The System vs. the Individual: Explaining the Violence in American
Society through the Lenses of the Happy Planet Index (HPI), System
Thinking, and the Concept of Human Nature and Evil according to
Noam Chomsky, W. Edwards Deming, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert
Einstein, Enrique Suarez and Dr. Gabor Mate
In Memory of all the Victims of Violence in America and the World
“I believe that to pursue the American Dream is not only futile but self-destructive because ultimately it destroys everything and everyone with it. By definition it must, because it nurtures everything except those things that are important: integrity, ethics, truth, our very heart and soul. Why? The reason is simple:
because Life/life is about giving, not getting.”
Hubert Selby, Jr., Requiem for a Dream (Preface 2000)
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent”
Mahatma Gandhi
By:
Enrique R. Suarez
(I wrote this article back in 2000 but the issues raised are still alive or worse today)
“Every human being has the right to peace, and the experience of peace is an achievable goal. When individuals value and understand peace they enjoy better lives. When nations value and promote peace, they truly prosper.”
In this essay, I will attempt to explain my views about the origin of violence in American society in light of the recent tragic events that have taken place in several cities in the U.S. and try to explain it by using Noam Chomsky’s historical perspective on “Violence and Youth” in America.
Furthermore, my essay includes using breakthroughs in statistical and management concepts developed in the 1950s such as “common causes vs. special causes of variation (variation meaning undesirable outcomes) and adapting and interpreting these concepts to the American social realm in plain language to seek convincing answers to the rampant and insane violence that is taking place in America right now that seems to have not end in sight (as of this writing there have been more than 1000 gun related deaths after the tragic December 14 Newtown massacre in Connecticut).
I will use pedagogical, philosophical, and spiritual metaphors based on personal experience and socio-political analysis, including the Happy Planet Index’ (HPI) Survey, and what other outstanding individuals mentioned in the title of my essay have said on these subjects as well.
To begin with, I would like to quote Noam Chomsky when he gave an interview back in 1995 on “Violence and Youth” (Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, summer 1995) which is very
instructive to what I am trying to show in this essay and to what is happening now in American cities:
QUESTION: While the media portray violence as if it's a new epidemic in this country, your work has shown that historically the United States has been based on a "culture of violence." Could you elaborate as to what you feel are the actual ideological and systemic elements that inform the history of violence in our society?
CHOMSKY: “The entire history of this country has been driven by violence. The whole power structure and economic system was based essentially on the extermination of the native populations and the bringing of slaves. The Industrial Revolution was based on cheap cotton, which wasn't kept cheap by market principles but by conquest. It was kept cheap by the use of land stolen from the indigenous populations and then by the cheap labor of those exploited in slavery. The subsequent conquest of the West was also very brutal. After reaching the end of the frontier, we just went on conquering more and more -- the Philippines, Hawaii, Latin America, and so on. In fact, there is a continuous strain of violence in U.S. military history from "Indian fighting" right up through the war in Vietnam. The guys who were involved in "Indian fighting" are the guys who went to the Philippines, where they carried out a massive slaughter; and the same people who had just been tried for war crimes in the Philippines went on to Haiti, where they carried out another slaughter. This goes on right up through Vietnam. If you look at the popular literature on Vietnam, it's full of "We're chasing Indians." But that's only one strain of the institutionalized brutality in our history.
Internally, American society has also been very violent. Take the labor history. U.S. workers were very late in getting the kind of rights that were achieved in other industrial societies. It wasn't until the 1930s that U.S. workers got the minimal rights that were more or less standard in Europe decades earlier. But that period of development in the United States was also much more violent than Europe's. If I remember the numbers correctly, about seven hundred American workers were killed by security forces in the early part of this century. And even into the late 1930s, workers were still getting killed by the police and by the security forces during strikes. Nothing like that was happening in Europe; even the right-wing British press was appalled by the brutal treatment of American strikers.
There have been other sources of violence as well; for example, the ways that a large part of the population is systematically marginalized in this society. We're again different from other industrial societies in that we don't have much of a social contract. So if you compare us even with, say, Canada, Europe, or Japan, there is a kind of a social contract that was achieved in these industrial societies concerning public welfare, such as health care. European societies grew out of a social framework that included feudal structures, church structures, and all sorts of other things.
And the business classes in Europe, as they came along, made various accommodations with these existing structures, resulting in a more complex society than we have here in the United States, where the business class just took over. It was kind of like we started afresh, creating a new society, and the only organized force was a very highly class-conscious business community. Because the United States is essentially a business-run society, much more so than others, we're the only industrial nation that doesn't have some sort of guaranteed health insurance. In many respects we're just off the spectrum, which is pretty striking considering we're also the richest society by far. Despite being the richest society we have twice the poverty rate of any other industrial nation, and much higher rates of incarceration. In fact, we're the highest in the world and both will continue to worsen in light of the Gingrich "Contract with America" and the new crime bill. Out of these socio historical and economic structures, which embrace conquest and an indifference to public welfare, comes a streak of violence”.
Having quoted Noam Chomsky above, I would like to begin my specific analysis of recent violence in American cities as described in the title of this essay, by showing that looking through the lenses of common versus special causes of variation (variation meaning undesirable outcomes) we can better decipher the root causes of American violence and answer the key seminal question: Is the violence in America due to the individual or due to the system?
For this purpose I would like to introduce Walter Shewhart. In the 1920's Walter Shewhart developed the idea of the control chart (SPC) to help decide when the output (good or bad) of a process was part of "a stable system of chance causes", or whether there was an "assignable cause" (the good or bad outcome was not produced by the system itself but by an individual or factor not fully adapted to the system). Shewhart viewed a stable system as one whose variation (undesirable outcomes) arose as the result of many small perturbations (which we call common cause variation); for a stable process the observations could be described by a probability distribution - the system is said to be "in a state of statistical control", or simply, in control (the outcome of the system, good or bad, can be predicted). An unusually large deviation suggested that the system had been disturbed and hence there was an assignable cause (the undesirable outcome can be detected or isolated) for the disturbance - the system is out of control, or unstable (the output of the system, good or bad can be detected but cannot
be predicted).
Then, Dr. W. Edwards Deming and statistician and a management consultant responsible for the industrial transformation of Japan in the 1950s substituted the term special cause for assignable cause to identify the root cause of problems. Deming said that uncovering special causes (unpredictable outcomes) was the responsibility of the local work force (those who had day-to-day contact with the process). Common causes (predictable outcomes) were part of the system. The system is the responsibility of management. If the common cause variation (problems or defects within the system) is too large, it is the responsibility of management to change the system.
Deming stated that 85% of the problems with processes were system problems; later he increased this to over 94%, based on his own experience. Moreover, Deming argued that the two most common mistakes made by government, industry and education is to assign the responsibility (blame) for problems (undesirable outcomes) to the individual (special cause) as opposed to the system (top managers who control the system) which according to Deming generates more than 90% of the problems and that confusing common causes for special causes makes the problem of identifying the root causes of problems even more difficult which leads to tampering with the system.
So I argue as Chomsky does, that the origins of American violence, including the recent school massacres in the U.S. are the result of systemic problems (common causes or predictable outcomes) starting with the origins of America as Chomsky vividly describes in the above interview. Put it another way, the work of Shewhart and Deming on system thinking as applied to organizations can also be extrapolated to explain the origin of violence in America, including the recent school massacres, which is due to the particular characteristics of the socio-economic and political system in America that is producing these undesirable outcomes and not an act of an isolated and pathological individual. In other words, a mentally-impaired person such as Adam Lanza is a by-product of the system.
To elaborate further, let’s apply now system thinking, as described by Shewhart and Deming, to identify the origins of recent American violence. We know with absolute certainty that the gun culture in the U.S. which is perpetuated by Hollywood, the media and violent video games (the entertainment system) is directly linked to the recurrence of these episodes. A large proportion of American adolescents are getting early and regular exposure to violent movies, a new survey reveals.
The survey suggests that almost 13 percent of the nation's estimated 22 million children between the ages of 10 and 14 are viewing extremely graphic depictions of violence in film, whether in theaters, on DVDs, or on television. "There's a lot of evidence to support the idea that when kids watch violent media, they become more aggressive," observed study coauthor Dr. James D. Sargent, a professor in the department of pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School in Lebanon, N.H. "And yet violent media has become easier and easier to access for children. So, for the movie industry, the message is that the 1960s ratings system needs to be updated and made more explicit and relevant to the way movies are being distributed and seen today."
The above facts coupled with the decrease in federal and state funding (the system at the macro level) for all types of social and mental health services in America are creating an atmosphere of paranoia in the American population in light of the recent school massacres that have made them more vulnerable and as result there has been an increase in arm sales in the population after the school massacres which is the opposite of what should happen in a well-run society.
Furthermore, statistics are overwhelming: the U.S. has more guns per capita than any country in the world. The number of people killed by firearms surpasses all terrorist attacks that Americans fear, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. There is something much more disturbed and harmful here (the system) than the impaired mind of Adam Lanza (the individual).
The NRA does intimidate politicians or bribes them with generous financial contributions which means that NRA and the politicians that support them are more interested in profits than saving human lives. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is just another tool for them to accomplish their ill motives.
Likewise, state and local governments must assume responsibility as well for contributing toward a violent and gun-loving society. Considerable moves toward militarizing the police have taken place in recent decades as a result of the exaggerated drug wars and hyped-up terrorism wars. In the 20 years leading up to 2007 (the latest figures), special weapons and tactics teams (SWAT) have increased 1,500 percent. Likewise, police brutality is a frequent reality — mostly but not exclusively in urban areas and at political, worker or popular protests and occupations. We’ve handed our police departments a huge array of violent instruments that are, to say the least, disproportionate to most situations.
Furthermore, statistics are overwhelming: the U.S. has more guns per capita than any country in the world. The number of people killed by firearms surpasses all terrorist attacks that Americans fear, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. There is something much more disturbed and harmful here (the system) than the impaired mind of Adam Lanza (the individual).
The NRA does intimidate politicians or bribes them with generous financial contributions which means that NRA and the politicians that support them are more interested in profits than saving human lives. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is just another tool for them to accomplish their ill motives. Likewise, state and local governments must assume responsibility as well for contributing toward a violent and gun-loving society.
Considerable moves toward militarizing the police have taken place in recent decades as a result of the exaggerated drug wars and hyped-up terrorism wars. In the 20 years leading up to 2007 (the latest figures), special weapons and tactics teams (SWAT) have increased 1,500 percent.
Likewise, police brutality is a frequent reality — mostly but not exclusively in urban areas and at political, worker or popular protests and occupations. We’ve handed our police departments a huge array of violent instruments that are, to say the least, disproportionate to most situations.
Likewise, a foreign commentator ironically stated that there should be a statue of Charlton Heston in each of the killings in his country for the late Ben Hur was the leader of the powerful lobby for gun possession. In addition, French newspaper Le Monde commented that Obama’s tears are not enough either for if Obama does not make swift political decisions now, America will have another eccentric (generated by the system) with serious mental disorders preparing a war arsenal to hunt people in the neighborhood. My advice to President Obama, therefore, is what Mahatma Gandhi had said many years ago: A “No” uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a “Yes” merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.” It is worthy to note as well that the regulations imposed in Australia dramatically reduced deaths from firearms, as it also happened with the security measures to drive cars and the number of accidents worldwide.
Refusing to act on that evidence is much more dangerous to the community than the pathology of an isolated, depressed person predispose to a destructive uncontrollable outburst
Consequently, in combination — weak gun laws and a compliant political system fearful of powerful lobbies; a national history of violence, militarism, and frequent aggressive wars against smaller nations; and the gradual militarization of police— these are factors that have significantly helped create the gun culture in the United States.
Likewise, Emlyn Addison said the following about gun violence in America: “I agree 100% with psychotropics as a contributing factor. In combination with poverty and absurd wealth disparity, a poor health system (let alone mental health), an underachieving educational/parental culture, a highly profitable and powerful gun industry, a hero-worshipping, attention-seeking, celebrity infatuated society, an irresponsible, for-profit media, a mythical, misrepresented, ethnocentric history, a zealous and puritanical closed-mindedness and distrust of science and statistics, and an over-funded, macho, militaristic mentality in a country that sacralizes a patently decontextualized constitution and that is saturated with violence and habituated by problem solving by force. Tell me this isn't a perfect recipe for maniacal mass murders”.
It’s time to change all of this, but it’s not on the immediate horizon. Enhanced gun control, however, has a chance over the next several years as more Americans call for expanded gun control. Today, 40% of gun owners have not even been subjected to a background check. It should be everyone. Every gun owner should also have a license from whatever authority issues them. At present, trade shows and private sellers don’t need registration or license information. This must change. And it would be good if there was one overall national law instead of different state laws.
Let me now introduced the Happy Planet Index’ (HPI) survey. Over the last 100 years, living standards in the West have improved enormously, but it appears that people have not become much happier. In 2006, the first ‘Happy Planet Index’ (HPI) measured happiness across 178 countries. The small south Pacific island of Vanuatu was the happiest nation. Germany ranked 81st, Japan 95th and the US 150th.
The index was based on consumption levels, life expectancy and reported happiness. Although Vanuatu was top, it only ranked 207th out of 233 economies when measured against Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, various surveys have indicated that while wealthy western nations use up vast quantities of the world’s scarce resources, many of their citizens are not much happier, or are indeed less happy, than those who belong to poorer countries that use far fewer resources.
What are the lessons for America? Take the Bhutan case, for instance, which places emphasis on ‘Gross National Happiness’ (GNH). While the political system there is far from desirable and although over 30 per cent of Bhutan’s people are in material poverty, GDP per capita is among the highest in South Asia and it has made tremendous strides in education and tackling malaria. The country recognizes a need to modernize and has been attempting to do according to its Buddhist values. It acknowledges the importance of economic growth, but also encourages the promotion of culture and heritage and the preservation and sustainable use of the environment. GNH comprises nine components of happiness: psychological well-being, ecology, health, education, culture, living standards, time use, community vitality and good governance, all of which can be quantifiably measured.
The 2009 version of the HPI placed Costa Rica at the top. Costa Rica also gained top spot in the WDH, which is based on respondent’s self-reported happiness on a scale of one to 10. Costa Ricans scored 8.6. Denmark followed at 8.3 and Togo and Tanzania were last at 2.6. What are the lessons for America about the Costa Rican case? Costa Rica dissolved its armed forces in 1949 and invested heavily in education. Increased schooling created a more stable society and boosted the economy. Rising education levels also nurtured impressive gender equality and improvements in health care, which means that life expectancy is now about the same as in the US. Education and health is a far better investment than military hardware for improving the quality of life and a general sense of happiness. Therefore, Industrialized countries that are highly unequal and lay great emphasis on military power, such as the US and UK, don’t always fare too well in happiness surveys. Contrast this with Denmark.
According to the World Values Survey in 2007, Denmark was the planet’s happiest country. It would be foolish to suggest that wealth does not positively impact well-being or happiness because certain surveys indicate it does. But the concentration of wealth in the hands of a relative few may help to explain why so many people are unhappy in the wealthier nations. Denmark is not just wealthy, but its people feel safe because emphasis and investment is placed on social equality and robust welfare policies. Indeed, Scandinavian countries always come out near the top of quality of life and well-being surveys, usually quite a bit ahead the UK and US, which have adopted more strident neo-liberal policies.
Nonetheless, the most important findings of the HPI survey is that countries reported to be happier tend to avoid undermining the ability of future generations to prosper and people in other countries to live fulfilling lives – in other words, countries that live within the limits imposed by the environment and ones that do not engage in neo-colonialism or imperialism. Perhaps this is why the US does not always do too well in these surveys. It also has to be stated that many less wealthy (and wealthy) countries do well in happiness surveys because cultural priority is placed on family and friends, on social capital rather than financial capital, on social equity rather than corporate power. When decisions are taken to invest heavily in education and health as well as in self-sustaining communities, local economies and the environment, happiness and well-being are boosted. And this is all very achievable, despite what politicians and the mainstream media would have us believe.
What about the response from religious leaders to the rampant violence in American society? CNN reporters interviewed a religious leader after the Connecticut massacre and ask him a provocative question: if God is good why has he allowed evil to come in and kill little children in Connecticut? This religious leader could not respond to this seminal question which shows one more time how lost religious leaders are about what God’s nature is and what a human being is all about. One of the best answers to this question was given, however, by Albert Einstein, when he was eight years old. Einstein was quoted as saying the following in a dialogue with his teacher:
The professor of a school challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? "
"Of course" answered the professor. The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"
The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"
The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."
"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness cannot. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."
Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man." After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back. The young man's name was again ALBERT EINSTEIN.
What is my message to American politicians, religious leaders and citizens regarding the brilliant Albert Einstein answer? My message is that peace is not absence of war but an inner experience of what is keeping us alive and that more important than freedom is peace which is manifested by the presence of God in our hearts, in every breath we take, for freedom and prosperity without that peace that resides inside of us is chaos.
Where can you find peace? We can find peace, clarity, contentment and even happiness within us by the mere fact that we are alive and that we all breathe the same air. Do we know and experience what is keeping us alive? No we don’t. Do we know the sanctity of life? No we don’t. If we do, we would even respect all forms of life and of course the lives of other human beings as well anywhere they are, let alone the environment and this beautiful planet. If we do, we would end all wars instantly around the world. If we do, we would not have in America a huge economic divide and democracy gap, that is, the 1% versus the 99%, the 1% establishing the agenda to the 99% using intimidation, propaganda and even violent means. If we do, we would not have witnessed the massacre of children in Newtown, Connecticut, or in any other place in America. Not in vain Mahatma Gandhi had stated when he was asked about his opinion of Western civilization by answering “it would be a good idea”.
What is my message to American parents, the government, the media, the film industry, the gun industry, religious leaders and public opinion regarding the raising of our children? My message is that the family is the basic bondage that ties all the members and as such, only if the family values are given due importance, the nation as a whole can flourish. It is the responsibility of both the parents (and all of us) to value the sentiments of each member of the family.
Upbringing of children is vital to bring a harmonious peaceful atmosphere and I agree that it is not an easy job especially if we have not found the foundation of peace within us. Likewise, the family atmosphere must be made amicable to bring out every members ideas, wishes, thoughts and feelings openly. It is the first place where the children learn to abide by the rules, limit their wishes and consider the rights and needs of others. Hence family values are very crucial in a healthy family atmosphere.
Last but not least, according to Dr. Gabor Mate ,the attachment relationship of child to parents needs to last at least as long as the child needs to be parented and according to him that is what is becoming more difficult in today’s world. Parents haven’t change according to Dr. Mate nor have they become less competent or less devoted. The fundamental nature of children has not also changed—they have not become less dependent or more resistant. What has changed argues Dr. Mate, is the culture (system) in which we are rearing our children. In other words, children’s attachments to parents are no longer getting the support required from our culture and society. Even parent-child relationships that at the beginning are powerful and fully nurturing can become undermined as our children move out into a world that no longer appreciates or reinforces the attachment bond says Dr. Mate. Likewise, children are increasingly forming attachments that compete with their parents, with the result that the proper context for parenting is less and less available to us. Not a lack of love or of parenting know how but the erosion of the attachment context is what makes our parenting ineffective according to Dr. Mate. The only thing I would add in Dr. Mate’s analysis is that what is also missing is a deeper inner-bonding connection with ourselves for we cannot give to others what we do not have or feel.
What are the consequences of failing to connect-bond with our inner feelings first and then with others? The consequences are that the ills of our society and its institutions are passed on to their citizens, and the sins of the parents are passed on to their children.
Enrique R. Suarez
Ed.M. Harvard University
International Educator, Professor and Consultant
deltamodel55@yahoo.com
Comments