All Laws are Negative

There seems to be a misapprehension about laws, that somehow they tell citizens how to live. This is inaccurate, in that laws only tell us what is prohibited. In fact, a great many laws are reactions to terrible injuries and exploitation. Child labor, environmental pollution,workplace safety, manufacturing practices, and financial regulations are all examples of laws that were enacted in order to prevent harms that were being done to the people and lands of various countries. It was not that governments were interested in curtailing business, but that there was such outrage at the deaths related to these business practices that governments no longer had a choice but to pass laws to protect the health and safety of citizens. The truth of this legal history is not the issue at hand. This is all to establish the basis for the objective of this post: that a focus on the negative leads to negativity. Since all laws are prohibitive (that is, they prohibit an activity) - they are negatively focused. Additionally, they are punitive or retributive; the consequence of being found guilty of breaking a law is always punishment. This is because there is no prescription for rehabilitation in a law-remember, laws do not tell anyone what to do-it only says what harm may be leveled against the 'criminal'. This negativity, aside from being demeaning, also sets the entire mindset around law and legality in a negative framework. This means every time I think about the subject, I think about it as a negative.

This relates to the idea of "pessimism", whereby all one sees is the negative or harmful possible outcomes of choices. Instead of recognizing, accepting, and weighing possibilities in a neutral way, the entirety of the process becomes increasingly focused on negatives. Negative reinforcement can be especially impactful when combined with an absolutist and/or "inherently bad" belief system. Someone who believes in absolutes is one who does not believe in extenuating circumstances or 'shades of grey'; these are folks who can only conceive of two possibilities in any situation. One can recognize these individuals by the expressions "like it or lump it", "there's only one way to do something: the right way", and "my way or the highway". The second mindset holds the belief that all people, or certain groups of people (here we can recognize racism or other prejudices), have an initial or inborn 'badness' to overcome...if they believe it possible to change at all. These beliefs combined with the initial assertion of the negativity involved in the "criminal justice system" lead to a greater problem than any of them individually.

Which leads to the conclusion that we are really talking about psychology, not least of which because every person involved in the legal system is a human. Every human is subject to the same psychological issues: biases, stresses, prejudices, and fatigue. Supposing humans somehow become immune to these realities once they enter the legal system is absurd, yet folks seem to act as if that were the case. In the legal system, these psychological factors have tremendous impacts on individuals and society. There are many studies that demonstrate how "priming" participants can lead to fewer options and less desirable outcomes. This is part of the reason defendants are allowed to change out of jail/prison clothes to appear in court: the sight of a person dressed as a 'criminal' primes the viewer (judge or jury) to see guilt, rather than maintaining the presumption of innocence. However, not all factors can be alleviated, thus allowing the psychology of those deciding a legal case to be swayed. Looking at the incarceration of persons of color in the U.S. is a striking example of a series of such psychological impacts. I speak not only of the attorneys, police, judges, and juries-of course these include also the individual suspected or convicted of crime and the communities. Here I may be accused of drifting into a spiritual arena, by including the psychological toll of having a prison or jail in a county, or of the family's grief over the conviction (rightly or wrongly) of one of their own. However, I intend to point out only that there is a psychological impact; this is factual, observable, and-possibly-measurable.

It is this negative psychological toll that I had in mind starting this post. It seems sadly lacking in the discourse of reform around "criminal justice" in the popular narrative of dominant culture. It has seemed absurd to ignore all these obvious components when talking about how to understand such an historically rooted system, let alone how to improve it.

What Keeps Us Safe

I propose that it is business that is the best defense. Guns and bombs aren't "making the world safer," and "a strong military is the best deterrent," is false. Instead, what keeps people from attacking and destroying a place is that place having what those people need. It is very difficult to destroy the only source of food or clothing, and it is a tremendous waste of effort to occupy a country just to insure they continue to produce them. Instead, establishing a mutual business relationship is securing the interests of all involved to maintain the status quo. People will go to great lengths to eliminate a bully, and nations are no different.

Relationship as Ownership

With popular culture singing about "my girl" and "my best friends' girl", is it any wonder? When "you should have put a ring on it" and "I need you to need me". From Pretty Woman to An Officer and a Gentleman to "I want to know what love is". There isn't any rationality to it, and because there is not supposed to be, people assume or play along that everything is the way it ought to be.

These pop-culture consumables are not meant to be models, at least not overtly, yet they end up being-in so many ways-just that. Without healthy models in their own lives, so many children end up needing something to base their ideals of relationship on. They can turn to the ubiquitous presence of music and visual media to learn. An understandable mistake, although a crippling one.

I will propose that it is not to own or be owned; that much is certain. However, the fear of being committed should not keep one from relationship. It is not about belonging in the sense of ownership, if we say "they belong together". It is the kind of belonging like birds belong in the air and fish belong in water; it is that right-ness of being that every moment else was not wrong but can never be right in the same way again.

We do what we value, and value what we do

 While this sounds simple, I will expand on the axiom in order to unpack it and demonstrate how it can have an interesting psychological effect.

First, many may be familiar with choosing what to do with their time; be it donating to a cause, pursuing a career, or visiting friends and family, our choices reflect priorities. Currently, I am doing what I value by writing here-I am choosing to reflect my values in my actions. What about the inverse, or second part of this axiom? Does it just mean that we value completing a task? It's actually less clear, and potentially insidious. What this points out is that once we make a choice (or pay a cost), we unconsciously seek to validate it. In part, this effect seeks to resolve cognitive dissonance by reaffirming that a previous loss was the correct choice. If we apply this to my writing, it could be that once I started this post (or the blog itself) I was invested and therefore would have trouble stopping; by taking time away from other areas of my life or 'paying the cost' I would need to defend that choice. This defence comes at a lower or higher intensity depending on the cost. If I were to give 90% of my money to a cause, I am likely to vigorously defend that choice-even or especially after it turned out to be a fraud! This is because the news that I was taken advantage of clashes with my self-image as an intelligent and cautious individual; the news that I was defrauded threatens my very belief in myself, and therefore must be combated.

This is referred to sunk-cost fallacy, and has been widely studied. Because it is already well-known, it can be found in many areas of life outside business and behavioural psychology. I have encountered it reading about self-help/self-improvement topics. Often, the advice is to spend money on a gym membership or exercise equipment in order to jump-start the process; "I've already spent the money, I might as well use it!". However, it also pops up for individuals looking to 'win friends and influence people'. You may even have encountered it a few years ago in popular articles describing how to get people to help you. It basically amounted to using this effect to manipulate others into giving more than they get; "have them give you something small, then when you make the big ask they are primed to agree."

My goal with this post is simply to acknowledge that this bias/cognitive error exists, hence the pithy title which I often recite as a reminder. As with most things, this is a tool that can be used for good or ill; it depends on the user more than the tool.

Self-Castration is Not Safety

First, I have elected to present this argument initially as a sex issue. This is drawn from the dominant culture arguments on the topic, however, since it is inaccurate I shall strive to bring it back to reality after the initial exploration. Second, and for clarity, I do not support violence in any form. There is no way in which I mean any of the following as blaming or as excusing retaliation. All human issues are complex and complicated, as are we humans. Finally, I can only urge and implore readers to accept discomfort in reading difficult writing; it is by challenging ourselves that we open the opportunity for learning.

 

Men have not taken women's power, and have never given it back. Women do not take men's power, men give up their power-most often in order to see seem less threatening to women. Because the things men are can be seen as negative, men pack away assertiveness, assurance, and audacity. There have been years of overt and covert labeling and shaming of men in order to "make women safe" and "make men less violent". Ironically, taking away a man's ability to defend himself is more likely to result in an act of violence. As a man is rendered defenseless, he feels more vulnerable. This leads to increased likelihood of feeling attacked, as he fears that any attack will be successful (since he can no longer defend himself). There is also the increased risk that an undefended attack will do more damage, even more than the attacker intended. So, this man will be more wary and guarded, which will lead those around him to judge that something is amiss, and suspecting him of being "on edge". This means they treat him differently, he becomes more wary, and the cycle builds until it fulfills itself. This is all backwards, as persons need to reclaim their own power instead of demanding others lose their power. This is where we begin to move away from the "female/male" expression of the issue, as the players can be any groups. Sex, gender, religion, culture, or geographic groups all play out these dynamics.

 

Additionally, there is a tendency for the oppressed to become the oppressors; essentially, for retaliation. This is a cycle of violence wherein each oppressed group fights to get out of oppression and, stuck in the mindset of loss and violation, they seek to victimize/violate their former tormentors in order to demonstrate to themselves and others that they are no longer victims. However, if each group who takes power is prone to this violence, then there is no end to the cycle. Each previously oppressed group goes on to oppress others, creating a future wherein the now-oppressed must fight out of oppression and then goes on to oppress their oppressors. Some group has to be the one to relent and allow for their own victimhood to teach how bad it is, and advocate instead for the elimination for all oppression.

The answer to insecurity is never about tearing down, but rather to build up and raise all to a healthy minimum of self-esteem and power so that the abilities of others poses little threat. When all are secure in their own abilities is when true freedom begins.