Following up on the previous entry, exploring whether good or evil is our natural state, it is interesting to consider the two opposing sides to this argument.

In recent years, there seems to have become a tendency for people, even those who never knew the victim, to express their grief very publically when someone dies violently. Giles Frazer, a lecturer in philosophy and Anglican priest, suggests that this identification with the victim may be a way of protecting ourselves from the realisation that there could be some of the perpetrators violence within us. This suggestion he makes in the context of the holocaust in the following passage:

“My worry is that the identification with the victims of the holocaust protects us from the much more disturbing thought that we may have something in common with the perpetrators. Placing oneself along side the victim may leave intact a fundamental complacency about our own potential for violence and hatred. The idea that we might catch a glimpse of our reflection in the face of the Nazi guard is a terrifying thought but is one that is more likely to lead to genuine transformation.

Often we protect ourselves from the thought of our own capacity for wickedness by describing wickedness as something foreign and alien. That’s the problem with our tendency always to use the Nazis with the default example of human evil. This encourages the thought that evil is done by people with funny accents and sinister uniforms, people who lived in the past, people very different from us.

One of the most terrifying messages of European anti-Semitism is that evil is perpetrated by apparently ordinary, respectable men and women with nice families and good taste in wine and music. In other words, people like you and me! Those who refuse to face it are often the most dangerous people of all.”

If we accept this, it would suggest that violence is a dangerous urge lurking within us all. However, to counter that proposition, Sudhir Khan, a philosopher and psychologist, proposes the following:

“If you are asking, ‘is violence a fundamental drive in human beings?’, then I would say no. But, if you mean we are all prone to violence, to do violent acts, then yes.

What we are prone to is what we would widely call love, which includes altruism and empathy: the fundamental aspects of human nature. We have pain networks in our brains that are activated when we see the pain of others. This shows that we are capable of great empathy. If an adult drops a toy, a little baby will pick it up and give it to him.

I believe that the religions which have postulated that there are two forces in the world, good and evil, have distorted the view that evil or violence is a fundamental part, as is the good. I believe that the good is fundamental and that the violence is a reaction to many things.”

If Khan is correct, this would suggest that, in order to connect to this deeper part of the self, there is a need to learn to control ones’ reactivity, to nurture our natural nature, our loving nature and to allow it to express itself. How? Perhaps, by looking to a more spiritual background for an understanding, we can both diminish that violence and accentuate the ‘benevolent self.’

If the inner violence is not addressed and resolved, it will have lasting, damaging effects in that the person becomes cut off from looking within; from any psychological, emotional or spiritual life. This results in a life of great poverty.

More and more, in a world in which reactivity takes the front seat, we need to create and encourage time and space for personal silence and reflection, both for our self and those we work with. Only then will we recognise, unequivocally, which is our true nature …. and the true nature of others.

Values | Benevolence | Good and Evil | Reflection

‘As long as one believes that the evil man wears horns, one will not discover an evil man! – Eric Fromm

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his book The Gulag Archipelago, shared a similar perspective to Fromm where he said, “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being and who is willing to destroy a piece of their own heart?”

The ‘struggle’ between good and evil is something that we all face.

When someone insults me or maybe criticises me, particularly if it happens in front of friends or colleagues, I become defensive and aggressive. And yet, harbouring grievances and lust for revenge are the outward manifestation of the anger within all of us. That is why individuals like Mahatma Ghandi and Thomas Merton were relentless in their critique of their inner lives, constantly attempting to see if there was any violence within them.

When I reflect on my life, I recognise that there is a consistent struggle within me between good and bad, constructive and destructive, positive and negative; and it is the negative, of course, that leads to ‘violent’ thoughts and actions. The story of the Indian Chief (see blog entry 15/12/11: Clear Thinking Regarding Crime and Punishment) captures this struggle. I need to ask myself, which wolf am I feeding with each thought, word and breath?

But how do I know which is my natural state of being or are they both an inherent part of me?

I was once asked if any of the prisoners I worked with did not show a part of themselves that demonstrated something of compassion, humour, gentleness, love or respect. I couldn’t think of any. A colleague, with more than 20 years of experience, could only recall one individual that she described as “truly evil.” This would suggest that the weighting is very heavily in favour of goodness being one’s natural state. If I can make this shift in my awareness then it opens the door to seeing qualities in another and so has a significant impact on my relationship with them.

Values

More than a decade ago, the then Industrial Society, now the Work Foundation, called for new approaches and 'liberated leadership' built on interconnected networks, mutual trust, values, integrity, shared beliefs and strong relationships. This was intended to foster real progress in personal and organisational achievement, by way of encouraging a greater focus on values based on human dignity rather than on the short term and the narrow values of consumerism. This vision has many parallels with the intent of the UK Criminal Justice System of the last few years.

In their Campaign for Leadership pamphlet, 'Leaders for Tomorrow's Society’, the Industrial Society suggested:

"British society as a whole and many groups, both large and small, within it, face rising alienation, cynicism and exclusion. Without a new, values-based approach to leadership, the risk of social disintegration is both real and urgent. The roots of the latent crisis lie in our failure as individuals, in organisations and communities; to realise our potential. This is sometimes because people don't recognise their own capabilities, sometimes because they are prevented from exploiting them. The result is a growing number of people who have lost their identity, purpose or framework for living. In addition, the response to global competitive pressures is a gradual decline into the realms of the unethical; in the absence of shared visions, society is increasingly focusing on the short term and the narrow values of consumerism instead of values based on human dignity."

How the world has changed since 1999?

As we move into the New Year, this might be a time to reflect on the above vision as well as what my contribution towards that might have been and might yet be. One manner in which we might do that is by considering my New Year resolutions.

For example, what might our resolutions be for the next twelve months: to give up smoking; to follow a particular diet; to spend more quality time with the kids; to give two weekends a year to a charity cause? We each have your own. But how many of those resolutions benefit just me, how many my close family and friends, and how many the community I live in or society in a wider context? How many of these resolutions are on the basis of shared vision, on values based on human dignity and how many on the narrow values of consumerism?

Have I changed since 1999? Do I represent that new leadership, spoken of?

Leadership | Values

There are times when the continued reporting of events in the media brings two stories into juxtaposition which may have otherwise been separated. One such case occurred recently. (I am deliberately presenting this in a bare-bones manner.)

There was a report about an event that took place within the capital city of a western country. The situation was such that there was a great deal of tension in the air and nerves were on edge. Within this atmosphere of disquiet, an unarmed individual was hit once with a baton and pushed to the ground. A short while later, the same person collapsed and died. In the days that followed, members of the public and the media expressed outrage. The person who was responsible for the assault was ultimately deemed to have committed the act of ‘unlawful killing’

The second story took place not far from another capital city and involved members of a western country, presumably espousing similar values and laws of justice. The situation was such that there was a great deal of tension in the air and nerves were on edge. Within this atmosphere of disquiet, an unarmed individual was shot twice, collapsed and died. In the days that followed members of the public and the media expressed joy and relief. The person who was responsible for the assault was deemed to have committed the act of ‘lawful killing.’

The first story is, of course, the report of the death of Ian Tomlinson, a homeless newspaper salesman, who collapsed and died on the fringes of the violent demonstrations against the G-20 meeting after being shoved to the ground by an officer in riot gear. The second is the attack by US troops on the compound in Abbotabad, inhabited by Osama Bin Laden, and his death. One death was unintentional; the other intentional.

I mentioned above the supposition that, in both situations, similar values and laws of justice were being advocated. Well, President Barack Obama announced that “justice had been done.” US Attorney General Eric Holder said it was "conducted in a way that was consistent with our law and with our values. Bin Laden's killing was an act of national self-defence". George W Bush described the event as a ‘momentous achievement.’

In the case of Ian Tomlinson, we await the outcome of the judgment on PC Harwood. Regarding the events in Pakistan, while I can understand the reaction of people to the news that someone instrumental for so many acts of violence is dead. However, I find both the apparent inconsistency in judicial law and the implied definitions of justice deeply disturbing. What sort of understanding of the word ‘justice’ supports the killing of another human being? What sort of ‘justice’ has been done where four people, only one of who was armed, are killed in the ‘arrest’ of one individual? What sort of values allow for an armed group to enter another sovereign state, without permission, and kill an unarmed man who happens to be a thorn in their side?

As time passes, the ‘euphoria’ of the masses no longer covers the front pages but is increasingly replaced with questions relating to ethics of such actions, by more measured reflective analysis, by the voice, albeit not very loud, of our inviolable conscience.

Values | Justice

Week in and week out we hear football managers making the claim that such and such a goal shouldn’t have been allowed as a player was offside. However, this has taken on a new and very public slant in recent weeks.

Two well-known male television presenters, apparently believing their microphones had been switched off, were recorded making disparaging remarks about a female assistant referee, related to women’s apparent lack of understanding of the offside rule. A headline that followed read “Commentators in Sexist Rant.” Another commentator suggested that, “Comments belong in the dark ages. Sexism is as bad as racism.”

What has this to do with offender management? Perhaps nothing currently; you tell me.

Standards of Behaviour - Acceptable or Not?

Exactly a decade ago, the Spirituality in Prison Group hosted a residential seminar, Breaking the Cycle, for people who worked within offender management. The seminar looked at the different cycles we find ourselves locked into. The example cited in the flier suggested that a person showing disrespect for another will receive the same in return, so creating a cycle of disrespect … unless one person decides to break that cycle.

During a panel discussion, a serving prison governor spoke with great honesty about her own experiences within the Service. She talked of the sexist attitudes and systematic bullying she had experienced in three different prisons from her peers, her managers, and by the prison officers. Her contribution opened a floodgate of feelings and comment that revealed the magnitude of bullying experienced, at all levels by many of the people present.

Someone spoke of ‘accepted standards of behaviour by staff that are so wrong.’ Another drew attention to the fact that ‘prison staff are trained to treat prisoners in a humane and respectful way because that’s how we want them to behave in society. However, there is a need to treat all staff with decency and dignity, too.’ It was suggested that ‘bullying is endemic and that most people involved are not aware that they are doing it – it has become part of the culture.’

So, if it still exists, what do we need to do to break the cycle? Is it about revisiting core values of the Service, namely decency and dignity?

Decency and Dignity

Dignity is a state that emanates from one’s core being whilst decency relates to the quality of our interactions with others. Therefore, my dignity is not dependent on anything external but on my own inner state of awareness. This is why, any time we become disconnected from our inner world, we loose contact with our values and therefore with our dignity.

Fluctuation of that inner sense of worth, value and dignity can, and does, easily occur. It may be that we become drawn away from our dignity by becoming caught up in someone else either through becoming impressed by them or by coming into conflict with them. The word ‘integrity,’ therefore, is important here. Integrity is that state where there is no discrepancy within me, where thoughts, feelings and emotions are working together with the silent voice of conscience.

When one’s focus is on the external, the voice of conscience tends to become veiled. For most of us it is something we need to connect with more frequently, to give ourselves the time to listen or to create the space and the stillness to ‘hear.’ In that state of division where there isn’t integrity, a small thing can happen and the reaction can be enormous. We become reactive towards a situation or person. How often have you heard the cautionary words, ‘Engage brain before opening mouth,’ perhaps more politely expressed as ‘think before you speak!’

We see that when one gives attention to carrying out good and positive actions in their life, their interactions with others will be influenced by this. When I have dignity, I am in a position to positively influence those around me for the result of dignity is respect and truth. However, I can only begin to treat others with decency when I have developed dignity for myself.

Respect and Truth

The power of truth is such that I don’t make the mistake of causing sorrow to another or of taking sorrow from someone else. One value that is particularly important in maintaining such a relationship is tolerance. When I have tolerance then those around me can be at ease, they don’t have to pay special attention in what they do such that I don’t become upset or affected. When I have tolerance, I am prepared to accept another person for who they are or what they represent.

With tolerance, if someone makes a mistake then, when I come to deal with the situation, as well as the practical aspect of ‘laying down the law’ there will be respect for that person.  When the law is applied with respect then there will be some realisation and that mistake will not be repeated. In this way the person who made the mistake will not lose their honour or their dignity. With this approach, there is no place for criticism, dislike, competition, favouritism or prejudice. It shouldn’t be that you wag your finger at someone, ask ‘Why did you do that?’ or ask for an apology. They themselves will have the thought that they should apologise.

So, what do I need to do to develop this level of dignity?

It is necessary to create time to explore my inner world, to strengthen that voice of conscience, and to know and understand my inner values and give practical acknowledgment to those values. I need to understand causes, reactions, and upheavals in my mind, be able to move it from a negative track to a positive track, and to be in tune with my own conscience. This enables me to know truly who I am and build that level of dignity …. and for this, I need to give myself time for reflection, for silence.

As I develop this inner strength, a state of alignment and integrity follows, and dignity returns to my life again. This enables trust to develop both within my self and with others.

Values | Decency and Dignity | Respect

On 4^th April 2011 it will be two years since the occasion when two young brothers, aged 10 and 11, caused grievous bodily harm with intent to two other boys of a similar age in Edlington, near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, a crime that was headlining for some time.

Continuing the question, what are our prisons for, Wendy Marshall, co-founder of Hope Mountain, (www.hopemountain.org.uk) a not-for-profit organisation, offers a reflective thought following those events.

The need to blame

“The media coverage of the Doncaster boys who abused two other children drew vast and varied comment – but most of it had one thing in common - the need to blame.  It had to be someone’s fault, the reasoning goes, so let’s find who it is and then we can all rest.   Some were blaming the social workers, some the parents, others the politicians - they must have had something to do with it. Maybe it was the Mayor for appointing a pie-man to run its children’s services.

In this case, as in many before, when the blood-letting is over, when the anger has subsided, are we left with a sustained desire to really understand the problem and, in doing so, find a solution?  Thankfully the media did move on from simply demonising the two perpetrators of these appalling crimes to a willingness to ask, ‘why did these boys turn out like that?’

Research (Positive Psychology) is revealing that neglected children have not had the nurturing experiences needed for areas of the brain to develop, so enable them to control their emotions and behaviour.  Doesn’t it make sense that if a child is brought up with little care or respect, they may not know how to care or respect others.  If they have been treated more like a thing than a human being, it seems fairly obvious that they may have learned to treat others as things rather than human beings. And if they are shouted at, abused, and their feelings ignored, they may become adept at shouting, fighting, abusing and disregarding the feelings of others.  A little reflection and a desire to understand will lead most anyone to these conclusions.

So we trace the problem back one generation, and find that the parents of these anti-social children were neglectful. How did the parents become so dysfunctional?  Using the same reasoning, we find they too may well have been damaged from their own neglected childhood.

It seems to me that if your aim is just to find someone to blame, you will always get the satisfaction you seek.  However, you may not find the solution.  The solution lies in our willingness to understand, and to exercise one or our greatest human assets – empathy.

An Empathetic Approach

When I worked with children in care 30 years ago, as a residential care worker, at first, try as I might, I couldn’t stop being judgemental of the children’s bad behaviour …. until I came to know the home life they had come from! Then, I couldn’t help wondering how I would have turned out if I had been through these young peoples experience of life. If you were to reflect on this same question, if you were to imagine yourself brought up in a chaotic, neglectful and violent household, how do you think you might have turned out?

Look at the pattern. Children who suffer abuse or neglect in childhood are more likely to become offenders.   As a group, offenders have lower literacy levels than the rest of the population and poor mood control, leading to problems with anger.  Neglectful upbringing commonly leads to impaired brain functioning which results in poor mood control that, in turn, adversely affects concentration ability in school, behaviour modification and ability to develop empathy.  The ability to do well in life and have good relationships is severely compromised. Some believe that early neglect and abuse damages a child permanently.

Yes, there are windows of time in our development that are primed for us to absorb deeply and become imprinted by our environment – for good or bad.  But research also suggests the brain is much more plastic than we ever thought and has vast capacity to learn, unlearn and move on.  Some may need more patience and support than others but people can move on and grow.   It all depends how far we are prepared to go to understand and help those whose life experience has been so much less fortunate than our own.  At any point we can fall back on the short-lived satisfaction of judging others or we can take time to reflect a little, try to understand, put ourselves in another’s shoes.

And where will all this compassion lead?  There is always the worry that if we reduce in any way the punishment meted out for criminal behaviour there won’t be any discouragement for crime.  But if we really want to cure the problem, perhaps its time to look around and see the exceptional resources we already have!

The Solutions Are Already Out There

People like Camilla Batmanghelidjh, founder of the Kids Company, Maura Jackson, who has worked to create turn-around environments to help women reduce re-offending through Home Office initiatives, or Dan Hughes who has done so much to create successful therapeutic approaches for neglected children.  Grass roots workers in Youth Offending teams, Parent Support Advisors self organising to set up innovative groups to help failing children, or staff in Family Intervention Projects around the UK.  Not to mention the innovative prison workers, social workers, chaplains and volunteers who are quietly doing amazing work unknown to the majority, day after day helping to turn people’s lives around. There is a tremendous amount of commitment and compassion out there already making a difference.  There may not presently be enough of these people, but they are there!

If politicians and media focussed their attention on seeking out these innovators in social care and therapeutic interventions, it wouldn’t take too long to find what works and how best to train practitioners in these approaches. Many solutions are already out there.  Granted, the scale of the problem is large and has probably been steadily building for generations.  But the very existence of innovative workers, who know how to effect lasting change in people who have been given up on by the rest of society, gives us reason to be very optimistic.”

Positive Psychology | Blame | Values