Hi folks. I'm not sure if I'm the only sociologist within the ToK Society listserv, but I'll weigh in with two issues: 1) distal vs. proximal causes; and 2) "explaining" vs. "excusing" behavior.
On the first issue, I'm following up on Lene's distinction between childhood and adult issues. A major limitation in our sociological research revolves around the problem of studying behavior in "real
time" and "over time." We rarely conduct the types of studies that would allow us to model human behavior over time and evaluate the "mechanisms" that produce different behavioral outcomes, whether at the individual or group level. We certainly do very little
experimental research or RCTs. That said, it's not uncommon in sociology to conduct waves of surveys or retrospective interviews to assess childhood experiences. What comes out of these studies are suggestive correlations or the identification of "risk factors"
associated with certain outcomes. Often the "outcomes" in question are "bad" things that happen or that people do (which speaks to the second issue that I'll get to in a few moments). Let me us a study of mine that I published in 2017 to illustrate.
I interviewed two "matched" cohorts of males mostly in their early 20s: 1) 38 inmates who had been convicted of murder, attempted murder or violent robberies from Ontario; and 2) 66 university students
of the same generation and raised in Ontario as well. The in-depth, retrospective interviews covered 4 time periods: 1) early childhood (< 6 years old); 2) transition to adolescence; 3) high school years; and 4) early adulthood. Long story short, the sample
of convicted "violent offenders" were far more likely to have experienced "toxic childhood environments," defined as having been exposed to a minimum of 3 of the following 6 conditions:
Table 2: Parental Behaviors by Age Five for Inmates and Students
Parental Behaviors
|
% Inmates
(n = 38)
|
% Students
(n = 66)
|
Daily drinking or alcoholism
|
57.9
|
45.5
|
Drug use or addiction
|
44.7
|
6.1
|
Criminal involvement
|
21.1
|
4.5
|
Family violence/spousal conflict
|
76.3
|
16.7
|
Child maltreatment
|
57.9
|
13.7
|
Family instability
|
47.4
|
12.1
|
|
|
In total, 30 of 38 inmates experienced at least 3 of the above conditions through age 5. Only 2 of the university students had experienced similar "toxic childhood experiences" over the course of their
entire childhood years. The differences in early childhood experience, combined with what happened at each key life transition (e.g., about half of the inmates with the toxic environments had joined gangs by the time they were teens), led the two cohorts down
very different pathways that landed them in vastly different state institutions. As young adults (18-24), the inmates were far more likely to have committed violent crimes (and most did not complete high school) and most of the university students had not.
That's the overall, simplified view.
People then ask me about how I can interview violent offenders and not react to some of the awful stories that I hear about (and, yes, some of the violent offences are quite disturbing and predatory
in nature). I make the point that I'm not there trying to "excuse" the behavior or condone what they have done, but rather I'm just trying to understand their pathways into violent criminality and compare that with people who have gone down different pathways.
It's obviously a quite inexact science, at least with the methodology that I used. At the same time, these data (and many other studies) confirm that there are indeed many "risk factors" and long-lasting impacts of adverse childhood experiences (e.g., the
narratives and examples the inmates provide of what actually happened to them are in many cases even more disturbing than their eventual crimes). And that's our conundrum. We want to explain why people do "bad" things without "excusing" or condoning the behavior.
And that's why there's a parallel struggle in the criminal justice system in the efforts to balance the "punishments" (or "retribution") for bad behavior with the "therapeutic" dimensions aimed at "rehabilitation." And this gets to the core of some philosophical
differences too in terms of the main objective of the criminal justice system (e.g., retribution vs. rehabilitation).
I hope this is helpful in terms of the contextual view that I take as a sociologist. What I did
not do or have access to would be the psychosocial profiles of the inmates or students, especially in relation to the critical junctures and life events. I don't know how many would register as having mental illnesses, for example, or how many had conditions
such as ADD/ADHD (though some volunteered such info). I mainly know (imperfectly) with
some degree of confidence that being raised in toxic environments drastically increased the odds of doing violent, horrible stuff happening in young adulthood. The university students had far less toxic environments by comparison and, when they
did do "bad" things as teens or start down different pathways, they had more resources and social supports to help get them back on track (e.g., more likely to have parents deeply involved in their lives or a teacher or a coach who invested heavily or
loved them unconditionally).
An editorial observation. Almost all of the inmates, while not necessarily "enlightened Buddhas" or people who would likely be in my inner circle of friends, were actually fairly "normal" in terms
of our conversations, the efforts they were taking to improve their schooling, aspirations for not ending up back in jail, family concerns, etc. I'm not suggesting that they're mainly getting all that they need in prison and will come out as role models -
many still have their own problems with addictions, lack of credentials, psych issues that are beyond my bailiwick, while many also lack support systems if/when they get out. That said, there were 3 people (of 38) whom I, as a non-psychologist, experienced
as deeply disturbed in my interactions with them (they were "nice" to me, for what that's worth) in terms of how they conveyed their stories, the "lack of remorse" or "empathy", or other signs of various disturbances. Hating to sound judgmental, in these 3
cases I remember thinking "I'm really glad you're locked up because you truly come across as deeply disturbed" (but I just smiled and thanked them for sharing their stories!).
In closing, I guess I'd say "it's complicated" when we're trying to understand "adult behavior," due to the interplay of distal (e.g., childhood experiences) and proximal factors (neighborhoods, racism,
unemployment, credentials, financial struggles, current relationships, etc.) to explain "why" people behave as they do, to say nothing about how we then
evaluate the behavior from a moral standpoint. On the latter point, what we
do know as one of the few "iron laws of sociology"? The greater the social/cultural distance between the observer and the individual/group observed, the greater the likelihood of our viewing their behavior or even their very existence in a negative light.
Conversely, we are far more understanding and forgiving of our intimates to the point where we deny that they could possibly be responsible for "bad" behavior (e.g., "my son would
never do that - I didn't raise a monster!).
Wishing you all peace, health, and understanding, -joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
Tel: (519) 433-3491
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
eiπ
+ 1 = 0
Hi Catherine,
Good question, thank you.
There are two sets of issues, the second with two sub-sets of issues:
- Things that went wrong in childhood and have lasting consequences
- Things that went wrong in adulthood
- Individual issues
- Societal issues
The 2-2 societal issues must be addressed politically and culturally, not as mental health / illness.
/ Lene
On 27-04-2020 17:01, Wilson, Katherine Christine - wilso3kc wrote:
As I am following this conversation, I find myself a bit confused.
I am understanding that people are saying that we should not view mindsets that lead to becoming a child soldier or "social distancing protestor" as stemming from mental illness, but rather from societal inequities. However, are not most mental
illnesses often the result of some inequity, trauma, repression, suppression, power dynamic, or developmental challenge due to lack of proper care, education, and access to basic core needs being met? I am not understanding how an individual who becomes borderline
or depressed as an adult, after a childhood that involves abuse, rape, poverty, and/or neglect, is different from someone who protests in the streets as a result of job insecurity, xenophobic upbringings, and poor education?
where do we draw the line between mental illness and social inequity? I am genuinely a bit stuck here...
Thanks Lene. Agreed.
Child soldiers and gang members are to be understood and helped with compassion and in ways that explicitly address the social, economic, and political contexts that placed their lives in such turmoil. Approaching "these people" as if they are
mentally ill is the wrong frame.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Lene Rachel Andersen - Nordic Bildung / Fremvirke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hello everybody,
I think the best way to fight the idiocy is to produce a stronger narrative.
What actually makes America great?
American science, American ingenuity, American medicine, American collaboration, American expertise, American health care workers, American hardship, American perseverance, American spirit, American doctors, American technicians, American nurses,
American...
And have somebody whom the Trump segment admires tout that story as loudly as possible; addressing anxious people who are under-educated, who have lost their livelihood in the globalized economy and who react understandably to a situation that leaves
them powerless as a mental health issue would be an arrogant mistake.
/ Lene
On 27-04-2020 15:14, nysa71 wrote:
Hi ToK Society,
An excellent --- though disturbing --- article where Yale psychiatrist, Brandy Lee, is interviewed:
"A Yale psychiatrist has warned that pro-Trump lockdown protesters,
who exhibit similar psychology as 'child soldiers,' could quickly turn into 'armed troops in the streets' if the president loses his re-election bid.
"Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist at the Yale School of Medicine, said the armed protests were a natural evolution of the loyalty President Trump demands from his supporters. Many of these protests have evidently been
organized by deep-pocketed groups allied with the president."
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1