Dear Editor,
The current debate on domestic violence and violence generally plaguing our society which is being televised through the programme, ‘Our Culture Our Life’ is a good sign. We are not folding our arms accepting violence as the norm, even as it consumes us. So far I have only listened to two discussions; in one of them a panelist – a man of the cloth – was rather mechanical and callous in presenting his views in a cut and dried manner, and I was taken aback. The goodly Reverend left no room for any positive resolve between a couple having problems – “call in the police,” “move she out,” “get him out.” Such approach solves nothing. We need to understand that it is counterproductive to have policemen who are not trained in this area dealing with these fragile and volatile situations, not to mention the many policemen/women who are also experiencing domestic crisis and need help also. Then there are those with hidden agendas who are eager to get involved, making matters worse. Too many times we beat around the bush, stubbornly refusing to face this issue fair and square, avoiding the related factors that are some of the major contributing causes: economic difficulties, infidelity, emasculation of the male ego, etc. Violence doesn’t just pop up; there must be something to bring it on, uness it is inborn, in which case there isn’t much we can do. Fidel Castro once concluded that some people are born with a baser instinct. I’m afraid that unless we sincerely and meaningfully attempt to grapple with these hard factors, our efforts will be like a dog baying at the moon – futile. Indeed, this violence story is a tall order, and is likely to remain with us maybe until God or whoever remakes this world; like accidents it will continue to happen, try as we might to prevent it.
That does not mean that society shouldn’t try to vigorously stamp it out, and it is up in arms against that violence now more than ever. Our society since time immemorial has been resolving issues by hostile and violent methods, thus it has become inherent and accepted.
Eliminating violence seems to me a monumental task, which is nearly impossible and has saddled us with the herculean task of learning and unlearning. We will have to reprogramme entirely. The inborn aspect remains the X factor, as correctly stated by A Benn: “We have to develop an attitude of non-acceptance of violence on every front,” (SN, Oct 28). Hard as it may be to accept, there is, it appears, a sinister ingredient in disguise factored into the psyche of some individuals of which we have no understanding and control, as William James wrote: “Whilst part of what we perceive comes through our senses from objects before us, another part (and it may be the larger part) always comes out of our own mind.”
We all do agree that violence is not confined to any one particular ethnicity or group, but rather struts it ugly self like a colossus rupturing the smooth flow of life across every class, category and type – high and low, rich and poor, aristocrat and peasant – but poverty is a main contributor which must be looked at seriously. I am not in the least suggesting that violence that comes from one category has legitimacy over another, but I would posit that violence that stems from abject poverty creates certain conditions, reactions and relations, and that to my mind – though equally objectionable – has a somewhat logical and rational explanation. It is indeed troubling that we still conduct life along the lines of old unwritten accepted principles, whereby violence is used as the rod of correction, discipline and control across board; we flog our children at home and in school, we flog prisoners for being disobedient. Violence is extolled in our society today more than ever; we crave it. Check the movies that are sold most; they are the ones with the most graphic and gruesome killings that leave you cold scared. They are the ones that brutalize women in every way conceivable way, and our young men practise it and our young women tacitly accept it until it’s out of control. Children bully and beat up others many times as retaliation for the same done to them; clearly violence begets violence. Through the fear instilled, violence reigns and has been a part of our disciplinary code. And the answer to A Benn’s question: “Is it that we have nurtured a culture of violence that has a boomerang effect?” is a strident yes! And indeed human society is far from perfect. But let me add here a slightly different but related issue which we need not negate. It is time unpaid housework be placed on the front burner now more than ever; a woman at home on most days labours relentlessly 24-7 and still today suffers the indignity of not being reckoned seriously or accorded proper respect; we continue to hear, ‘Dem deh home doing nothing.’
Lastly, I have noted the point made by the Hindu brother during one of the sessions who shared with us non-Hindus the concept of the ‘first word’ upon entering their homes as practised by them. 1 tend to agree that rather than adding fuel to a husband who would have been irritated at work, he should be allowed the first word upon entering his home so as to gauge his mood, thus avoiding a possible conflict. But reverse this order and see how it works: what of the woman/wife who has also been ‘at work’ at home for the whole day and was stressed out and in a terrible mood; shouldn’t she be allowed to have the first say to anyone entering the home to gauge her mood and avoid similar conflict? Or is her mental state from such work not respected? Just thinking.
Yours faithfully,
Frank Fyffe
