace that it could never actually be, Americans perceive a largely peaceful and secure world as an increasingly chaotic and dangerous one.
Outward directed insecurity leads to the rash foreign policy decisions which now plague the globe. Inward directed insecurity leads to punishment fetishes.
It's a theory, anyway.
I need to keep up my reading of "The Problem of Punishment" for the Book Club. It appears to be relevant.
Quote from: Cain on May 08, 2014, 12:27:35 PM
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 08, 2014, 06:50:09 AM
This rant is a rant that is dear to my heart and my interests, and so, so, so unbearably true.
At least this is a thing that has become A THING, now, and there are people who are thinking and talking and even researching this punishment fetish we have, which runs as an undercurrent through, perhaps not surprisingly, most social structures in which the dominant culture is one that is historically derived from a desert society. The punishment fetish seems largely to stem from cultures that are shaped by the ideology of a universe that is vast, monotonous, and arbitrarily cruel; temperate societies lack many of the most horrific features of desert societies, and also, interestingly, seem to be less pervasive and resilient, perhaps for the same reasons that they are more kind and egalitarian.
Evolution doesn't have morals.
I wonder if that also goes back to a more basic need for security. Punishment enforces internal social cohesion (at a cost) which contributes to group survivability.
I've been reading some interesting literature in political science about how American foreign policy seems to exhibit a deep insecurity complex with regards to the world. Here (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/unfounded-fears-and-threat-inflation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=unfounded-fears-and-threat-inflation#rssowlmlink)'s an example:
QuoteFor many analysts of U.S. foreign policy, one belief has remained constant at least since World War II: we are living in dangerous times. Many of those who make and/or comment on U.S. foreign policy maintain that the world is full of enemies and evil, so this (whenever this is) is no time to relax....Constant repetition of this idea has over time generated genuine belief in leaders and followers alike, and substantial, sometimes amorphous fear. A 2009 poll found that nearly 60 percent–and full half of the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)–considered the world more dangerous than it was during the Cold War. (p.25)
As Larison notes:
QuoteThe absence of real major threats gives us the luxury of exaggerating existing dangers to the U.S. That habit of exaggerating existing threats then feeds the belief that the world is much more dangerous for us now than when the U.S. faced a hostile superpower, and that it is becoming more so all the time. Because every minor, manageable threat is built up into a menace that it could never actually be, Americans perceive a largely peaceful and secure world as an increasingly chaotic and dangerous one.
Outward directed insecurity leads to the rash foreign policy decisions which now plague the globe. Inward directed insecurity leads to punishment fetishes.
It's a theory, anyway.
And a fucking sound one. Now to install it in the US governance collective, in place of the paranoid asshole model
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 07, 2014, 09:38:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 07, 2014, 08:59:44 PM
You could argue we got obsessed with punishment in part because the Masters tricked us into thinking we were the ones doing the punishing.
It used to be that we cheered for the Sovereign who punishes the Criminal because we wanted a strong authority to protect us from lawlessness and chaos. But when Power manifests itself into a physical space, like a public execution, that power can be resisted. After the French Revolution people wanted a legal structure which wasn't (a) so dependent on the whims of a sovereign and (b) vulnerable to resistance. That's where Judges come from. And oddly enough, people still wanted to lynch judges. So that's where Juries come from.
The Jury and the Chain Gang serve the same purpose - so that the public feels it is somehow responsible for authorizing the control and punishment of a criminal's body (and therefore soul). The chain gang was invented so that criminals could labor in public, making the public feel that they were being served by the justice system. It exposed the criminal to the gaze and judgment of the public, which as we know, is a normalizing force. The compulsion to be a good citizen comes not from the president, but from our fellow citizens. So we cheer for prisons, punishment, discipline. We all want a disciplined society, right? Sure we do. So do us all a favor, and if you see somebody breaking the law, help ruin them forever.
This. Exactly this. Can I repost this with attribution?
be my guest!
Quote from: Cain on May 08, 2014, 12:27:35 PM
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 08, 2014, 06:50:09 AM
This rant is a rant that is dear to my heart and my interests, and so, so, so unbearably true.
At least this is a thing that has become A THING, now, and there are people who are thinking and talking and even researching this punishment fetish we have, which runs as an undercurrent through, perhaps not surprisingly, most social structures in which the dominant culture is one that is historically derived from a desert society. The punishment fetish seems largely to stem from cultures that are shaped by the ideology of a universe that is vast, monotonous, and arbitrarily cruel; temperate societies lack many of the most horrific features of desert societies, and also, interestingly, seem to be less pervasive and resilient, perhaps for the same reasons that they are more kind and egalitarian.
Evolution doesn't have morals.
I wonder if that also goes back to a more basic need for security. Punishment enforces internal social cohesion (at a cost) which contributes to group survivability.
I've been reading some interesting literature in political science about how American foreign policy seems to exhibit a deep insecurity complex with regards to the world. Here (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/unfounded-fears-and-threat-inflation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=unfounded-fears-and-threat-inflation#rssowlmlink)'s an example:
QuoteFor many analysts of U.S. foreign policy, one belief has remained constant at least since World War II: we are living in dangerous times. Many of those who make and/or comment on U.S. foreign policy maintain that the world is full of enemies and evil, so this (whenever this is) is no time to relax....Constant repetition of this idea has over time generated genuine belief in leaders and followers alike, and substantial, sometimes amorphous fear. A 2009 poll found that nearly 60 percent–and full half of the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)–considered the world more dangerous than it was during the Cold War. (p.25)
As Larison notes:
QuoteThe absence of real major threats gives us the luxury of exaggerating existing dangers to the U.S. That habit of exaggerating existing threats then feeds the belief that the world is much more dangerous for us now than when the U.S. faced a hostile superpower, and that it is becoming more so all the time. Because every minor, manageable threat is built up into a menace that it could never actually be, Americans perceive a largely peaceful and secure world as an increasingly chaotic and dangerous one.
Outward directed insecurity leads to the rash foreign policy decisions which now plague the globe. Inward directed insecurity leads to punishment fetishes.
It's a theory, anyway.
Hmm, this is a really interesting perspective. I need to explore it a little. It ties into a lot of the reading I've done lately, and a lot of the stuff TGRR and I have been talking about over the last year.
Of course, that still begs the question of why such an insecurity exists. It describes the process of how insecurity leads to certain policies and cultural trends being more prevalent, but not why they occur in the first place.
I'm not entirely convinced by either Fettweis' claim that it is ideology, though that certainly plays a part, or Larison that the luxury of not having major threats allows minor ones to be built up (though you could make a complex argument here about how the Cold War privileged hyper-vigilance towards security issues in the government and the media and this continues to have an effect today, with excessive threat-inflation being a form of social signalling about one's credibility as an analyst/pundit/advisor/politician due to how the Cold War warped our perceptions of such things).