At 8:50 PM +0000 27/3/02, domfox wrote:
>>Sympathy for the aggressor entails a kind of sleazy
>>wallowing in one's own unresolved desire to injure, to pick on others, to
>>retaliate. It is the precise opposite of a real commitment to social
>>justice, and one of the defining moral vices of the liberal left (my team)
in this country.

No, I don't think an recognition of specific problems means "hand
wringing inaction", although I can see that it might; I too think
that's an evasion. It seems more a proper recognition of some of the
causes of some behaviour. I think it is important to distinguish
between adults and children, which you seem not to be doing.
Children are not adults, although some adults behave like children.

A couple of friends of mine, John Embling and Heather Pilcher, run
the Families in Distress Foundation in Footscray, which specifically
deals with children who come from unspeakably violent, abusive or
neglectful backgrounds. They are perhaps not especially
conventional, but it is fair to say their treatment of antisocial
behaviour is not the liberal handwringing you describe. John is
among other things a martial arts expert; I remember him turning up
to a play of mine with his arm in a sling. "I thought we were going
to be late; one of our 'girls' was getting beaten up and her man went
for me with a knife..." Their work is extremely practical, but it is
driven by a philosophy much more complex and thoughtful than I can
outline here. Among other things, it assumes that the selves of
children are unformed and need guidance, and in the cases where they
get none, or worse, their selves will be fragmented and destructive,
to themselves and to others. They see this in the context of a
society which is fragmented and consequently destructive towards
human beings and specifically children. Their work is demanding
because it deals with the total child, not just the bits of asocial
behaviour which are generally dealt with by different government
departments. Children are not blamed for behaviour which is due to
circumstances utterly beyond their control, but they are also taught
to take responsibility for their own actions. It's remarkably
effective, although some children are so damaged that they cannot
help them. Those children die.

Adults are responsible for _children_, for good or ill. To a child
who is victim of other children's actions, this can seem injust,
since it doesn't feed the childish desire for revenge, but I assure
you it's not. All children are horrible to each other in normal
circumstances sometimes, that is without question; but children who
systematically learn to enjoy the pain of others are already in
trouble. I don't exactly see how a recognition of this is a
derogation of responsibilities towards any child who is a victim of
their actions. It's hardly either/or, but much rather, both.

Best

Alison
--

"The only real revolt is the revolt against war."
                                        Albert Camus

Alison Croggon
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/

Masthead Online
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/