Wednesday, April 17, 2013

A Modest Post-Bombing Proposal

In the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, President Obama went on television to assert that, “We still do not know who did this or why.  And people shouldn't jump to conclusions before we have all the facts.  But make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this.  And we will find out who did this; we’ll find out why they did this.  Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the full weight of justice.”

Fine.  That is as it should and must be.  But while my emotional curiosity aches for answers to the questions the President voiced -- “who” and “why” -- my real concern is with a different question:  “what then?”  That answer, after all, is the one that will very likely be consequential. 

Justice demands that we answer the “who”, and hold him or her or them accountable.  But frankly the “why” offers precious little purchase.  The perpetrator’s particular complaints and condemnations will be spoken with their own nuance and inflection, but their essence isn't all that inscrutable -- and ultimately isn't all that relevant.  The act is heinous.  Does it really matter why it was committed?  Will any explanation assuage even one scintilla of the grief, the horror, the shock, the anger?  Someone was murderously mad about some personal or cultural grievance and unilaterally took violent action to right the perceived wrong, or flag the assessed outrage.  The technologies and the settings evolve and change but the rationales do not.  So answer the “who” but let go of the “why.  It's answer won't finally help or salve or matter.

But what happens next -- with us; among us?  That's what worries me. Our track record with that question isn't good.  Especially since 9/11, and again after every major tragedy since, we have propagated the delusion that we can prevent such acts from occurring.  We have installed X-ray machines and metal detectors at every entrance, imposed invasive searches, signed into law more and more restrictive legislation and broadened governmental surveillance authority, all under the belief that we can finally and conclusively “seal the can”, thereby eliminating any possible malevolent intrusion.  

The only problem is that we can't. We can only suffocate ourselves by the effort, and through the gasping only make ourselves more vulnerable by the delusion. To be clear, this isn’t an ode to fatalism, nor is it a concession to those who argue for more weaponry in the hands of ever more people.  No, they may be the most delusional of all.

Instead, this is a modest invitation -- plea, really -- to pause, back up and ponder the dynamics and relationships that give shape to our reality.  We cannot survive in bunkers.  And who would want to?  I am already sick enough of the war zones our airports have become that I look for alternate means of travel.  As long as there are people we will find ways to hurt each other, and to retaliate against them.  

The only sane answer to the question of “what next” is not to find more strident means of “protection”, but to seek and practice more effective, life encouraging methods of living together.  

Is that a fool-proof strategy that will prevent anyone else from getting hurt?  Of course not.  There simply is no such strategy.  The advantage of this course is that it is one in which, instead of merely hiding with our teeth clenched and our guns cocked while frisking each other every so often, we have some hope of actually living.  

2 comments:

granddaddy said...

So, I have been a reluctant and self-protective dabbler in facebook for a very short time, and it does little to moderate my technophobic fear of inadequacy. But Chad Cline drew my attention to this blogpost, and you always draw my attention when I hear of you. The title did not lead me to hope for something Swift-y (which even I would have trouble embracing for now - but later? Eat the Rich?)

So, anyway, I was expecting a little deeper lean into the value of embracing vulnerability as opposed to the cost of trying to eliminate it. Something I don't hear much of. I'm glad you went there and that Chad outed you.

So, I imagined writing a note of appreciation. But facebook always seems so uncomfortably public, and who wants someone dropping big ol' comment turds on his/her blog? No email address without energy output. Making a friend request would take time, and heartfelt immediacy is what I was hoping for. Thus, I decided to let it go, return to my good intentions on another day when I was not quite so lethargic.

So, I went to a friend's father's website where I routinely massage my ego by making pithy, witty, wise, and wonderful remarks. My own cleverness amazes me at times! (See for yourself: http://deerval.com/daily/?paged=3) There I found a recent post or two of quotes from Brene Brown (internationally famous wise woman I had never heard of before) about vulnerability. And then I tiptoed after some of her book titles.

So, even that was not enough to rouse me to action on your behalf. But then I shut down the time-sucking laptop and lay back to read bring me the rhinoceros (and other zen koans that will save your life) by John Tarrant which Valerie Forstman had given me recently. And, like Dude! OMG!, I'm on page 2 of the introduction and - whoa! - seven things to notice about koans. Tim must read this!

So, I just checked the publication date. 2004, 2008. Oh, I'm sure he's already read it; it's only new to me. But still. Thanks for your post. And your life. I'm proud of you.

Jim Benton

Jill Clark said...

I would expect some of the comments that you posted with regard to this subject, but what I didn't expect and was so surprised and happy to see was the issue of dropping the "why" in our investigation of the Boston Bombing as well as any other subsequent events. For one thing the why is not important only the fact that the action was committed and harmed other people. I do know thought that it is human nature to ask "why" when we have been greviously wounded.