Our passive attitude to violence (Observer Editorial)

FRENCH polymath philosopher Michel Foucault explains that what is abnormal, including what is considered madness, is defined in each society in each particular set of social and historical circumstances.

The definition of normal and abnormal is specific to each society at each conjuncture. What is abnormal at a particular time may be accepted as normal at another time. This approach may help in understanding the acceptance by most Jamaicans of the present scale of violence as normal for Jamaica. At any other time in Jamaica or in other societies, violence on the scale and brutality experienced in Jamaica would be regarded as abnormal, indeed as madness.

The appalling number of murders committed in Jamaica places the country at or near the top of the most violent societies in the world. However, it is not just the number of murders that is troubling, but the gruesome brutality of them and the fact that they include children, the elderly and the handicapped. The violence, however, goes much further and deeper in Jamaica if we objectively recognise that social interaction in our society is violent.

There are numerous reports of men raping pubescent girls and beating women; women flogging children; and children extorting money from other students at school. We also hear of incidents of the ruinous torture of incest by fathers and “boyfriends” and sexual predators on young boys.

And just as worrying are the reports of the viciousness with which our society treats those who suffer from mental illness or handicaps and those afflicted by HIV/AIDS.

It is shocking and enigmatic that our society is now inured to violence. The majority of Jamaicans accept that violence on the present scale and viciousness is just how we are. Our brutality is explained away by attributing it to poverty, drug-trafficking, politics, deportees and the reservoir of trauma imprinted in our collective subconsciousness by slavery. All are part of the explanation, but after the animated discussion most resign themselves to the belief that these are realities over which we have no control.

Reports of murder and other violent acts elicit expressions of concern if the person is known to us or the incident happened in close proximity to our home or where we were at the time. A murder in our neighbourhood galvanises the community for a fleeting moment when outrage is vented and plans for action vociferously voiced. But by the next day, apathy and self-centredness settle in once more. The community, many of whom had never met before, do not meet again and do not follow through on their lofty proposals.

The gruesome facts do not seem to impact on our consciousness anymore than another loss by the West Indies cricket team or a plane crash in some distant land. Many avoid news reports, concentrating on protecting themselves as best as possible, and others pray that it does not happen to them or their loved ones. Reactions of this type may be a coping mechanism to shield our minds and morale from the brunt of the depressing and disturbing assault of the daily reports of violence.

The widespread passive acceptance of violence as the normal state of affairs in Jamaica is a perverse and counterproductive attitude and is the first barrier to doing something constructive and efficacious about violence.