Although
wrongful death at the hands of law enforcement, as it relates to ethnic
minorities is regrettably no new concept, the age of technology has
more recently allowed us to capture such chilling episodes of
malpractice, that are in turn quickly dispensed to the rest of the world
through common social media outlets. I suppose this is why many people
describe our era as the 'age of enlightenment', insomuch as the vast
availability of information no longer affords us the luxury of ignorance
as an excuse, and many of us have concorantly taken the initiative to
invest in this wealth of knowledge and entrench our understanding of
what can be described as a "new reality" (albeit, a reality that is only
ostensibly new).
With this era of edification, rich in
unrelenting, unassailable material on the genocide of the black
population - from Eric Garner who was choked to death by an NYPD cop
with his hands up, to Terrence Cutcher who was leaning motionless
against his vehicle whilst being apprehended and still fated to a
gruesome, execution style slaughter nonetheless, to 16 year old Kalief
Browder, who was incarcerated without conviction for allegedly stealing a
bookbag, serving 2 years of his 3 year sentence in solitary confinement
that ultimately drove him to suicide, and many more harrowing episodes
of innocent people dying indefensibly at the hands of law enforcement -
why is it, then, that so many people still continue to refute the idea
that indeed such calculated carnage, which draws stark parallels to
autocratic systems of ethnic cleansing, manifests in our society
virtually every single day?
Why is it that, no matter how many
articles are unearthed, videos displayed, footage released and images
dispersed, there are still an unfathomably large body of people who
persist with retorts such as "he should've just complied" or "she
must've been acting up" or "It was definitely his fault, because the
police know what they're doing". Although in some instances
non-compliance may have been a factor, there is no statute in existence
that demands life as the price of minor civilian-officer discordance.
Such ironfisted consequences are typically the motif in tyrannical
classifications, but certainly not under the veil of democracy that the
west so contemptuously champions. Even when innocence is ratified and
compliance proven, there seems to be nonetheless an unyielding
point-blank-refusal of what seems so unequivocally apparent. The
question then remains, why?
Typically, we would ascribe this to a
sheer lack of exposure to information, but with that glitch being
amiss, it is is thus necessary to turn to psychology for an enriched
understanding. The term 'cognitive dissonance' may be familiar to many
psychology scholars, and is a useful tool in understanding why so many
reject the Black Lives Matter movement altogether. Believe it or not, it
isn't always down to an inherent, untapped pool of racism embedded in one's psyche (although that often seems the obvious cause.)
The term cognitive dissonance refers to "the
mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two
or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time... or
is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs,
ideas or values.
...An
individual who experiences inconsistency tends to become
psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this
dissonance, as well as actively avoid situations and information likely
to increase it."
In
accordance with the unflinching malpractice of the judicial system,
cognitive dissonance is employed by much of society as, in fact, an
unconscious means of survival, detaching from anything that may threaten
the sanctuary of life under the state. Traditionally, the state exists
in order to protect us, as purported via time-honoured accounts of the
Social Contract, by classical philosophers such as Rousseau, Locke and
Hobbes. The aforementioned contract invites us to relinquish some
autonomy in exchange for protection from the state against those who may
harm us. In cede of such autonomy, we put our trust in the system and
law enforcement officials to ensure the consummation of this umbilical
protection.
Through millennia of acceding this arrangement of
plausibly fair protection, our minds have, for eons, been conditioned to
accept that the state is, and can only be 'good'. Should we squelch
such an ideal altogether, it is likely that anarchy would ensue,
threatening our way of life and very survival. This is the point at
which many of us prefer to 'keep the light off'. The concept of dicey
law enforcement or a precarious legal system directly contradicts the
values that we have adopted for centuries in order to cultivate a safe
haven for ourselves, our children and for posterity. Cognitive
dissonance allows us to uphold the infamous American slogan of 'justice
for all', in believing that such a pietistic system is only capable of
serving what it has habitually promised - equality, fairness, compassion
and redress. The up keeping of which necessitates a dream-like trance,
or else summons the dangerous idea that we ourselves may be unsafe from
its perilous ambit. Regrettably for many ethnic groups, the realisation
of which is not a choice.
In acquiescing the innocence of the
American black male and the grievous violations of human and civil
rights, the belief holder must concomitantly find the state culpable.
Since the trusted state can not be found accountable for any nefarious
act, the blame must be deflected back onto the victim for surely having
'provoked' the ensued onslaught. Leon Festinger explored early accounts
of cognitive dissonance in his 1956 book "When Prophecy Fails", in
which he exclaimed,
"People
engage in a process called "dissonance reduction" to bring their
cognitions and actions in line with one another. This creation of
uniformity allows for a lessening of psychological tension and
distress."
In demonising the victim over the miscreant, we
reinforce the safe ideal of the 'good' cop and the 'bad' civilian, who
was justifiably exterminated.
With all of the above
being considered, the question remains, is it possible to dissuade
people from rigidly clinging to such counterintuitive dogma? To which I
would say yes. However, this will not be achieved solely through
reinforcement of information that proves a case again and again. While
this is necessary for wearing down the veneer of dissonance,
understanding must be entrenched through education of behavioural
psychology. The kernel of the rebuttal flower. This is no easy feat, but
coming face to face with the sheer existence of this envisioned
dichotomy between systematic good and evil, and all it's inconsistent
implications, will eventually propel us into a coerced awareness,
allowing the rose tinted glasses to ultimately fade from their blinding
crimson hue.
