h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

marking

Perhaps it's a matter, indeed, of wanting to get one's piece of the pie but not being sure how to get it. I'm as broke as they come, but that doesn't mean I have to be rude. I apologize when I bump into someone, and frankly am at a loss when others don't.

And in my experience in California, it isn't the underprivileged who are making complete a**es out of themselves, it's the folks in the BMWs and Mercedes, with manicured fake nails, fake tans, Armani suits, etc. They're the ones who are rude and pushy. Perhaps because they're all deathly afraid of losing their place in the social pecking order?

Is it an individual or a social problem? That's a tough one. I've seen more general rudeness, true. But where does it start? In the home, with parents who don't require manners? At school, where the teachers are teaching to too many kids to monitor their behavior? Is this a return to the me generation, or something else?

Perhaps, in some ways, it's because of the disconnection people feel from one another. Computers, cell phones, PDAs, iPods...so many things that can isolate us from others while fostering a false sense of belonging?

>>Its been said before - but bears repeating - we now have a huge swathe of the population - not bound by class or age - who know exactly what their rights are - but who fail to acknowledge that there are responsibilities attached.

Which is also anomie. If you don't feel that society is meeting its responsibilities towards you - then why reciprocate?

Montana's and Psychocandy's examples of the intolerebale behaviour of the priveleged are also valid. But surely you can't deny that there is a general perception that people as a whole are behaving less well - nor that there is lawlessness and despair in inner cities?

I still think there are some strong political/ cultural assumptions that need to be shaken off here. It is 'The American Way' that we are each responsible for our own destiny. America is an individualist as opposed to a collectivist society. The cult of the individual has also gained ground in Britain - especially since the Thatcherite Revolution. As the evil witch herself said, 'There's no such thing as society.' (meaning - only a collection of individuals). The greatest legacy is that no party dare raise taxes - even though we know they could yield enormous benefits for the common good: 'To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.' The individualist mindset is now so engrained that we are looking to changes in individual behaviour as the means to fix society. We've forgotten that it's society that needs to be fixed in order to allow people to achieve their potential.

We're also ignoring the fact that people make choices which are right for them. The kids hanging around our shopping malls intimidating passers by are simply carving out their own space within a society which no longer offers them attractive paths for development or roles to grow into. Incurr a massive debt in order to qualify for a soul-destroying job with International Exploiters plc? I don't think so!

Another good example of this was in the rioting that swept accross Britain in the 1980's. The riots in Brixton were seen as an outbreak of lawlessness - albeit due to police and economic pressures. The poet, Linton Kwesi Johnson, called it 'Di Great Insuhrekshan' - he argues that it was a conscious, valid uprising.

Anyway - rant over. I'm just trying to free you from some insidious right-wing perceptions.

Dare I mention Antonio Gramsci again? 'Cultural Hegemony' (Google it) (Actually - here's the first hit - which explains it very well: http://www.unc.edu/courses/2000fall/jomc245-001/cultural_hegemony.html)

Personally the last time I noticed someone being particularly rude...erm maybe a week ago some silly girl spilt sugar all over my croissant and didn't say sorry, just gave me a funny look. Not exactly the greatest offence and it was quite a while ago.

I don't remember if Dürkheim said anything about spillt sugar

Let's say for a moment that bad behaviour and crime is all the fault of the individual, and nothing to do with factors in society causing (or failing to prevent) such behviour. Where do we go from there? If it's really nothing to do with society, tougher law enforcement won't be effective as a solution - since that is a change in the framework of society and not the individual.

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that 'there's no such thing as society, only the individual' with the idea that the courts and police and politicians should be tough on crime to create a...'society' (forgive the word!) where crime is less prevalent. If it really is 'only the individual', and we have individuals who are inherently bad eggs, then no legal solution will be worth a straw. You may as well throw your hands in the air and give up.

Perhaps if Mrs T really believed that soundbite, the logical conclusion would not be 'tough on crime', but 'bleeding heart liberal' appeals for offenders to be nicer people and reform their hearts! Was Maggie a secret Guardian reader?

What I see happening to some extent when people say 'we must do something about e.g. hooded yobs is that the people speaking see themselves as a society with the yobs as individuals outside it. I think there is a danger in that. We need to accept that both are groups who are part of a larger society.

Quite how we achieve a code of behaviour accepted & enacted by all, I've no idea.

>If you don't feel that society is meeting its responsibilities towards you - then why reciprocate?<

Good question, and subject to vastly different personal experiences! I sometimes find myself wondering why, when I've worked hard all my life and been generous with others, it never comes back around to me, but sometimes that's just the "woe is me" syndrome, and I snap myself out of it. Truthfully, though, I do know from personal experience that the lower you sink, the harder it is to get back out of it. And sometimes it's hard to even want to.

>Montana's and Psychocandy's examples of the intolerebale behaviour of the priveleged are also valid. But surely you can't deny that there is a general perception that people as a whole are behaving less well - nor that there is lawlessness and despair in inner cities?<

Absolutely! I lived in the inner city from my 15th birthday until just prior to my 30th. There's a whole lot of lawlessness and despair. From personal experience here in Chicago, when the community as a whole bands together to rid their neighborhood(s) of lawlessness and despair, it works! But a team effort is impossible without individuals to make up that team.

>I still think there are some strong political/ cultural assumptions that need to be shaken off here. It is 'The American Way' that we are each responsible for our own destiny. America is an individualist as opposed to a collectivist society. The cult of the individual has also gained ground in Britain - especially since the Thatcherite Revolution.<

I was very young when Thatcher was in office and honestly, my parents are xenophobic enough I saw little international news at the time. I don't remember much about it. I do know that "the American Way" is very much reliant on each individual's responsibility for his/her own destiny. I don't think that everyone who is wealthy is so because of hard, honest work. I don't think that everyone who is poor is so because of laziness or stupidity. It's not even always a matter of opportunities- I know plenty of people, myself included, who've earned college degrees, even advanced ones, and who still can barely make ends meet.

I'd like to see more of a collectivist attitude in my own society- and not just because I'm less well off financially than some. The idea that one needs to get ahead no matter who they stomp on in the process has a lot to do with the general rudeness and nastiness we see in society, IMO.

I think psychocandy has a good point. The mercantilist view of getting ahead in society has, once again, reared its ugly head. "I got mine, and I'll do nasty things to keep it" mentality, really.

But can we truly equate bad behavior (croissant sugaring, cutting people off, etc) with criminal behavior? I don't think so.

Recently, Alejandro Avila was convicted and sentenced to death (lets not go *there*, shall we) for the murder of Samantha Runnion, a 5 year old girl whom he took from her neighborhood, raped, and strangled. During the sentencing, and indeed, during the trial, people kept testifying that he wasn't "truly" guilty because he'd been abused and molested as a child.

A dear friend of mine was also severely abused and molested as a child (you don't hear about the success stories in the press), and unlike Avila, she is a productive member of society...has a good job, kids, a house, etc. She came from the same neighborhood, with the same socio-economic background. as Avila.

I think that yes, we have to take into account that criminal behavior is more likely if one is economically disadvantaged, but we cannot blame those disadvantages for the individual actions taken by someone. There's only so much one can protest that their background or their economic status "made me do it".

I don't think many people would say that Avila should walk free because he was abused and arrested. But is it a factor that should be taken into account? I would probably say yes.

The thing is, while many people are abused without becoming abusers, there is little doubt that *one of* the effects of being abused can be to perpetuate the vicious circle.I think the main point is that neither prison terms or the death penalty are going to be an effective deterrent to people who are deeply psychologically messed up. There's the punishment aspect, but prevention and deterence are probably more important.

I don't think anyone ever claims someone is completely innocent because of the circumstances - when I hear this claim, it's usually from person A inaccurately summarising person B's argument.

As to "bad behaviour" and "criminal behaviour" - there are a number of petty crimes which are essentially "bad behaviour" and nothing else.

"Criminal behaviour" though - well, I'd argue it's such a broad category as to be useless. It could include
i) burglary
ii) minor assault
iii) armed robbery
iv) drug dealing
v) manslaughter
vi) mass murder
vii) peaceful protest which has fallen foul of the law (such as sitting on the wrong part of a bus or trespass on a military base)
viii) violent protest up to and including armed uprising against a government

All of these are very different cases. The psychology of the individual may be quite different in each case, and the motivations may be very different. I think they have to be treated differently too, because how the problem can be prevented differs in each case.