MY PAGES

Monday, April 15, 2013

My heart will go out . . .

When public tragedy strikes, it understandably sets people on edge, highlighting the vulnerability of safe places and insulated populations. Events like the Newtown massacre and today's bombings at the Boston marathon set my Facebook page twittering with heartfelt outreach, with the sending of thoughts and prayers, and with people fearfully finding themselves able to relate to the circumstances and the victims. I hate to admit it, but since the Aurora shooting, I am frightened of going into movie theaters, especially for popular, high-profile films. And I feel for those who were affected and continue to be. We have seen too many sad events both in the US and abroad in recent years.

But, each time I am faced with people's anger and philosophical questions that stem from these incidents, I find myself reflecting upon why we, as a society, are not infuriated and heartbroken every single day. Because, the fact of the matter is, we live in a world where the the tragedies are rampant and the inequities are astronomical. As Americans, we live in a country where the wealth gaps are among some of the largest in the world; where we have accepted the fact that some people will die because they cannot find, or afford, safe, appropriate shelter; where some of our cities have some of the highest gun murder rates in the world (America's 10 Deadliest CitiesGun Violence in US Cities). In Baltimore, in the past 30 days, 22 people were murdered; all of these people were Black; all but three were men. My guess is that most were poor. In Detroit, a city that gets roughly 3,000 fires annually, firefighters seem to disproportionately (compared to other cities) risk their lives entering dilapidated and ostensibly vacant structures in an effort to save the have-nots who have too likely taken refuge within. Yet we do not seem to regard these systemic, structurally-rooted, forms of violence as violence, we do not view them as a call to reproach the system or challenge the culture.

I certainly grieve for the many victims of these highly-publicized incidents; I am sad for those who lost their lives, for those who lost their loved ones, for those who lost their sense of security; but my outrage runs much deeper, and finds its roots at the many daily tragedies we just accept. I am baffled, not by the occasional "crazy" or the periodic sociopath (or group of sociopaths), but by a country that so systematically oppresses entire groups of people, that abandons them and blames them and deems them "undeserving", not only of our tax dollars, but of our tears. I am angry because at the end of the day, it feels like nobody cares enough about those people to question society. We, as a culture, have expanded this "deserving vs undeserving poor" mentality to "deserving vs undeserving" period . . . "innocents" are deserving of our grief, they're the reason for reflection. The poor, the oppressed, we can sweep them under the rug again and again and again. I'd like to think we're just so numb to it now, that it's been too painful, so we can't react to (structural as well as physical) violence on such a scale, with such regularity. But I don't think that's it. I think, at the end of the day, we just don't care as much about those folks.

Many people will make the argument that an awful lot of these people were not "innocent", that they were embedded in systems that create and perpetuate violence. Others may cite moral transgressions or "weaknesses" as justification. But we cannot fool ourselves or construct ourselves as innocent by denying our own complicity in such systems. With very few exceptions, we - even the most oppressed, even the well-meaning, among us - are part of the problem, if for no other reason than we all work harder to get by (to succeed even) within the structure when perhaps we should be dismantling it (thank you to Paulo Freire for this image of the oppressive oppressed).

And this is, of course, where I get bogged down. As an anthropologist, I seek to understand: I ask myself, has my home culture has always been this way, so callously favoring the wealthy? I seek to understand the larger structural systems that have set us all up in opposition to one another, that seem to require some to suffer so others can succeed. I ask whether xenophobia is a cultural or a human phenomenon. But when I try to think just as me, just as a person, not as an academic, I don't know if I care why. I want to know what we are going to do about it. Then, feeling too vulnerable and ineffective, I bring my inner-academic back out and wonder, is it possible to effect meaningful (and desirable) change without answering these other questions? And that I don't know. For now, I know only this, and I will choose to reflect upon it every day, not just when the media decides something awful has happened: My heart will go out to the poor, to the suffering, to the daily murdered or beaten or frightened, to those who find themselves oppressed, exploited and excluded. I will think of them every single day. And maybe one day I will have an answer.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Stacey,

    I'm in Boston. No one I know was hurt, but you know, people are shaken.... at first when I saw that your post was really about something else, I like, "oh, we're going to talk about problems that we all know about again."

    But then I realized I agree with you.

    Chronic poverty, homelessness, underfunding of important social institutions, declining real incomes of average American households... boring, maybe, but pretty important.

    And the flip side: we stay upset about the high-profile events, much more than upsetting events that are chronic or foreign. That's why terrorism works: high-profile events affect people's behavior out-of-proportion to the amount of pain they cause. (the pain is very real, but as you say, it's not more real than other pain.)

    It's hard, with an event that targets people who are just like people you know, in places that are familiar to you, accompanied by details that make it easy to imagine yourself there.... [ as an aside: for the love of god, the constant news cycle doesn't help. Just now they were reporting on amputees in gruesome detail. I really doubt that anyone in the hospital wants their pain on national TV.]

    I kind of think our basic (instinctive) understanding of risk is screwed up. It's like the mind thinks something is risky if it can imagine the thing going wrong. That probably works with the information-propagation systems that we had a thousand years ago: I could imagine something bad happening if I'd seen something similar, or if it was so bad that I'd heard rumors of it in another village or happening long ago. But otherwise, it wasn't risky, and as long as it wasn't prohibited by my religion I could go on. It's just that now that we can "see" things from all over the world, and there are group disasters that actually affect relatively few people out of the total population, it just doesn't work.

    sorry my comment is so long. thanks for posting this thoughtful piece!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful response, Karen. I think you're right in so many ways - things are scariest when we can relate to them (this is why fear based ads use models who represent their target populations) and risk is most tangible when we can leave it to our imaginations. It feels an awful lot easier to avoid a dangerous part of a city than an event selected as a target with no forewarning. I'm just worried we've become so embroiled in a system of us versus them that we've lost the ability or desire or willingness to identify with "the other" and the forms of suffering they face daily.

      Oh, and don't even get me started on the media. They play such a big role in all of this, deciding what story and whose story is important and deciding how to tell it regardless of whether or not they show any respect for the victims.

      Delete