Personal Responsibility or Shared Responsibility?

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY OR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY?

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D., ABPP     1-13-11

ABSTRACT:  The U.S. believes in maximum freedom and near complete individual responsibility, but one of the results is denial by the rest of us of any responsibility for either influencing or helping those few citizens who may respond violently to feeling intolerable pain at what they perceive as abuse or unfair treatment by others.  In reality we do influence each other in society, both individually and through the ethos that we create as a group.  Since we wish to preserve maximum freedom, and we believe in near complete individual responsibility, we find it difficult to do what would be required to reduce this violence by the few citizens who react violently.  Acknowledging how we influence each other would be a first step toward reducing this violence.

KEY WORDS:  freedom, individual responsibility, shared responsibility, personal influence

In the U.S. we are witnessing yet another round of violence, soul-searching, arguments about responsibility, and efforts to overcome grief and look for meaning.  The shooting of a U.S. Representative in Tucson last Saturday by a young man who appears from reports to have been mentally unbalanced has led to accusations (by mostly “liberals”) that those who use violence-related rhetoric or symbols in their political speech (most of them “conservatives” these days) bear some responsibility for the actions of this young man.  These accusations are being resisted vigorously, partly by ad hominem arguments (“You’re only saying this because you want to make us look bad”) and partly by claiming that no one but the shooter could morally bear any responsibility for the shooting.  This claim is a radical expression of personal responsibility—i.e., that no one can “make” you do anything and that regardless of the influences on you from others, society, or the environment, you decide on your actions and therefore you bear all the responsibility and blame.

This “radical individuality” view of human beings is consistent with our American claim to be “self-made” men and women who are independent, consistent with our highly-prized and fiercely defended freedom to do whatever we want (limited only by the law), and consistent with the capitalist view of consumers who decide freely what to consume (“let the buyer beware”).

Radical individuality is a convenient view for society, in that it relieves others of all responsibility for an individual’s actions and leaves others free of such concerns so that they can pursue their own ends.  It also avoids the very difficult parceling out of legal responsibility in criminal cases by the courts that would be necessary if we viewed responsibility as shared in some ways.  How much legal responsibility would we assign to the parents of a convicted shooter, for example, after examining in detail their parenting practices, etc., if we viewed responsibility as shared?  (The courts already do parcel out responsibility in some civil cases where damages are concerned.) 

On the other hand, probably even hardened conservative radio commentators would have some hesitation at removing all moral responsibility from parents who horribly beat and otherwise abused a child who later kills them or someone else.  Our society has mixed feelings about excusing wives who are abused over time and kill the husbands who have abused them.  Those same radio commentators would probably praise a dedicated teacher whose students even thirty years later attribute some of their success to this teacher’s inspiration, but holding to a “no shared responsibility” view would suggest that the teacher deserves no gratitude, since the student took in what was helpful and used it and therefore deserves all the credit.  As a society we believe that businesses owe no responsibility to consumers beyond delivering what they promise, yet we allow consumers of tobacco to sue tobacco companies because they did not know of tobacco’s dangers(!).  (Amazingly inconsistent with that, the same opportunity to sue is not offered to consumers of alcoholic beverages.)  Boiling all of this down for our society, we know that we influence each other, but the waters are so murky that it is easier to ignore shared responsibility.

The chief focus of the current discussions is the influence of speech on others.  We cling to our principle of “free speech,” limiting it legally only to prohibiting incitement to violence against the government and prohibiting certain sexual speech.  We want to be able to say anything we want to say, to express whatever we “need” or want to express, without limit.  If this is really what we want, then we must acknowledge that our speech does influence others, since our wish to express ourselves “proves” that we hope that our speech will influence others!  Most people would probably acknowledge that speech can hurt greatly and that repeated pain from words can lead people to want to harm those who have hurt them.  We would also probably acknowledge that behaviors other than speech can hurt others, too (direct physical harm, taking advantage of someone, using rumor to get someone fired, etc.), and that this harm would predictably lead those who are harmed to want to hurt those who have harmed them.  If we preserve this right to express ourselves without limit (including the right to lie to others when we wish) and the right to harm others in other ways than speech (limited only by existing laws), then we must accept that we will experience periodically these outbursts of mass killing, as the hurt that a few people experience becomes too much for them to handle, and they resort to hurting back in response. 

There is no need to ask repeatedly why these killings occur (in the workplace, in our schools, in our courts).  We know why they occur.  Most people (probably including you and me) could engage in violence in response to a certain intolerable (for us individually) amount of harm or unfair treatment from others.  All (or almost all) mass public shootings are done by people who feel unfairly treated or harmed, through being fired, being given poor grades, being dumped by romantic partners, or being physically or emotionally abused.  We simply want to believe that no matter how our speech and behavior affect others, they should not try to harm or get back at us through violence, but a few of them will.  (We do accept “getting back” through emotional methods or financial manipulations.  We accept ruining another person’s life as long as it’s not done violently or illegally!)  This belief, that no matter what we do to others, they should not engage in violence toward us, protects our desire for freedom, relieves our legal system of an impossible task, and simply ignores the non-violent damage that we do to others.  It simplifies our lives, but reality then requires us to pay the price for ignoring how we affect others.

The most common argument against a shared responsibility view is the claim by an individual that he himself did not abuse that shooter, so he did not contribute to harm or to the emotions that later led to the shooting, and that therefore he bears no responsibility.  The counterargument is that he did nothing to stop the abuse, either himself directly or through his representatives (e.g., in the child welfare system), and that therefore he will share in paying the price for the results of the abuse, whether he wants to or not.  He would then say that he elected officials to take care of all of these problems and that they failed and not him.  The counterargument would be that he knew that they were not taking care of the problem but failed to elect someone else to do it.  In a sense he would be correct to say that he did his part, but people who choose (or are “driven to”) violence do not carefully assign their violence according to how the system is set up.  Inevitably, all of us (the total group of which the shooter is a part) pay some prices for some of our citizens being in situations that provoke deep and ongoing anger and hatred that in a few of those situations lead to violence.

The very size of our system contributes to our feeling that it is not our fault.  We assign every task to a specialist of some sort, including doing something about those who are in situations that might lead eventually to violence (soup kitchens, rescue homes, skid row missions, child protective services, adult protective service, etc.).  We feel that we have done our part, and we want to believe that we are both insulated from such problems and can justifiably wash our hands of responsibility, and then when we do have to pay some price, we complain that we don’t deserve it.  (It is somewhat curious that the President and other officials visited Tucson to help people there in their grief, but none of these persons visits when children are killed in gang shooting crossfire, which occurs every day in Los Angeles for the same general and psychological reasons for violence that are described here.)

It is the nature of human groups that severe inequities always lead to disruption.  These inequities are not simply in terms of income or status but more often involve the feeling that one has not been fairly treated or that one has not had the opportunities that everyone is “supposed” to have.  

We base our belief in freedom and opportunity in this country in the responsibility of every person to take care of himself—to work hard, succeed, and take for himself all of the benefits of his labor.  For this reason, even though we may be sympathetic, we don’t feel any responsibility for others’ bad situations.  We have given them opportunity (we think), and they haven’t succeeded, which is not our fault, so they shouldn’t take out their anger on us.

The other significant aspect of the current arguments about blame and responsibility have to do with the climate of society.  Some believe that the current amount of accusatory and defamatory political speech, including references to violence (“they should be horsewhipped,” “they deserve to die for killing babies,” etc.) makes it more likely that violence will occur.  Those who wish to engage in such speech or who are guarding their right to say anything they want to say do not believe this and defend themselves by pointing out that such speech has been common in this country and was engaged in by the Founding Fathers themselves.

It is fair to say that no one statement causes another person to kill, but it is overly simple to claim that such speech has no influence, particularly on those who are so unhappy that they are already thinking of violence.  For those who have mental problems and for those who do not, any statements urging violence or permitting violence add to the “reasons” in the individual’s mind that he or she is permitted to or “should,” in his or her frame of reference, engage in violence.  For example, certain statements by abortion foes about death to abortion providers clearly made it seem more OK for a man in Kansas to kill a doctor who performed abortions a year or so ago.  In a similar way, close participation in a group of people, who are all for or against some activity and who engage in some hyperbole of speech when they meet together or communicate, without question makes it just a little more acceptable in the minds of some participants to engage in the exaggerated activities talked about loosely in the group.  Defenders of free speech who “believe in” the “radical individuality” view of responsibility may still say that no one “should” be influenced, but we are human beings, and we are influenced.  This does not automatically mean that those whose speech influences someone should share in the responsibility for that person’s actions, but it means that those who speak cannot say that they had nothing to do with the person’s actions.

As one more example of how we influence each other whether we intend to or not, consider how human beings accommodate to their current situations.  Every circumstance, even a concentration camp, brings forth the brain’s ability to accommodate, so that over time the new circumstance seems more and more “normal.”  (This accounts partly for many abused children wanting to go back home rather than be placed and abused wives failing to leave abusive situations.)  It becomes difficult to remember how things were.  In plainer terms, people “get used to” whatever they consistently encounter, even if they maintain memory of and valuing of a previous situation.  For instance, even if most of us still believe and feel that murder is wrong and using a gun to harm someone is wrong (except in self defense), there is no doubt that we are more “used to” seeing gun violence than we were fifty years ago, because we have viewed thousands of incidents of gun violence in the media (movies, video games, TV).  The result is that gun violence seems more expectable and more “normal” when it occurs.  This accommodation happens to us unconsciously, so we are all affected. 

Persons vary, of course, in the degree to which they can hang onto their previous values while experiencing this sort of accommodation shift.  Some are aware of its incongruence with what they believe about violence, if they believe that gun violence should never occur except in war or self-defense.  The vast majority, however, unconsciously shift their values in response to the exposure, in the direction of being less shocked and a little more accepting of gun violence, particularly because of the large number of portrayals in the media of guns being used “justifiably” by those who have been wronged and are seeking revenge.  Many, also, have come to be fond of gun violence, because in watching it in the media, they work off a little bit of their own anger about their own situations in life, and a few fantasize just a little (or more) about taking a gun to work or to the mall and showing people that they matter, too.

We are all responsible for these subtle changes in attitude about violence and guns, because, together, we allow more and more exposure to the things that we deplore (including public sex as well as violence).  Showing extreme behavior in a movie or play can be effective in making a point, but only if it’s done only a few times.  Now violence and sex are used in media not to make a point but simply to attract viewers.  We tell ourselves that there’s no harm in this, since we ourselves are just titillated and will never shoot anyone or engage in promiscuous sex, but this society-wide exposure shifts the attitudes of most people in the direction that makes such behavior a little more acceptable.  This will inevitably lead to a few more people who are on the edge (for mental illness reasons or just unfortunate life experience) going over the edge and engaging in violence (a few more than would have done so without the exposure), because of the implicit message that what is in some sense acceptable to everyone (because it is allowed to be portrayed publicly) must be OK.

SUMMARY

It is the nature of human groups that severe inequities always lead to disruption.  These inequities may be in terms of income or status but more often involve the feeling that one has not been fairly treated or that one has not had the opportunities that everyone is “supposed” to have.

Mass killings are almost always carried out by people who feel that they have been abused or unfairly treated in life by others.  They may or may not have diagnosable mental problems.

Most people (including you and me) could engage in violence in response to a certain intolerable amount of harm or unfair treatment from others.  Some “abusive” speech is harmful enough to add to someone’s sense of being abused. 

Any statements urging violence or condoning violence add to the “reasons” in an individual’s mind that he or she can or even “should,” in his or her frame of reference, engage in violence in response to unfair harm. 

If we choose to preserve the right to express ourselves without limit and the right to harm others in other ways than speech (limited only by existing laws), then we will experience periodically outbursts of mass killing, when the hurt that a few people experience becomes too much for them to handle, and they resort to violently hurting back in response, particularly because we believe that they should take care of this hurt themselves, and we feel no obligation to help them with these feelings. 

The belief, that no matter what we do to others, they should not engage in violence toward us, protects our desire for freedom, relieves our legal system of an impossible task, and simply ignores the non-violent damage that we do to others.  It simplifies our lives, but reality then requires us to pay the price for ignoring how we affect others.  Inevitably, all of us pay some prices for some of our citizens being in situations that provoke deep and ongoing anger and hatred that in a few cases lead to violence.

People accommodate unconsciously to what they are repeatedly exposed to, and this can make violence seem more acceptable to some.  We are all responsible for the greater “normality” of violence and guns over time in our society, because, together, we allow more and more exposure to the things that we deplore.

Acknowledging the ways in which we do influence each other, sometimes harmfully, and the choices that we make that determine what is perceived as acceptable in society would be an important first step toward reducing the mass killing violence.

While this essay seeks to create insight about how we influence each other for good or ill, partly by debunking the myth of radical individuality, we should recognize that assuming radical individuality (and therefore radical responsibility for one’s life) leads to considerable motivation to act in one’s best interest (knowing that no one else will and that we will be held responsible by the group for all that we do).  It is not my intent to promote excuse-making and rationalization by individuals in order to escape responsibility or avoid efforts to support themselves, to contribute to their groups, and to make their own lives good ones.  We all bear primary responsibility for ourselves and our lives.  The point here is simply to recognize that we do influence others and our groups and to maximize the good effects of our influences.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

This essay has focused on increasing acceptance of the dictum that we all influence each other (that “everything is connected”) and that in that sense we have all had a part, however tiny, in the meanderings and convulsions of our society and its members.  For us as individuals, this suggests the value of being aware of how we influence others and the total group, so that we can then decide if we wish to change our influencing behaviors.  Outcomes will be worse for a society in proportion to the number of its citizens who focus only on what they can get and experience that day themselves, while ignoring their connectedness with others and what they could do to benefit others and society (which will ultimately benefit themselves as well).

Since we are biologically built both to promote our individual interests and to protect and contribute to our various groups, we must find a satisfying balance between the two.  Being totally self-centered in our choices is destructive to our groups, but being totally group-centered in our choices creates internal conflicts for the individual that lead to debilitation.  We must individually assign levels of responsibility that we accept for various types of influences that we have.  The key to staying sane while doing this is to recognize that all of our actions are driven by what we consider to be in our best interest, so that actions that we take to benefit our groups are really aimed at our own benefit—determined by our built-in sense of what will be in our best interest—and are not therefore really sacrifices.  (Altruistic actions, even giving up one’s life for another, are determined by our own assessment about what will be best, and sometimes what we believe at that moment will be best includes our own demise!)  Another key (and blessed) guide in the responsibility game is that we have only so much time and energy.  There are limits to what we can do, and all we can do is to apportion our time and energy appropriately.  We must also recognize the larger limits of our influence.  Most of us as individuals will have only small influences in society (although those who devote their entire energies to a focused cause can sometimes have significant impact), but we have much larger influences on those we interact with daily.

Most of our time and energy will go toward supporting ourselves and those who are dependent on us and to nurturing the social connections that enrich our lives.  In the course of these daily activities, however, we have frequent choices of how to act and which activities to support with our money.  We can choose how we treat others, either in ways that contribute to their well-being or in ways that harm or take advantage of them.  We are not faced with a choice of benefiting either ourselves or others.  Treating others in ways that contribute to their well-being can be done in ways that also help us to accomplish our goals.  We can use our money to further environmental, healthcare, self-development, or moral interests, depending on what we view as important.

I will not champion any particular distribution of beliefs, time, energy, and money, but I do urge all of us to do this consciously.  Individuals bear some moral/ethical responsibility for ill in society if they have directly harmed others and if they have done nothing to alleviate or correct societal malfunctions that harm others.  There is no formula for how what to do, how much to do, or how much to give, and we will all make different choices of how to help others and how to shape society, but the critical thing is to be doing what we can.  We can all develop our sensitivities and attitudes so as to best express our values and what we believe in, and if we truly want what is best for others as well as ourselves, how we treat others may be the biggest contribution that most of us make.

Mass killings will occur, regardless of how much we try to avert them, and if we have done our best to treat others in respectful, accepting, and supportive ways, and if we have attended to what we can do to promote a healthy society and well-being for all, then we can only feel deeply the sadness of the events, grieve for the losses and the damage to the social fabric, support those who have been harmed directly, and consider whether there is anything else that we wish to do to minimize such tragedies.

blog\postings\ignoringourinfluence