| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Burglary in Progress |
| 2007-11-18 |
On my recent post “Survival of the ‘Fittest’,” commenter Steve Burri made the following remark:I would like to see you expand on this paragraph: I will do my best to explain this thought in greater detail. In “progressive” circles, ordinary crime is viewed not as a real hazard that must be confronted in the same manner as other dangers (such as hurricanes), but as a type of socio-political dysfunction that must be rectified. A burglar, for example, is not seen as breaking into someone’s home and endangering life and property, but rather as displaying behavior that is caused by a flaw in the structure of society: unequal distribution of wealth, insufficient education, racism, etc. According to the progressive view, the primary danger involved is to the criminal, who is liable to be mistreated by a “system” whose raison d’être is to oppress the supposed class to which the criminal belongs. After the Second World War, but particularly after 1960, this type of thinking became virtually unchallenged among the ranks of the caretaker class: social workers, public defenders, activists of one stripe or another, therapists, etc. At its core a neo-Marxist ideology, it began to exhibit new forms derived from post-modern psychology, typified by the work of the Hungarian-born psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, author of The Myth of Mental Illness. Szasz’s work is multifaceted, but what is relevant here is that he relativized deviancy. This paved the way for the claim that mental illness is a social construct based on power relations. In other words, whoever is dominant in society determines who, and what behavior, is deviant. For instance, so goes the argument, under a capitalist system, the oppressed classes are labeled deviant whereas the upper classes, who cause all the mayhem, are labeled normal. (Szasz’s theories, incidentally, also helped pave the way for the release of numerous psychiatric inmates onto the streets—after all, mental illness is a myth—transforming them overnight into legions of “homeless” people.) The influence of Szaszian behavioral relativism has been immense. The perpetrator/victim relationship has been stood on its head. The victim is now the burglar, while the hapless homeowner, as a representative of the social class who makes the rules, becomes the perpetrator of imagined systemic crimes against the burglar and his brethren. In this world of “progress,” it is the criminal who must be protected. This is closely related to the drive to advance the interests of deviants of all varieties. In any situation where a deviant causes damage and endangers the ordinary citizen, progress steps in to shield the deviant and place the blame on society. Meanwhile, the deviant behavior is explained away or even elevated; for example, museums displaying graffiti as art. One is reminded here of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s memorable phrase, “defining deviancy down.” Progress requires that humans be members of an equal, undifferentiated herd. The moment one attempts to protect the citizen and shun the criminal, the herd has been destabilized. One could, of course, re-homogenize the herd by “eliminating” criminals, as was done by certain 20th century totalitarian regimes. But in the West, this option has been omitted thus far from mainstream progressive thinking. And from the point of view of the progressive camp, this makes sense. Violent anti-social behavior usually advances their cause. It demoralizes the majority, riddles people with guilt, employs hordes of caretakers and hand-wringers, and in general serves as a tool for blackmailing the West and delegitimizing its culture. When and if the totalitarian Left achieves unchallenged dominance in the West, perhaps we shall see Soviet-style cleansing of common criminals. Then they can say, “see, it was all due to capitalism.” All of the above applies, on a global level, to terrorism. The terrorist is the burglar. He has become a victim by virtue of his automatic affiliation with an oppressed class (the Third World). The Western countries, obviously, are the homeowner. To admit that the terrorist is deviant, or that something is awry in his culture, would violate one of the central tenets of progress: all cultures are equal—on the condition that they be oppressed. Western culture, like the homeowner, deserves no protection. Thus my original assertion that “acknowledging the existence of these real dangers would contradict contemporary notions of progress.” |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #7 The reason the pols really don't care directly about crime is because it is not a direct threat to their power. P2K gets the Qupie Doll. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-11-18 18:58 |
| #6 To admit that the terrorist is deviant, or that something is awry in his culture, would violate one of the central tenets of progress: all cultures are equal—on the condition that they be oppressed. Western culture, like the homeowner, deserves no protection. Good article. This is precisely why I have ZERO faith in the democrats ever managing to adequately deal with terrorism. They simply will not accept responsibility for the logical outcome of their multiculturalist agenda. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-18 16:57 |
| #5 Texan. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-18 16:35 |
| #4 If they are in your house they are fair game to shoot. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-11-18 16:33 |
| #3 Szasz is being unfairly pilloried as relativizing deviancy, though it is fair to say that he helped empty the institutions, but not as much as Jack Nicholson. Szasz also said that society could pass laws to punish behaviour and that people were responsible for their behaviour, i. e. no insanity defence as there is no such thing as insanity but there is such a thing as anti-social behaviour. You do the crime, you do the time. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-11-18 15:39 |
| #2 The reason the pols really don't care directly about crime is because it is not a direct threat to their power. It only becomes a threat when enough voters get pissed off and start backing someone promoting 'law and order'. To paraphrase Governor William J. Le Petomane, "We've gotta protect our phoney baloney jobs, gentlemen!" That's why they went after Benny Goetz. He was treated as a direct threat to the legitimacy of the state which had/has treated its citizens as expendable to the sociopathic elements of the society. That's why governments around the world will spend an inordinate amount of time and effort going after those who defend themselves, their families, and their property because it shows the rest of the citizenry that the state is unable or unwilling to perform one of the fundamental rationales for the existence of the government. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-11-18 14:13 |
| #1 Dr. Szasz is an atheist, and being 87 years old, will also be testing that theory shortly. Meanwhile, Great Britain puts homeowners in jail and anger management classes for defending their property against the misunderstood yobs who are just as sane as they are, and maybe moreso. |
| Posted by: Phinater Thraviger 2007-11-18 12:44 |