The Myth of Choice_ Personal Responsibility in a World of Limits - Kent Greenfield [78]
Sometimes we’re pretty good at it already. When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and its environs, most Americans understood that those who stayed behind were not particularly at fault. The right-wing talk show hosts who tried to blame the victims of the hurricane were essentially shouted down by the Americans offering an outpouring of help and compassion.
But most of the time, we’re pretty bad at empathy. Our nation’s shunning of the obese and overweight allows little room for understanding the cultural, biological, and economic situation of those who overeat and under-exercise. Our demonization of the guards at Abu Ghraib allows us little room to understand the effect of authority in that setting. Our dependence on the marketplace adage “caveat emptor” makes it easy to ignore the myriad limitations embedded in the marketplace.
We could also stand to be more empathetic when we consider the acts of those accused of crimes. We look at bad behavior and see acts of free will worthy of punishment. We tend to ignore the constraints of circumstance, the influence of biology, and the areas of shared—rather than personal—responsibility. Because of our insistence on the personal blameworthiness of each individual, we can collectively shake our pitchforks in anger, demanding restitution and revenge. The bad people have made bad choices, and they deserve to be locked up. In percentage terms, Americans incarcerate five times more of their own than Britain, nine times more than Germany, and twelve times more than Japan.27 One in every hundred Americans is behind bars; one in every thirty-one is under some kind of “correctional” supervision.
Are Americans really five times more criminal than Brits? Nine times more prone to bad behavior than the Germans? Twelve times more worthy of punishment than the Japanese? Of course not. But we are probably five, nine, or twelve times more willing to translate a cultural insistence on individuality into a basis for punishment. We turn our fetish for choice into a reason to ignore shared responsibility and disparage the full stories of those accused. We end up over-punishing and under-understanding.
Two points are worth clarifying. First, intellectual empathy—understanding the limitations others face—is necessary for both conservatives and liberals. Liberals like to think they are good at this, since tolerance is such a touchstone belief for progressives. But the truth is—and yes, I am talking to myself here—there is no one more judgmental than a good liberal. George Bush is a moron, corporate CEOs are evil, gun owners are rednecks, and religious people are idiots. Conservatives certainly could be more understanding of the situation of the poor, criminal defendants, sexual minorities, and religious dissidents. But liberals too could use a dose of humility in evaluating the beliefs and behavior of those they usually target, keeping in mind the influence of culture, markets, biology, and authority. Corporate executives, for example, work within a marketplace that mandates a short-term fixation on profit. Many gun owners were raised in communities where hunting is a common pastime and gun ownership is part of the transition from boyhood to manhood. In communities where the flag is deified and God is nationalized, it is only natural for people to pledge allegiance to God and country.
Here’s the second thing worth clarifying. An understanding that we all err, the creation of space to tell one’s own stories, and the commitment to intellectual empathy do not require letting people off the hook for their bad choices. Sometimes an understanding of one’s situation allows room for a recognition of the nature of shared responsibility, or even for forgiveness. I might be convinced that the prison guards at Abu Ghraib deserve to share the blame with the people