When a victim of injustice - i.e. police brutality - is killed, protesters often chant "We are all [name of victim]". True enough, but isn't it also true that "We are all [name of perpetrator]"?
Or as Jon Carroll put it, "I heard a lot of discussion in the wake of the Polly Klaas murder from parents worrying about how they could prevent their child from becoming another Polly... I heard no discussion at all from parents worrying about how to prevent their child from becoming another Richard Allen Davis."
On the one hand, yeah. We are all, as King put it, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.
On the other hand, there isn't quite so much need to chant that we're all Johannes Mehserle; the jury already empathized with him. I think it was Adam Serwer who pointed this out: according to the law, the thing that differentiates voluntary from involuntary manslaughter is whether or not the killer's fear of the victim is "reasonable". The jury found Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which means they considered it reasonable to be afraid of a man handcuffed face-down on the ground. I'd have to say, that requires more empathy for Mehserle than I've got on me at the moment.
I'm not saying "Let's sympathize with the murderer and let him off easy". I'm saying "Let's recognize that we all have some responsibility here. If we're all victims, then we're also all oppressors."
It's too easy to put "us" into the role of victim while "they" are the oppressors. It's the American way - rooting for the underdog - but in a way it keeps things exactly the way they are, since it denies and disempowers our ability to change things.
I'm not saying "Let's sympathize with the murderer and let him off easy".
I know you weren't. But the thing is, an injustice of this sort displays an imbalance of empathy, which is exactly what people are upset about. (What I am, at least.)
The man was face-down on the ground with his arms handcuffed behind him, yelling. In those circumstances, Officer Mehserle was so afraid of him that he decided he needed to use extreme force to subdue him (and used deadly force, in fact, but I'm inclined to believe he's telling the truth when he says he "only" meant to use a 50,000-volt electrical torture instrument on him and not a handgun).
The jury was asked whether that level of fear was reasonable, and they found that it was. It's not a long stretch of the imagination to suppose that they thought so partly because of the color of Mr. Grant's skin, and partly because of a tendency to identify with authority figures in general. Whatever the reason, they understood Officer Mehserle's demonstrably insane fears better than they understood
( ... )
I was also thinking of other protests, btw. During the anti-apartheid demonstrations at UCSC, arrested protestors all gave their names as Steven Biko. Again, they had a point, and I'm not sure what non-violent tactic would have been more empowering, but it does seem to be a convenient abdication of real power to take the victim role.
Then again, it could be that by identifying with the victim, the protestors are playing both roles - stepping in as representatives of the populace to assert what authority they can (which identifies them with the oppressors) while offering the sympathy the oppressors lack (which identifies them with the victims). Ideally, this playing of both roles could heal the division between the groups.
Identifying with victims/those you naturally sympathize with is only the first baby steps of empathy. Identifying with those who differ and oppose you is where the real action is.
This is nothing new; it's inherent in every major philosophy and religion. Big J said it. Likewise, Buddhist loving kindness (Metta) starts with a single individual and then expands to loved ones, then acquaintances, then enemies, then to all beings.
But this sort of conscious inquiry doesn't fit well with simplistic slogans/soundbites, which are basically animal-level reflexes. An understandable and natural starting point, but it's sad if that's where the exploration ends.
Thanks TD! I realize now what I'm really talking about is confronting the shadow in ourselves, not simply pushing the blame (and power) onto someone else's shoulders.
Exactly, the plank in your own eye and all that. Though it boggles my mind that someone would not know about a plank sticking in their eye. Sort of like a banana in your ear.
Comments 11
Reply
On the other hand, there isn't quite so much need to chant that we're all Johannes Mehserle; the jury already empathized with him. I think it was Adam Serwer who pointed this out: according to the law, the thing that differentiates voluntary from involuntary manslaughter is whether or not the killer's fear of the victim is "reasonable". The jury found Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which means they considered it reasonable to be afraid of a man handcuffed face-down on the ground. I'd have to say, that requires more empathy for Mehserle than I've got on me at the moment.
Reply
It's too easy to put "us" into the role of victim while "they" are the oppressors. It's the American way - rooting for the underdog - but in a way it keeps things exactly the way they are, since it denies and disempowers our ability to change things.
Reply
I know you weren't. But the thing is, an injustice of this sort displays an imbalance of empathy, which is exactly what people are upset about. (What I am, at least.)
The man was face-down on the ground with his arms handcuffed behind him, yelling. In those circumstances, Officer Mehserle was so afraid of him that he decided he needed to use extreme force to subdue him (and used deadly force, in fact, but I'm inclined to believe he's telling the truth when he says he "only" meant to use a 50,000-volt electrical torture instrument on him and not a handgun).
The jury was asked whether that level of fear was reasonable, and they found that it was. It's not a long stretch of the imagination to suppose that they thought so partly because of the color of Mr. Grant's skin, and partly because of a tendency to identify with authority figures in general. Whatever the reason, they understood Officer Mehserle's demonstrably insane fears better than they understood ( ... )
Reply
Then again, it could be that by identifying with the victim, the protestors are playing both roles - stepping in as representatives of the populace to assert what authority they can (which identifies them with the oppressors) while offering the sympathy the oppressors lack (which identifies them with the victims). Ideally, this playing of both roles could heal the division between the groups.
Reply
Identifying with victims/those you naturally sympathize with is only the first baby steps of empathy. Identifying with those who differ and oppose you is where the real action is.
This is nothing new; it's inherent in every major philosophy and religion. Big J said it. Likewise, Buddhist loving kindness (Metta) starts with a single individual and then expands to loved ones, then acquaintances, then enemies, then to all beings.
But this sort of conscious inquiry doesn't fit well with simplistic slogans/soundbites, which are basically animal-level reflexes. An understandable and natural starting point, but it's sad if that's where the exploration ends.
I think you will enjoy this story:
http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment