What's Going On
"There is, however, an important difference between individual and social mental illness, which suggests a differentiation between two concepts ..."
-- Erich Fromm; The Sane Society.
The first documented writing about seeing the forest for the trees is found in John Haywood's writings, I believe from the 16th century. It's been a long time since I sat in a university classroom, but I do remember that in discussions of the differences between the concepts of psychology and sociology. One's focus is the individual tree, and the other the forest. Fromm's classic 1955 book intertwined the two in a manner that remains valid.
Towards the end of my career, the word "dysfunction" became a polite word for "pathology," meaning the cause of sickness. Let's look at some of the pathogens that, if an individual or individuals in a family system suffer from, allow us to view that family system as dysfunctional. Substance abuse, mental illness, other serious illnesses, personality disorders, a death in the family, the loss of a job, poverty, and domestic violence. Some cause temporary disruptions and others are entrenched. Others, such as mental illness or, say, cancer, can be treated, allowing the family system to regain balance.
The important factor, for this discussion, is that a single individual (psychology) can cause dysfunction within the family (sociology). Now, let's apply this same thinking to a neighborhood, a community, and a country. There is a tipping point where the number of dysfunctional individuals and families allows us to define that neighborhood, community, and/or nationas dysfunctional (sociology).
In a sick society, as in sick individuals, there is often a twisted interpretation of both social norms and formal laws. Let's consider an example. Does anyone really believe that Amendment 2 is intended to protect the rights of Payton Gendron and Salvador Ramos? To provide them with the weapons of mass murder? If a family allows a sick member to access such a weapon, and does nothing to stop him, does that family not have some responsibility when he goes on a rampage? Would anyone take them seriously if they spoke of his Amendment 2 rights? And would it not be obscene if the responsible family members offered their "thoughts and prayers" for the victims?
There is a great deal of focus on the police response at the school. That is important for a number of reasons. I'm not going to comment directly on their response, as it is such an emotional issue, and I respect everyone's right to react as they see fit. But I will say this: there are distinctions between various groups within police forces, with SWAT teams being far more capable of responding to a horror like this, than the average officer. That same difference demands society's attention when people say there should be an armed cop in every school. Or arm teachers. Hostile situations aren't like a shooting range. They require sharp-shooters. Hostage situations require trained negotiators.
I note that many of the police chiefs across the country support laws to restrict the ability of Gendron or Ramos to easily access the weapons of mass murder. That is an area where I, as a member of the Democratic Party, can identify some common ground as we approach the November elections. More, there are police chiefs who talk about how cuts in mental health services such as case management results in their forces having to deal with issues they are not trained to deal with. And the unfortunate changes in PINS services.
The social pathologies that combine to create the conditions we are confronted with will not be resolved by way of a single change in law, although those changes are indeed an essential element in making progress. To change laws, we need to change who gets elected to represent us, rather than representing the NRA. And to do that requires the best efforts of each of us.
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
