I Couldn't Care Less: One in a Million
Created | Updated Jul 21, 2013
One in a Million
When I submitted last week's column DG observed that it seemed to be responding to the ‘write right' column of his own from the week before. Well it wasn't, I hadn't even read his column from the week before. It is my secret shame that I very rarely read anything anyone else has written in the Post1 since I just about manage to find time to compose my copy to a meagre standard, write it and send it to the editorial team for careful scrutiny by a team of lawyers. Naturally, I read Dmitri's excellent article on writing plausible characters with mental health problems. I noticed a phrase which chimed with what I wanted to write this week. Everybody is different.
The other week I followed a link to a video staring Keira Knightly which was about domestic violence. I didn't watch the video at the time (nor have I yet, to be honest) but I did read some of the comments. One of the more sensitive posters noted that some abusers have violent or abusive histories of their own and that the issues that cause their behaviour need response as well as the violence itself. Another less sensitive poster basically suggested that the perpetrators needed a good kicking, that they would never do it again, and that it was the only thing the understood. I do understand the protective instinct behind this suggestion, but I'm pretty sure that violent people do understand things other than violence, and I'm not at all convinced that beating them up would prevent them from being violent again.
Another sweeping generalisation I hear a lot where I work is the notion that we should bring back national service. National service, and please forgive me if I am patronising here, is the system whereby you are obliged, usually at a specified age, to complete a period of service in one or other of the armed forces. I frequently hear the argument that it should be reintroduced, that it would sort out ‘young people', especially ‘the young people of today' (a much shadier sort than the young people we used to have) ‘teach them discipline' ‘build character' blah blah blah. Really? Well, firstly, I very much doubt that it would have exactly the same effect on every single human being in the country, and secondly, some of them don't even need it. Also, some of them have other things they could more usefully be doing to a better standard than they would do anything in the army. I tentatively submit that I, with my poor physical coordination and intrinsic cowardice, would be of little use to the army. I further contend that I have developed sufficiently as an adult that I can get by without the skills and strengths the army may wish to build into me. I would additional offer the argument that I am a carer and that I have responsibilities at home making me join the army would suit neither me nor the army. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying the armed forces don't offer a range of fine careers – my cousin married a soldier who is an excellent chap and now a fireman, but they aren't the right choice for absolutely everybody.
The point about these two examples, and any other ‘one size fits all' solutions is that they show no interest in understanding individuals. Here is a problem, here is the way everybody in the world responds to a single common stimulus, here is the solution. Human beings can't be relied upon to process the same foods with success, respond in the same way to medical treatment or grasp physical or mental training with the same degree of success. Why on earth should we assume they will be affected in the same way by anything at all? I suspect that some, at least, of the people who assume a thing would work on everyone assume it would work on them and assume that everyone is like them. The problem with accepting that everyone is at least partially unlike you is accepting that everyone is a bit more difficult to understand than it is comfortable to deal with. The notion that we can understand people is fairly fundamental to social interaction, so the need to perpetuate a sense that you understand people is understandable, if not at all helpful. The truth, I think, is that he first step towards knowledge is understanding the full extent of your ignorance.
Articles by benjaminpmoore Archive
