Allow me one disclaimer, i.e. my formal graduate studies and research were American based. This puts me at a disadvantage in so far as bringing the thinking of Caribbeanpsychologists and sociologists to bear on the subject. I would be happy for other academic contributions from the Caribbeanregion to be brought into the discussion. Two of the many theories as to the cause of violence that I wish to discuss speak to “Shame” by James Gilligan (1996), and the “culture of honour” by Richard E. Nisbett (1993).
SHAME: James Gilligan (2009), who served as a Harvard professor for over 30 years argues that, “the basic psychological motive, or cause, of violent behavior is the wish to ward off or eliminate the feeling of shame and humiliation a feeling that is painful and can even be intolerable and overwhelming and replace it with its opposite, the feeling of pride.” Gilligan further maintains that “Shame deadens the feelings of being human, and leads to rage. The sources of love for the self are love from others, and one’s own love for oneself. Children who fail to receive sufficient love from others, fail to build up reserves of self-love, and the capacity for self-love, which enable them to survive the inevitable rejections and humiliations which even the most fortunate of people cannot avoid. Without feelings of love, the self feels numb, empty, and dead. To be overwhelmed by shame and humiliation causes the destruction of self-esteem. Without a certain amount of self-esteem, the self collapses and the soul dies.”Gilligan, James (2009), “Shame, Guilt and Violence.” Visit http://internationalpsychoanalysis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/shamegilligan.pdf
While we have had a few extremely gruesome, violent and horrific crimes in our recent past inAnguilla, such acts are rare. In my view the degree of shame experienced by many of us at the hands of our parents, does not come close to cause the death of self to which Gilligan speaks. I would not dare claim that shame suffered by children or adults at the hands of parents has not had negative effects on their lives. My belief is that discipline must be administered in love. Punishment must be a means to an end and not an end in itself. Punishing a child is counterproductive if the child does not understand why he/she is being punished, and helped to see the intent of the heart of the punisher. If I am mean, wicked, spiteful, uncaring in punishing a child, then that child will develop resentment, anger, rage and hatred towards me and anyone else who dares to hurt him/her. On the rare occasions when my parents had to punish me, I was made to understand why I was getting my butt whipped with a tamarind whip or the nearest frying pan. In the end my parents showed that they cared and loved us as children with an undying love, but they would not spare the rod and spoil the child. Was it shameful? Perhaps not as much, since the whipping was often done in the sanctuary of our home. I can say that my shaming was tempered with love and compassion which helped to “rescue and restore my individual self-esteem and sense of self” (Gilligan, 2009). The antidote, I maintain, is love – so give it, share it, think it, speak it and live it so that our children may be rescued.
CULTURE OF HONOUR: Richard E. Nisbett (1993) in his article “Violence and U.S. Regional Culture” posits the theory of the “Culture of Honour” as the cause of violence. Nisbett (1993) claims that the “South is heir to a culture, deriving ultimately from economic determinants, in which violence is a natural and integral part.” He further explains that, unlike the Northern States,” the South was settled initially by swashbuckling Cavaliers of noble and landed gentry status, who took their values not from the tilling of the soil and the requirements of civic responsibility but from the knightly, medieval standards of manly honor and virtue.” Nisbett (1993) cites the following about the socialization of Andrew Jackson, the firstU.S. president:Jackson was “raised in a herding region (the hills ofTennessee), was very much in this culture-of-honor tradition. In advice to the youngJackson, his mother made it clear how he was to deal with insults: “Never tell a lie, nor take what is not yours, nor sue anybody for slander or assault and battery. Always settle them cases yourself.” Nisbett (1993) added that “Jackson, a true representative of his culture, was involved in more than 100 violent quarrels in his lifetime, including one in which he killed a political opponent.” Nisbett, Richard E. (1993).”Violence andU.S. Regional Culture” in the April 1993 American Psychologist. Visit http://www.ouruf.org/d/grad/Violence%20and%20US%20Regional%20Culture.pdf
The culture of honour speaks to three main principles: 1) Self-protection, 2) Proper response to insult, and 3) The role of violence in the socialization of children (referring to spanking). Richard Florida (2011), Senior Editor at The Atlantic, in his blogsummarizes Nisbett’s (1993) notion of the “culture of honour” by stating that “residents place an extraordinary value on personal reputation, family, and property. Threats to these things provoke aggressive reactions, leading to higher rates of murder and domestic violence.”Florida, Richard (2011). “The psychogeography of gun violence.” Visit http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-psychogeography-of-gun-violence/69353/
HasAnguillareached to a state of experiencing “higher rates of murder and domestic violence”? It feels like crime and violence over the past 5 years far exceed that of the past 500 years inAnguilla. This discussion is therefore, relevant because it could very well be that we are experiencing inAnguillawhat could be the beginnings of what could evolve into a preponderance of violent crimes. My efforts in writing this final article are therefore geared towards increasing awareness of this potential avalanche of violent crimes; and more importantly, to highlight two theoretical frameworks through which such actions by our youth can be understood with a view to develop and implement suitable practical responses. Let us therefore, examine some of the reasons posited by ourAnguillayouth as to why they do what they do, which I believe fall within the ambit of the “shame” and “culture of honour” theories.
Dis-respect – Ironically, as adults we claim that our youth have no respect. While our youth may appear disrespectful to adults, disrespect is not tolerated by youths from their peers. Gilligan (2009) speaks about the creation and use of the abbreviation “dis’ed” as an indication of the fact that “it is central to (one’s) moral and emotional vocabulary.” Many young people inAnguilla today, when questioned, speak of how they felt disrespected or dis’ed by someone who ‘made a pass at their girlfriend’; or ‘called them a punk’; or said or did something to suggest that ‘they were soft, or stupid, or dumb, or a coward.’ To ‘roll-up’ on someone or to verbally or physically threaten someone is to show disrespect. This sense of being dis’ed is even more acute when it is done in public or in the presence of one’s friends. There seems to be no distinction between a verbal insult or threat and pushing or slapping or even spitting on someone. Dis-respect is dis-respect and there is only one justifiable response acceptable by our youth who subscribe to a “culture of honour” principle – the fool must be taught a lesson, so that others do not make the same mistake. What is at stake here is one’s personal reputation.
Family Loyalty – My observations of family loyalty among youth in the Anguillian context is that it is fiercely guarded and includes but does not always mean a blood relative. Family seems to refer to someone who will never ‘rat’ me out even if it means taking a bullet for me or going to prison for me. Family loyalty means, I will never speak to the police even if it costs me my freedom. No wonder there are so many unresolved crimes inAnguilladespite the vigorous efforts of the RAPF. Family loyalty has given rise to the division ofAnguillainto communal zones where youth from one zone are not welcomed or allowed into another zone. Interestingly, many youth say they are not part of any gang; but they are prepared to die for their ‘family’. Perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, if I said I was a Romney it was taken for granted that I was from Blowing Point; Webster – from Island Harbour; Richardson – from The Road; Brooks – from The Valley; etc. Today, every family name can be found domiciled in every Anguillian community. It is therefore inevitable that the current communal zoning by our youth will encompass blood relatives from all over the island. It is no surprise then that turf wars at the high school and at carnival time reflect cousins fighting each other and causing serious bodily harm. As such then, family can be a blood relative or a friend who offers one a sense of being and security. Anyone who threatens my family therefore threatens my sense of being and my sense of security. Such can also be viewed as the ultimate form of disrespect. How often do we see youth drawn into fights because someone dis’ed a younger brother, sister, cousin or friend? To not seek revenge when a family member is attacked, threatened or dis-respected is to admit that one is a nobody. This fundamental belief has mushroomed into satellite notions such as: “you touch him, you touch me”; “if you are an enemy of my ‘family’ you are my enemy – even if we are blood relatives”. The bonds of friendship-family far exceed those of blood-family. Hence, the notion, “I don’t have to know you for you to be my enemy. You just have to be related to or associated with my enemy and you are my enemy.” This belief nurtures, what I call, a sick philosophy that “If I can’t catch kwaku I catch him shirt”. An understanding of this form of family loyalty is extremely critical because it threatens the very fabric of our Anguillian society, heritage and culture; which has the blood-family as an integral element of what it means to be Anguillian. It also takes the spirit of the Anguillian community and that of jollification to new levels of divisiveness. It follows, therefore, that any appeal to family as a means of curbing the violence will be vigorously rejected by our youth if we fail to sit with them and ascertain who their family is. I had one youth say to me “family is a *bleep*!” (you can imagine what *bleep* means) referring to their parents, uncles, siblings and cousins.
Before closing, allow me to interject one final cause of the increasing violence inAnguillatoday, which was shared with me by a contemporary Anguillian. This gentleman said that the reason why we have so much more violence inAnguillatoday is because we abolished the common entrance exam. Hear him out. He explained that the common entrance exam sifted out the non-academic students from going to The Valley and mixing with other non-academic students from other communities. As such these non-academic students who were prone to delinquent and criminal behaviour keptit in their respective communities. In other words, if someone from The Road was both ignorant and “ignorant”, he/she kept his/her ignorance in The Road. Similarly, those from The Valley, kept their ignorance in The Valley, and so on. These two ignorant people would scarcely meet to display their joint ignorance except at boat race. Now that we have abolished common entrance exam, “Tut, Mun, Sam and Bagghi” meet in The Valley at the High School, where we have created an environment that is volatile and a breeding ground for extraordinary ignorance and inter-communal violence – an unnecessary distraction for students who desire to learn. Think what you want, but this local unqualified sociologist makes a lot of sense to me.
No matter how our youth re-define family, I will forever maintain that as parents and grandparents we must begin or continue to bring our children and grandchildren together in celebration of family events so that we can engender a sense of familial ownership. Hopefully, out of respect for granny or mummie, one youth may be able to convince their ‘family’ not to exact revenge on their blood-family. Maybe you have other theories that help explain what is happening among our youth. Can we discuss them? Thanks to the writer in last week’s paper for your comments about my articles, and to all for reading and continuing the conversation.
– Contributed
(Published without editing by The Anguillian newspaper.)
