by Lael Ewy
We can talk all we want about gun regulations or the right of “innocent” people to defend themselves. We can talk of “safety” and “freedom” and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. But one deep and undeniable belief runs through almost every aspect of American life: we believe that violence solves problems.
This basic notion is evident from two bums brawling on the street to the upper echelons of foreign policy “deciders.” That we believe this is evident in almost every popular scripted drama on TV and in almost every popular video game on the market. It’s the primary plot point in stories aimed at children and in action movies aimed at adults. We believe this sincerely and deeply. It’s why our cops carry guns, knives, pepper-spray, Tasers, and truncheons. It’s the reason we have home security systems and the reason we have street gangs. It’s how the US has dealt with the vast majority of its foreign policy entanglements over the years and how presidents “secure” their “place in history.”
Our confidence in this idea leads us to wonder why “they” hate us.
After all, we thought that was a problem we solved.
Here’s a clue: “they” hate us because we have perpetrated violence against them. For the better part of a century the guns being pointed at them, the bombs being dropped on them, and the planes bombing them have been made in the USA.
H. Rap Brown was absolutely correct when he said that “Violence is as American as cherry pie.” We reify this idea when CSI, Law & Order, The Profiler, or whatever ostensibly smart police procedural we consume ends in gunplay. We reinforce this idea when John Kerry gets excoriated for solving our problems with Iran peacefully instead of bombing the shit out of them.
We reinforce this idea when police violence is exonerated and when we make heroes out of gangsters. We reinforce this idea with the death penalty.
Westerns, those stories so dear to American mythology, are characterized by the figure of the “lone wolf” gunslinger who will save the town, that his propensity to violence is the only thing that can save the effete townsfolk from the savagery of the lawless cattle rustler and the wild, indigenous Other. It’s no accident that the rise of the US coincides with the ability to manufacture high quality firearms at low cost.
We manifest the belief that violence solves problems when we posit the Revolutionary War as the origin of our nation and not the Constitutional Convention.
As much as well-meaning lawmakers would like to believe that we can reduce mass murders through legislation or technical fixes to mental health care, as much as well-meaning progressives think we can reduce gun violence through the regulation of firearms, they’re fooling themselves. Our problem is cultural, not legal or technological.
Our problem is that we believe, against all evidence but at the core of our beings, that violence will solve our problems rather than compound them infinitely.
The Result of University Cost-Cutting Measures . . .
the Plausible Deniability Blog takes up where the PostModernVillage blog left off. While you'll see many of the same names here, PDB allows its writers and editors a space away from financial strum und drang that torpedoed the PMV blog.
Showing posts with label gun violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun violence. Show all posts
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Gun Violence from a Trauma-Informed Perspective
by Lael Ewy
In what ways does a
trauma-informed, harm-reduction approach make sense in challenging
the prevalence of gun violence?
Let's make the
assumption that the presence of a gun and the beliefs associated with
that gun are important to the gun owner. This is a pretty safe
assumption given the outsized emotions that even low-level
discussions of gun violence elicit. The trauma-informed perspective
would lead us to see these beliefs and emotions as linked to a sense
of safety for the gun owner, that while guns themselves are
dangerous, the safety they provide outweighs the danger.
By this perspective,
any statistical, regulatory, or traditionally argumentative
approaches to addressing gun violence are destined to fail.
Only by looking
behind the gun to whatever need is being met by the presence of the
gun can we begin to address what's really going on. We need to take
the emphasis off the sacred object itself and onto the felt sense it
satisfies or worldview it completes.
Let's go back to the
sense of safety. If, as is often noted by gun-rights activists, a gun
makes them feel “safer,” and they feel they need that gun
wherever they go, the obvious conclusion is that they feel unsafe
most of the time, indeed, that the world itself is not merely unsafe
at this time but fundamentally an unsafe place. For these
people, for some reason or another, threats loom around every corner,
and the most likely target for those threats is the individual.
If so, then banning
guns will be just about as effective as banning drugs has been:
people will get them anyway. The drugs are meeting a need that the
person feels she cannot meet any other way, and so also with the gun.
Whatever happened in
the lives of gun activists, from assault to combat, from the presence
of Mexicans to the election of a black president, makes them feel
that an existential threat is ever-present, and that so they must be
ever vigilant.
How much of this
rises to the level of actual trauma or whether it's simply due to the
overactive imaginations of otherwise high-strung people is
immaterial; again, you can't argue someone out of a feeling of
existential threat. But we can begin to help people address why they
feel so constantly scared.
Unfortunately, it
will require us recognizing and listening, without judgment, to
perspectives that are often very difficult to hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)