The Paradox of Justice

Our trust that justice will be served grounds us and gives us peace of mind. We’re gratified when justice reigns, and we’re in danger of disillusionment when it isn’t served.

But we can’t assume that justice prevails. An unfortunate person may suffer dire consequences for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong country with the wrong color of skin and with the wrong religious beliefs. We are very lucky if we don’t endure an injustice, from minor to major, at some point in our lives.

Injustice refers to unfairness or undeserved outcomes and applies to an event, a situation or a status quo, like the inequality of women before they gained the right to vote.

The notion of injustice is universal, although the circumstances considered unjust can vary from culture to culture. We live in a time in history when injustices are more likely to be made public, and in a country where freedom of speech and of the press are expected, and for the most part practiced and protected.

As a result of the rise of social media, we’re better informed and aware of injustices around the world.  Perhaps this explains (at least in part) why a recent poll found that only 23 percent of Americans have confidence in the criminal justice system (The New York Times, Opinion page, print copy, June 23, 2014).

A person who has experienced an injustice needs time to heal. Depending on the severity of the abuse, the healing process can last from days to years but is definitely helped if and when justice is served. If the injustice isn’t satisfactorily resolved, the healing process may never be complete.

Psychotherapy is often necessary to cope with the feelings of betrayal and help sort out the details. Individuals often ask themselves if they have contributed in any way to the circumstances.

Mr. W. was sexually molested by a priest when he a child. The tragedy was exacerbated by the fact that he never told anyone and the abuser died in a time before sexual abuses in the Catholic Church came to light.

Mr. W. didn’t want to make his situation public, and he spent years trying to cope with the psychological damage and his subsequent addiction to drugs.  

Human selfishness is often at the root of the injustice. Clearly the priest who took advantage of  Mr. W.’s innocence didn’t think about the damage he inflicted.

Flawed human decision-making also contributes. Decades of academic research suggest that we place too much confidence in human judgment. For example, the decisions of judges sitting on review boards depend on the time lapsed between their last food break. Daniel Kahneman in his 2011 book, Thinking Fast and Slow cites the research that observed that judges are less likely to reach decisions favorable to plaintiffs when more time has passed between meals.

To lighten the spirit of this ponderous topic, I offer an example from the world of the canine.  A while ago, I summoned my Schipperke dog, Woolf, with a treat. When he arrived at my feet (for some perversity of mood), I didn’t deliver the morsel. Woolf reacted with a snap, a rare display of disapproval. But I realized his response was indeed “justified.” Without intending to, I had performed an experiment on a dog and learned that he too expects justice to prevail--in the form of a treat, promised and earned.

Conclusion: Although we aspire to the ideal of justice and it behooves us to believe that justice will be served, we do better to recognize human selfishness and our fallibility of judgment. Paradoxically, we need to trust and maintain awareness (of the pitfalls of our human condition).

Dear Reader, I welcome your response. Jsimon145@gmail.com

Acceptance and Choice

I recently met a person who uses a cane to walk; the grace with which she accepts her disability impressed me. By contrast, I’ve worked with several clients who have struggled to accept the changes in their bodies associated with the aging process. For example, Ms. P. indulges in feelings of self-pity, rather than accepting that she suffers from arthritis, and can be helped with physical therapy.  

An extreme case of acceptance is Susan Spencer-Wendel. After she received the diagnosis of an incurable muscular wasting disease, she fully engaged life by doing everything she could, including traveling to far-off places in the world. Then she chronicled the last year of her life in a memoir by typing on a smartphone with her right thumb. ( "Until I Say Goodbye: My Year of Living with Joy“ 2013, The New York Times, June, 2014).

Fortunately, most of us don’t suffer from an incurable disease and simply have to modify our attitudes to overcome setbacks. In our daily lives, the big question is: What should I accept and what can or should I choose to change?

The Serenity Prayer, authored by the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) and adopted by Alcoholics Anonymous states the question most eloquently:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Regarding alcoholism and other self-destructive behaviors, an individual does well to accept that a genetic make-up renders him vulnerable to the danger of addiction.

We develop the power to choose when we’re about two years old, at which point the child begins to individuate from parents/caretakers. The “good enough” parent allows the toddler to express and exert himself in appropriate situations—for example, by offering him a choice of clothing he’d like to wear. In contrast, the parent who insists on making all the decisions deprives the developing person of the power to choose. This individual may not develop a sense of confidence and learn to trust himself in making choices.

Many clients don’t accept themselves because they fail to see their abilities in the context of their environment. In other words, each of us has a unique starting point in life. To accept and work with a disability can lead to success in spite of, or even because of, it.

Dr. Temple Grandin exemplifies a person who overcame the handicap of autism. Accepting and working within the context of her “deficit,” has helped her become an animal expert, inventor, writer and public speaker as an advocate for the autistic community and the humane treatment of animals.

Accepting our feelings is important too; like highway signs, they orient us. For example, Mr. O. endured losses in his life that resulted in a depression. Unable to leave the house except for doctor’s appointments, he says, “I guess I feel sorry for myself for losing my job.” Accepting and admitting what lies at the root of his depressed mood allows him to see the other side, namely, the assets in his life—his friends and a comfortable home. After he mourns the losses, he has the choice to accept his situation (for better or worse) and move beyond the days of paralysis to incorporate the downs and ups of life.

Conclusion: We do well to question life circumstances and decide what to accept and what to change. Failing to question can lead to feelings of impotence and a lifetime of dissatisfaction.

Dear Reader, I welcome your comments. Jsimon145@gmail.com.

Individuation and Isolation

Years ago, I read an article in the daily newspaper about a woman who delayed choosing a set of dishes because she was waiting until she found the “right man” to marry. She feared that if she committed herself to dishware, she would limit her options for a potential husband who might be repulsed  by her choice of tableware or independent spirit.

While her fear may sound extreme, it does point to an underlying truth: A personal choice represents a tiny sliver of who we are-- an identity that distinguishes us (in a minor or major way) from others.

In philosophy individuation is the idea that something is identified as an individual thing as distinct from another. This includes an individual as  distinct from other elements in the world and a person is distinct from other persons.

In Jungian psychology individuation refers to the process in which the self develops out of an undifferentiated unconscious. In this psychic process  innate elements of personality and the experiences of the person’s life become integrated over time into a well-functioning whole.

The child psychoanalyst Margaret Mahler studied the human infant and developed the theory of separation-individuation, the stages at which the baby learns to distinguish his body as separate from his mother’s (or caretaker’s) and later, a sense of his own mind as evidenced by the use of the word “no.” (Please refer to her book, The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant, 1975)

As we become increasingly specialized (in one or more ways), the pool of people similar to us shrinks, and we may have to extend ourselves into new territory to find other like-minded people.

Some people fear psychotherapy because the process can lead to a sense of  individuality that changes us and our perception of the world and our  relationships.

Ms. N. ‘s therapy exemplifies how individuation altered her life. When she began treatment she told her therapist that she didn’t want to change anything about her “solid” marriage. Ironically, her analysis led to a divorce but also surprised her when a subsequent relationship proved more gratifying.

Although the psychotherapeutic process attempts to diminish a sense of isolation in the client, the psychotherapist may, paradoxically, experience feelings of isolation because the work with each client is private and intense.

Motivated by his experience of isolation, Dr. Sebastian Zimmermann  photographed psychotherapists in their offices. He compiled an elegant volume, Fifty Shrinks in which he included a description of how each psychotherapist works with their clients.  Dr. Zimmermann used the feelings of isolation in the service of creativity. As a result, he established new connections (with colleagues, architects, editors) that diminished his sense of separateness.

Conclusion: Ideally, individuation is a life-long process. As we make choices, we develop our talents, gifts, and interests and find like-minded people with whom to share.

Dear Reader, Please share your thoughts. jsimon145@gmail.com

Respect: An Essential Element in Relationships

Respect is an ingredient in human relationships as essential as the ABC’s in reading or yeast in rising bread.

A feeling of positive regard for someone, respect is reflected in actions and behavior toward another person, animal or entity. It follows that a lack of respect can undermine any relationship.

The spectrum of respect ranges from picking up after our dogs on the New York City streets to the intricacies of our daily behavior in intimate relationships to how we regard people of different races, classes and religions.

Rodney Dangerfield, a comedian of the 1980’s, alluding to the fact that the world didn’t recognize him,    often said, “I don’t get no respect.”  He based many humorous dialogues on this theme, and I think his popularity, at least in part, attests to the universal importance of and concern with respect.

Jonathan Haidt, a professor at the New York University’s Stern School of Business, identifies respect as one of five fundamental moral values and virtues shared by different societies as well as individuals. He contrasts this priority (in these cultures) with many primate species who emphasize physical force and fear.

On a more personal level,  the term “diss” (an abbreviation for disrespect) evokes anger, fear and the potential for violence that (potentially) blurs boundaries between us and other primates. When a superintendant in our building told people that a wealthy tenant gave him a stingy Christmas gift, his disrespect  resulted in loss of his job.

Even when we might be open-minded and nonjudgmental of people in the world at large, that sense of respect  might not extend to the people with whom we’re closest.

“Familiarity breeds contempt” is a cliché that too often applies. Respect is most difficult to maintain in intimate relationships because we know the person day in and day for his foibles as well as his positive attributes.

Mr. L’s life is colored by his failure to respect his wife and children. He criticizes them for “bad” habits and constantly compares them unfavorably with others. As a result of this blind spot, he isn’t treated with respect  by his wife and sons. This lack of mutual respect lies at the foundation of his dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

Another example from the past is the story of Albert Einstein’s partner who expressed shock to learn that her Albert had been awarded the Nobel Prize. By dint of intimacy, she perceived him as a person rather than a great thinker. Failing to consider attributes of our partner outside of the relationship may undermine feelings of respect.

Conclusion: Although respect may not come naturally, it is a vital ingredient, a building block in human relationships, as fundamental as the alphabet is to language.

Dear Reader, I welcome your comments. Jsimon145@gmail.com.

Gun Control, the “Mentally Ill” and the Money

  

Elliot Rodger, a 22-year-old man, went on a deadly rampage in Southern California that included stabbings and shootings and left six people dead and 13 wounded. His mother had called 911 to inform authorities that her son had posted alarming videos online, but in April, Rodger persuaded the sheriff’s deputies that he was not a threat to himself or to others. In his manifesto, “My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger,” he wrote he feared he’d be found out if the police had searched his room and felt relief when they left.

What we can garner from this tragedy is that violence is often unpredictable, and adding to the complexity, as Rodger’s case substantiates, it is difficult to prevent even in the face of detailed warning signs.

To target the “mentally ill” is counterproductive. Studies show that stigmatization of mental disorders—an unfortunate focus of the media—doesn’t encourage but, instead, prevents people from seeking and obtaining treatment.

The focus on mental illness demonstrates that the conundrum of gun violence continues to elude us. Targeting the mentally ill to avoid mass shootings is similar to burning witches at the stake: The red herring of “witches” and “mental patients” sidesteps the examination of society’s ills.

In spite of the focus of the media on the “mentally ill,” only five percent of the violence is attributed to people suffering from depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder (Opinion by Courtney Anderson) [where is this from? include link.].

In our society, the matter relates to money, power and control. Many people profit from the manufacture, sale and trafficking of guns and ammunition. And unfortunately, politicians and political systems depend on this financial support.

Another justification for gun ownership is the right to bear arms. This centuries-old principle stems from when our young country was fighting for its independence from England.

At this point in time, America, the land of opportunity, empowers people to kill many innocent people in seconds. As The New York Times reported, “Three semiautomatic handguns, along with 41 loaded 10-round magazines—all bought legally at local gun stores—were found in [Rodger’s] car.”

Here are some enlightening gun-related statistics:

• With the most guns per head in the world, the U.S. has the highest rate of deaths from firearms. (S. Boseley, the Guardian, 2013).
•  Japan the developed world’s least firearm-filled, had 11 deaths, fewer than those killed at the Aurora shooting alone.  (M. Fisher, The Atlantic, 2012).
• States with more gun laws have less gun violence; 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws.  (USA Today, 2013).   
• The annual cost of gun violence in America is estimated to be $100 billion. (P. Cook and J. Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs).

Writing in The New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff has provided some brutal statistics on the demographics:

• Every two months, more Americans die in gun violence than in the 9/11 attack.

• We lose some 2,800 children and teens to guns annually.
•   More than twice as many preschoolers die annually from gun violence in America as law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty.

It is a great irony that guns and bullets that kill more rapidly that any pill (for which a prescription is needed), can often be more easily obtained. (drsimonsays.blogspot, Dec. 2012).

As a solution, I recommend giving psychological tests to everyone applying for a gun license and selling weapons (and amount of ammunition) that are only necessary for the individual’s purpose.
Additionally, we need to cut down on gun manufacturing and sales and crack down on gun trafficking.

Each mass killing causes tragic and needless loss, as it adds another piece to this complex puzzle. Hopefully, we’ll soon realize that a solution is necessary and work to put these safeguards in place.

Dear Reader,  Your comments are welcome. jsimon145@gmail.com