Learning to Blame

‘Praise’ is generally well liked.  But ‘blame’ gets a bad press.

Nobody takes kindly to ‘blame culture’, or ‘blame game’.  Everyone is warned about ‘not throwing stones in glass houses’, or ‘casting the first stone when one is not without sin’.

 

Of course, blaming others unjustly, incorrectly, or hypocritically deserves censure. Yet it is vital to understand where blame should go for the harm and danger we encounter.  If we routinely fail to identify the real causes of different problems that come our way, we won’t be able to deal with them or avoid further losses and sufferings.

 

Think of problems such as diseases, earthquakes, floods, that had been erroneously blamed on supernatural or magical forces.  Not only did laying blame in the wrong direction divert attention from the actual source of harm, it led to further mistakes like callous and futile sacrifices to imaginary beings.  Through scientific advancement we are able to determine what should really be blamed and how they could be averted. Unfortunately, many are still too easily misled about threats from climate change to vaccine rejection.

 

In human relations, inherited prejudices and lack of wide-ranging interpersonal experiences can make people susceptible to overlook blame that should be ascribed to culprits such as exploitative employment practices and plutocratic policies (which cause deprivation and marginalisation), and channel it instead towards misconceived targets such as immigration or multiculturalism.  There should be outrage against injustice, but anger bred from blind hatred against scapegoats must not be tolerated.

 

Without forensic examination, criminal trials can become farcical with innocent people being blamed for offences they have nothing to do with, while the guilty ones walk free because there is no process to connect the evidence of their wrongdoing to any police or court action.  It is a mark of arbitrary rule everywhere that the objective analysis of evidence is jettisoned in favour of autocratic judgements.

 

Last but not least, institutional arrangements to secure accountability are essential for establishing who are assigned the power and responsibility to act on behalf of all members of the institution in question (e.g., a company, a trade union, a country), and what credit or blame is to be apportioned to their actions. Blaming leaders when they deserve praise is as bad as backing those who ought to be chastised or removed for inexcusable transgression.  

 

Blame is not something we should shy away from attributing – so long as we do so on the basis of careful, systematic, and objective examination.  And that requires learning.  Education at all levels should enhance our understanding of how scientific research, behavioural psychology, forensic techniques, institutional accountability, help to pinpoint blame for the things we want to avoid.  

 

Blaming the innocent is unjust.  Never blaming the real culprit is folly.

The Sleaze of a Clown

Bullies like to taunt others and then dismiss their complaints as signs that they are not able to take a joke.  Soon the ‘jokes’ turn into intimidation and aggression, and if the bullies can continue to get away with their appalling behaviour, life would just get worse for everyone.

In politics, bullying becomes the default when those in power can get away with whatever they do.  Boris Johnson hides behind a façade of jokiness and pretends any transgression he may have committed in words or deeds should not be taken seriously. But that is the crux of the matter.  If we do not hold him to account for his wrongdoing, it would just confirm for him that the public are irrelevant.

 

The mounting allegations of sleaze against him and the government ministers he protects would suggest that the only accountability he cares about is that to those rich enough to give him large political donations when he is in office, and lucrative positions when he leaves.  To that end, he and those under his patronage would not hesitate to hand out public money to whomever they please, take funds from donors in return for favours, help the wealthy avoid costs other citizens would have to bear, or grant access to the privileged few while denying ordinary people and businesses even a courtesy response to their queries.

 

Of course, Johnson would reject that he has ever done anything wrong, and all the allegations are unfounded.  He might go so far as to preside over all investigations and declare that he would personally decide if he or any of his Cabinet members is guilty of any corrupt practice.

 

For all we know, he might even take his latest flag-fetishism to the next level and insist that any criticism of him and his government is unpatriotic because it damages the reputation of the country.  With the support of the Johnson-backing media, those who press for a thorough investigation of the many suspicious deals and transactions would be dismissed as whinging about nothing.

 

However, to meekly submit to political bullies is to go down the one-way street to arbitrary rule.  We are at a critical junction, and we must not allow him to be emboldened in disregarding the public’s views in what he does.

 

At present, he is riding high by taking credit for the dedication and achievements of university researchers and the NHS, but in reality, he is continuing to underfund their work, and furthermore, he has substituted transparent governance by secretive moves that appear to serve only him and his wealthy supporters.

 

We must not shrug off the charges of wrongdoing as though a joker should not be taken too seriously.  Sometimes, the most unscrupulous leader lurks behind the face of a clown.

--

For a helpful summary of Johnson’s scandalous behaviour, see: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/scandal-charge-sheet-johnson-wallpaper-lying

Risks & Consequences

Many risk-takers like to insist that there should be no limit on what they do because “it’s their business and everyone else should leave them alone”.  But does it not become a matter for other people too if the risk in question could be detrimental to their wellbeing?

Risk taking in the midst of this Covid-19 pandemic has reminded everyone how the behaviour of some can seriously endanger others.  Getting close to others without wearing a protective mask, coughing in proximity to others, turning down opportunities to receive the approved vaccine – can all spread a potentially deadly infection to others while remaining asymptomatic oneself.  Simply focusing on the risk to oneself is clearly inadequate when the probability of dire consequences for others cannot be morally ignored.

 

But risk taking is not just a problem in relation to an infectious disease.  It occurs in all spheres of life, and society needs to take a much closer look at the possible consequences and consider what protective action should be taken.

 

For example, when people get routinely drunk, drive without wearing a seatbelt, or gamble away funds others rely on, it is not just the direct harm they may cause others that is of concern, but the costs in terms of rescue and healthcare that they expect society to bear on their behalf.  Private insurance premiums go up for people who smoke or leave their property unsafe, but in public policy, risk-takers often expect others to foot the bill for their reckless behaviour.

 

It is time we adopt a more coherent approach to curtailing irresponsible risk taking.  This should have three components.  First, evidence-based information and transparency that will ensure people understand the implications of the risks they might take.  What this covers may range from excessive gambling and borrowing from loan sharks that will very probably lead to disastrous consequences for one and one’s family; to voting for politicians/policies that would bring social and economic ruin to one’s country.  If people truly understand the dangers they are risking, more of them might pull back from the brink.

 

Secondly, those who, despite knowing the negative consequences their risky activities could bring, persist with them, will need to be made responsible so they either desist or have to pay to cover the damages.  Anyone addicted to gambling could be required to put an increasingly large proportion of their bets towards an insurance scheme that would provide financial compensation if necessary, while reducing the amount going to the betting companies.  Corporations that wilfully pollute the environment should be made to pay for dealing with the damages caused.

 

Thirdly, there will be cases where the risks are so high and the potential harm so severe, that the activities in question should be stopped outright.  There is no reason why some self-styled ‘business genius’ should be able to keep borrowing money to start businesses that, after they have paid themselves a fortune, are wound up with countless workers and suppliers left without pay.  The same goes for financial institutions that take the savings from ordinary families and gamble the money on high risk lending that could (and has been found to) leave major shortfalls that either wipe out individuals’ savings or require public funds to bail them out.  Such activities should be outlawed.

 

Viewed against the background of great explorers and brave adventurers, risk-taking might be seen as something to be glorified.  But in truth, not all risk-taking is worthy of celebrating, and many are plainly wrong-headed and irredeemably harmful.  We need to see bad risk-taking for what it is, and bring in the necessary measures to curtail it.

Stop Censoring Censorship

When comedians mock their latest targets, artists unveil their convention-defying creations, right-wing rabble rousers demand acceptance from all speech platforms, hate mongers insist on their right to express themselves on social media, they all converge on an unreserved condemnation of censorship.

They invoke it as an unassailable principle – people must be allowed to say, show, express whatever they want, and any attempt to block them (whatever the reason) is deemed censorship, and must therefore be rejected.

If something is true and harmless, of course we should be ready to resist any move to prevent it from being put forward.  But it hardly follows that nothing can ever be legitimately deemed so harmful that its propagation should be halted.  This assumption that forbidding any expression is inherently and absolutely wrong must be questioned.

 

Suppose the following is about to happen:

 

·      Someone is going to distribute a leaflet on ‘20 ways to help your children’ to every household in the country, and the 20 ways listed are all widely recognised as harmful to children (e.g. hit them hard on the head when they disobey; make them drink bleach, etc.)

·      A town council has agreed to erect a public monument to celebrate Hitler’s murder of millions of people.

·      A photographer who managed to take pictures of the victims of a serial killer is going to hold an exhibition of those photographs to showcase the skills of the killer, despite the protest from the families of the victims.

·      Someone known for routinely lying about people from minority ethnic backgrounds is offered a regular television show to tell horror stories about minorities and why they should all be deported.

·      A group is organising a public march to name various people as responsible for the death of a child – without any evidence, and demand justice be obtained by any means.

 

Those who decry censorship may respond by either saying such expressions should be stopped but it is not censorship (in which case, they’re just playing with words); or affirming that nothing should be done to stop them (in which case, they’re playing with people’s lives).

 

Censorship should not be imposed lightly.  It needs justification, and it has to be proportionate.  But it cannot be dismissed as unjustifiable.  As individuals and as a society, we need to be protected from the vicious, the unscrupulous, and the deranged.  Undoubtedly there are cases where threats should be halted before serious harm is done.

The Politics of Character Development

Character development is an important part of socialisation.  It is generally accepted that people’s character matters a great deal in how they behave towards others, and that character from an early age can be influenced by what and how they are taught.  However, beyond the broad consensus on these points, it is hard to find much agreement as to what should be incorporated into our education policy.

 

The Traditionalist Stance

We frequently hear from those who lament about schools not passing on important traditional beliefs and values, and why as a result of that people are failing to behave as well as they used to.  The supposed solution is meant to lie with restoring ‘traditional teaching’ that in methods and contents aids the building of ‘good character’ society could in the past count on.  But since even the staunchest self-proclaimed traditionalists have to admit that some attitudes and ideas from the past are untenable and harmful, traditions alone cannot be our guide, and we need to consider what is worth passing on from our past, and what should be critically put aside.

 

The Employment Focus

Those who adopt an employment-centric view about education maintain that the key issue is to develop characters fit for getting a job.  Everything else is basically ‘nice-to-have’, but absolute priority must be given to producing capable workers.  At one level, this opens up the question of what kind of mind-set and behavioural traits are needed in a modern economy.  For example, a questioning mind is of much greater value than a readiness to carry out standardised tasks.  At another level, there is the question of how individuals and society collectively can function well without citizens developing adequately as democratic members of their polity.  If people lack the understanding, appreciation, and preparedness to help their country govern itself in an open, fair and inclusive manner, the chance of their economy working well would in turn be much diminished.

 

The Libertarian Mantra

For those promoting libertarian ideas, any suggestion about what ‘should’ be taught has no place in public policy consideration at all.  People, on this view, ought to be able to have their children taught whatever they want – it’s their ‘choice’.  An even more extreme version would leave that ‘choice’ with the children themselves.  In any case, there is supposedly no basis for any public institution to steer the education of individuals in any particular direction.  But can society survive if people are really allowed to do whatever they want irrespective of the harm they might inflict on others?  Should people be permitted to drive recklessly if they like?  Should they be able to tell their children to drink poison?  And if the response is that there are laws that govern such matters, then that takes us precisely to what regulations, guidance, and policies society should set down for its own wellbeing, and these questions apply to the education and character development of its citizens.

 

The Case for Civic Education 

We can all see that some traditions are valuable to pass on (while some are not); fitness to be a ‘useful’ member of society goes well beyond any narrow conception of what a ‘worker’ is supposed to be; and what the state should or should not require the education of its citizens to encompass has to be linked to its impact on the wellbeing of society, and not left to the whims of individuals. 

 

All these considerations point to the need for citizens to be imparted with the outlook and capability to be dependable members of society.  Yet that need cannot be met if we do not support the appropriate kind of character development.  Political leaders should recognise that civic education is not a ‘nice-to-have’, but an essential element of any democratically healthy society.  We need education at all levels to be aware of the values, skills, abilities that should be inculcated, and committed to facilitating their transmission in developing thoughtful and responsible citizens.

--

 

For more on civic education, see ‘Educating Citizens: 3 critical aspects’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2021/01/educating-citizens-3-critical-aspects.html

Rights, Security, and the Begum Case

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling on the Begum case has drawn attention once more to the contest of abstract notions such as ‘Rights’ and ‘Security’, when what is needed is a proper examination of the facts.

A UK citizen (born in Britain) – a girl of 15 – went to Syria to join an ISIS group.  According to some reports she was groomed as a companion/wife, had three children (who all subsequently died), and when later she wanted to return to the UK, the British Home Secretary removed her UK citizenship and left her as a detainee in a camp – on the ground that she posed a serious threat to national security.

 

There are important arguments about what kind of threat to national security would justify the removal of a person’s citizenship.  But any sweeping statement about concerns for security must trump citizenship rights, or for that matter, individuals’ rights must trump security policies, is bound to be vacuous unless specific details are spelt out.  Clearly, no government should be allowed to just claim it is acting to protect national security and thereby deprive selected citizens of all their rights; and equally there can be no inalienable right to endanger the lives of others in any country.

 

Yet what we don’t hear about are the relevant details.  What threats are actually posed by Shamima Begum?  Is she alleged to be a terrorist mastermind?  Is she being charged with inflicting harm on innocent people?  If so, should a UK citizen not be tried to ascertain her guilt in a British court, and incarcerated if found guilty?  Or was she duped at an impressionable age to serve extremists who exploited her?  And the loss of her UK citizenship is a punishment for being naïve?

 

Instead of the pertinent facts, all we keep hearing is the disagreement over the Court of Appeal’s view that her rights ought to override national security as interpreted by the Home Secretary, and now the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the Home Secretary’s assessment of national security must override her rights.

 

The point is that no one’s rights and no Home Secretary’s security assessment can be regarded as absolute.  We cannot make sound judgement by declaring that people have the right to do whatever they want and should suffer no consequence even if their actions are harmful to others; or that politicians with key government positions are always right and should never be challenged for the decisions they make.

 

Rather than leaving the ‘Rights versus Security’ show to carry on distracting us from any case that brings an individual’s rights and a government decision into conflict, we must demand transparency and accuracy in establishing the evidence for rival claims, so that they can be fairly and objectively resolved.  Without a focus on the evidence, a critical disagreement is all too likely going to end up being submerged by a hollow debate.

The Outsider Syndrome

When people are kept away from where key decisions are made about their lives, they might put up with it so long as everything seems to work to their satisfaction.  But problems inevitably surface, and circumstances are always liable to change in unexpected ways.  Then those on the outside begin to suspect that the people with decision-making powers don’t have their interest at heart at all.

 

Convinced that their concerns are overlooked, and their views persistently ignored, many end up developing the Outsider Syndrome.  First of all, they lump everyone with political authority together as the untrustworthy ‘establishment’.  It does not matter how misleading such sweeping generalisations can be, they refuse to differentiate politicians and public officials who are dedicated to helping the people from those who are corrupt, self-centred, or idle.  If they hear that one politician has done something bad, they blame all politicians regardless of the good many politicians have done.  They say none can be trusted, and all those in positions of authority must be treated with disdain.

 

Next, they start to exhibit one of two possible symptoms.  They are either consumed by a cynical apathy which leads them to think only about themselves and dismiss the common good as illusory, or fired up by an iconoclastic fury that wants to get rid of what is in place and replace it by some glowing beacon of a ‘great new era’.

 

Finally, they play their part – through abstaining from the electoral process, or giving their support to some supreme ‘outsider’ who will turn everything upside, give back ‘control’ to the people, and make their country ‘great’ again.  We have seen how this works out with a variety of ‘populist’ surge.  

 

The Outsider Syndrome is symptomatic of a malfunctioning democracy becoming ever more vulnerable to falling under arbitrary rule.  It cannot be dealt with by giving a few who were left outside the ‘political mobility’ to gain political office, for the wider problem of civic exclusion would remain for others.  The only way to overcome it is by means of bridge-building – connecting people with their own governance.

 

Apart from improving electoral processes so people have more a chance to assess candidates and make their votes count in a more proportionate manner, there are many ways to displace the insider/outsider barrier with sustained cooperative interactions.  For example, more decisions can be passed to multi-stakeholder cooperatives to make via inclusive arrangements; more issues can be considered and resolved by either all those affected through deliberative engagement (such as Planning for Real, Participatory Budgeting, or community conference), or a randomly selected jury-like group , whose views are communicated to others; and a systematic rotation of holders for public office can over time give everyone a chance to experience the power and responsibility of having statutory authority.

 

Evidence reviewed in the book, Whose Government is it? the renewal of state-citizen cooperation, shows that people can have a meaningful role in governing themselves if the appropriate techniques and support are put in place.  We need to act on that evidence more urgently than ever.