The Right to Disrupt

As you might imagine, I do not usually hang around with the Occupy Wall Street crowd. But last week I made an exception. At the request of a student, I attended a panel at KSU’s Suburban Conference on social issues. He wanted me to serve as a counter-weight to what he knew would be an ideologically skewed presentation.

Subsequently, for more than an hour I sat quietly, if not patiently, as a series of activists celebrated their adventures in disruptive behavior. They boasted about how they entered parks with permits, then refused to leave. They likewise gloated about how they “saved” people from eviction by physically interceding on their behalf.

What rankled the most, however, was the glee in their eyes as they described how they shut down foreclosure auctions by singing as loudly as they could. As one of the presenters put it, “It was a beautiful thing.”

Shortly after this, I could contain myself no longer. Consequently, I raised my hand to assert, rather energetically, that this was one of the most “ignorant” and shortsighted displays I had witnessed in recent memory.

Naturally, this was not perceived as constructive criticism. Quiet the contrary, my use of the word ignorant was decried as an unprofessional epithet. Nonetheless, the accuracy of this descriptor was shortly confirmed by the reaction to another of my comments.

In trying to explain why the Occupy tactics would make things worse, I alluded to the Great Depression as a cautionary precedent. To this the reply was that precedents did not matter; that they were irrelevant.

When I further inquired about whether I got my facts wrong, I was told that the current situation was unique and therefore what happened in the past need not be considered. Indeed, it was plain that at least one of the presenters had no knowledge about the financial policies of the Roosevelt administration, nor of their impact.

But what really set the fur to flying was when I asserted that the Occupy people were not protesters, but provocateurs. This was not appreciated. The presenters did not perceive interfering with what others were lawfully doing as a provocation. They were merely seeking much needed publicity for a good cause.

From their point of view, I was the provocateur. It was I who was interfering with their ability to make their case. Meanwhile, it was their duty to be as unruly as the situation merited. After all, they were only protecting the rights of others.

Obviously, people had a “right” to housing—irrespective of whether they could afford it. They also had a “right” not to pay back their loans. It was the banks that were at fault. It was they that forced people to take out loans they could not afford and therefore they that should bear the burden of the defaults.

When an older, more experienced member of the audience objected that buyers had a responsibility to take on obligations they could manage, this was airily dismissed. Nor did the presenters acknowledge that shutting down the nation’s financial system would have dire economic consequences.

Smug and self-satisfied, they directed their ire toward me. Amazingly these activists who prided themselves on their lack of public civility lectured me on the need to be civil. They were merely making an intellectual case, whereas I was violating the canons of academic etiquette by being vociferous in my objections.

Indeed, they complained about my behavior to the conference organizers. Even though they identified themselves as dissenters, they were not prepared to tolerate dissent directed their way.

They were especially unhappy that my critique was so voluble. While they routinely shout down others, they demanded rights they deny their adversaries. Clearly, their idea of fairness is rather one-sided. Evidently, they reside on a more rarified moral plane than ordinary mortals.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Social Discipline

We have become a middle class society, but in the process we have inadvertently corrupted our lower classes. Because the rules that apply to middle class folks don’t always apply to the poor, treating everyone the same has resulted in a host of tragedies. Let me explain. I have been reading Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart” as well as an article about Melvin Kohn’s ideas on social values, and putting the pieces together. What they suggest is something that at first blush sounds antithetic to the American Dream. Murray richly documents the diverging fates of those at the upper and lower ends of our social class system. While members of the upper middle class are doing very nicely, the lowest thirty percent are trapped in a cycle of crime, unemployment, and disintegrating marriages. Moreover, they are unhappy. Meanwhile, Kohn has provided evidence that middle class parents teach their children to be self-directed, whereas lower class parents demand conformity. The latter insist on obedience and if it is not forthcoming have no compunctions about imposing physical discipline. What this results in are upper middle class children who are capable of self-discipline and lower class children who have difficulty with self-control. The former internalize social standards such as morality, while the latter become oppositional and seek to get away with what they can. The difference in these orientations is on display in the sports they favor. Thus, the middle classes enjoy golf, an activity that is notorious for the personal concentration it requires. The lower classes, however, are enraptured by pro-wrestling, a spectacle in which large-bodied paladins often cheat in order to defeat their opponents. This disparity may seem amusing, yet is anything but. When it is translated onto the larger social scene, it means that middle class persons are more worthy of trust than their lower class peers. Because they monitor their own behaviors and control their selfish impulses, they can be allowed to function without external controls. Indeed, as social leaders they often control others. Meanwhile, those belonging to the lower strata more often seek to elude social constraints. They hate being bound by rules, thus if they believe their activities are not being monitored, they over-step the lines. I saw this when I worked at a methadone clinic where the attitude was that lawbreaking was okay—as long as you didn’t get caught. Put this together with the fact that our society today believes in “tolerance” and the consequences are alarming. We are now supposed to offer everyone “unconditional positive regard” and refrain from being “judgmental.” This stance appears humane, yet is fraught with danger. We can indeed take a hands-off approach with people who are self-directed. Because they discipline themselves, they can be allowed to make independent choices. On the other hand, those who are not self-directed cannot be extended a similar independence. In short, members of the lower classes require a greater variety of external constraints. If they are to behave in a disciplined manner, they must be subject to exterior sanctions when they violate social standards. Nonetheless, we as a society have decided that imposing standards on people violates their rights. This tactic, while it works perfectly well with most middle class folks, invites irresponsibility and lethargy from lower class folks. Once upon a time, most people understood this. They realized that social discipline was required if we were to have an orderly society. The founding fathers recognized this when they endorsed religion as a means of keeping people socially accountable. Most ordinary people endorsed it when they subscribed to a legal system that punished the guilty. They also approved it when they scorned those who broke their marriage vows. Regretfully, we too must uphold social discipline. The fact is that there are some folks who need it and others who suffer when it is absent. Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D. Professor of Sociology Kennesaw State University

Unmitigated Arrogance

It was the Fall of 1944. The American army had broken out of Normandy and was hurtling toward the German border. Far to the east the Soviet juggernaut was poised to smash its way into Berlin. Nonetheless, Adolf Hitler remained confident. Whatever the appearances, Nazism would find a way to prevail.
Certain that he was on the side of history, Hitler ordered his forces to stand their ground. They were not to retreat an inch. But if they did; if they did not hurl back the foe, the German people deserved to lose. If they refused to keep their faith with the fuehrer, then they ought to be punished for their moral and physical weakness.
When I began to contemplate this column, I thought I would be writing about Newt Gingrich. His assumption that providence owed him the presidential nomination struck me as inordinately vain. He was not an Adolf Hitler, but his attitude too seemed destructively arrogant.
Yet Newt has tempered his anger at Mitt Romney. He still talks of taking his crusade to the floor of the Republican convention, yet his heart does not seem to be in it.
Meanwhile, Rick Santorum has emerged as a political monomaniac. He is so certain that he enjoys the mandate of heaven that it often seems he does not care what happens to the nation if his campaign falters. In perceiving himself as the true, and only, salvation for what ails America, it sounds as if he is prepared to pull down the temple if he does not get his way.
The sage heads in the Republican Party are now telling Santorum that continuing the fight will injure the likely candidate and make it probable that Obama will be re-elected. But Rick is not moved. He has persuaded himself that he can still win despite the odds. All he has to do is stand his ground and not retreat an inch.
Members of the media have frequently portrayed Santorum as a zealot. They make him sound like a true believer who is ready to do anything for his cause. Now he seems determined to prove his critics right. In his myopic rigidity, he has taken to distorting reality almost as much as the Nazi’s once did.
Take Rick’s repeated mantras over the last few months. For one thing, he regularly denounces Romney for running a negative campaign. Nonetheless, it is Santorum who has been relentlessly negative. Romney keeps trying to shift the focus onto president Obama’s faults, but he has been forced to ward off attacks from his fellow Republican instead.
Consider the piece of sophistry about how Romney cannot stand up against ObamaCare because RomneyCare is so similar. First, there are important differences between these plans that Santorum blatantly ignores. But more importantly, Obama cannot attack Ronmey’s position, without having to defend his own. And since he cannot do this, Mitt can easily rock him back on his heels.
Then there is the Santorum canard that a floor fight in Tampa will not damage the Republican Party or its candidate. Can anyone seriously believe this? With charges and counter-charges regarding the mendacity and incompetence potential contenders being tossed around like live grenades, is it possible to believe that none of these will go off?
Rick Santorum has proved that he had a lot to say during the past several months. Moreover, he has clearly given us food for thought. But the time for debating the issues is over. The current objective is not to score points; it is to win an election.
If Santorum does not understand this, he is not fit to be president. If he does not care and in the process bequeaths us a second Obama term, he is a rapscallion who is concerned more about his own interests than those of others.
Indeed, if it is the latter, he needs to realize he is digging his political grave.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Niceness Trap

For liberals, niceness is an article of faith. They believe that in the best of all possible worlds everyone will be nice to everyone else. Nonetheless, too much niceness can have alarming consequences.
Many of these downsides have been documented in Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart.” He makes it plain that millions of poor people have suffered irreparable damage as a result of being treated with a super-abundance of sweetness and light.
Liberals are fond of chiding conservatives for “blaming the victim.” They tell us that backward looking people are too ready to hold the poor responsible to problems they did not create. If these unenlightened troglodytes will only back off and treat those injured by capitalistic excess with respect, these downtrodden souls will be able to overcome their disabilities.
Murray, however, demonstrates just how severe is the plight of the lower classes. On almost every measure, the top twenty percent in our society are doing far better than the lowest thirty percent.
Let us consider marriage. Everyone knows that divorce rates have risen precipitously. Yet many do not realize that middle class couples tend to stay married, whereas poor couples do not. Indeed, the poor have a distressing habit of not marrying at all. They merely cohabit until convenience—or a jail sentence—cleaves them asunder.
This might not seem an insuperable problem, except for the fact that these folks often have babies. They do not wait to tie the knot before they start producing the next generation. Sadly, many procreate even before leaving their teens.
Given that two out of every five children are today born out of wedlock and that their parents are liable to be dirt poor, the impact of non-committed sex can be drastic. Since the children of unmarried parents are likely to grow up poor, uneducated, and unhappy, this means that millions of children are condemned to misery thanks to the unrestrained impulses of their parents.
But liberals tell us that we must be nice. We ought not condemn a disadvantaged teenage girl for having unprotected sex with a guy who is unemployed and strung out on drugs. It is not her fault that life dealt her a faulty hand. After all, she is doing the best she can to survive.
According to them, it makes sense that a woman with meager marital prospects might desire motherhood to compensate for her unhappy fate? Why indeed shouldn’t she seize the few pleasures available to her?
The answer, of course, is that her choices affect others. More specifically, they have dire consequences for her offspring. It may be a cliché to say they did not ask to be born, but they did not. Nor did they ask to be born to irresponsible parents.
Once upon a time we called children conceived under these circumstances “bastards.” By the same token, we condemned their mothers as the next best thing to prostitutes. These women were not treated kindly, hence they and their families sought to hide their shame.
But as the targets of humiliation, they did something else. Even though they were poor, they sought to avoid illegitimacy. Then, if a mistake were made, they rectified it with shotgun alliances.
Beyond this, many of the poor avoided illicit pregnancies because they feared the wrath of the church. Routinely told that they would go to Hell for their transgressions, they controlled their wayward urges. Unfortunately, as Murray has also documented, the poor are no longer going to church in large numbers. Who then is to hold them accountable for their actions?
The poor may not be responsible for having caused their dilemma. But they are responsible for many of the behaviors that perpetuate it. This being so, is it really nice to let them off the hook without a word of disapproval?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University