I believe that although we can spread the word "blame" or "responsibility" around with a fair amount of ease (despite not being the exact same thing), the impact of the associating the blame with persons can only be a result of direct involvement. That is, we cannot punish someone who did not commit a crime merely because they may have been influential. The clearest examples are those involving the law. When someone breaks a law, consequences are dealt based solely upon claims that can be backed up by evidence. We do not punish someone for possible influence on the person who committed the crime. Of course, that does not mean that a person who pays someone to commit a crime goes free. Although there is admittedly a great deal of gray area in reality, how are we to punish those that did not have a concrete role in the crime? However, often the bounds of blame reach farther than may be realized.
 |
| A picture that Seung-Hui Cho sent to NBC news before the shooting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChoSh.jpg |
One example in reality of this would be the Virginia Tech shooting. The person who was taken to jail was punished because he (and only he) could be convicted of physically committing a crime. (The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, is shown in the image to the right). Yes, you may say that the school environment did not give enough support, or that the students around him were not aware enough, or that his parents gave him a wrongful upbringing. However, how are we possibly able to say that the school, the students, or his parents were to blame. Simply enough, we can't. Even if we were to say that we, though not directly involved, were responsible, or to blame, what difference would this claim make in society? None, whatsoever. The impacts of our claims to responsibility only extend as far as reality allows.
In this way, we have defined what responsibility is. We have shown that responsibility (not blame) is defined by the means of impact it has in reality. I do not believe that we were all partially responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting. Nor do I believe I am responsible for the murders constantly occurring in Memphis, nor the failure of the school systems or government. This is because, firstly, there is no possible way that I could spread my time or efforts enough to solve all of those "responsibilities" of mine. Secondly, we cannot be concretely defined as responsible for the actions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with both of you and I am not content with leaving the argument for responsibility open ended. I would like to address something that I believe Professor Johnson brought up at the end of class which was extremely fascinating for me. I believe she said something along the lines of, “it is too easy to shed the responsibility for someone else’s crime because you do not feel personally responsible for it” (If I am misremembering or grossly misquoting please put me in my place). Does something really become doubtable because it is the common sense solution to a problem? Does my lack of a personal connection for tragedies occurring on campuses nationwide automatically void my responsibility for them? How are we to assess the validity of her statement? Is this argument simply the result of a definition of a noun and how we have come to not understand it?
ReplyDeleteI am going to have to admit defeat by way of confusion on this one. I simply do not understand her use of responsibility and the practicality of it. If I were to use responsible as I know it, I would absolutely have to side with Will here. There is no possible way I can be responsible for everything that occurs concurrently, it would drive me crazy.
I am sympathetic to your concern that a radical claim of responsibility makes no impact in the world. It doesn't. Nobody wants that. There is, however, an interst for Foucault to say it nonetheless. It seems to be a critique on society and structures of our lives. It doesn't say anything about where we should go from here or what we can change, but it provides a perspective.
ReplyDeleteBy saying that you do not believe everyone has responsibility for every bad action that a human freely chooses to do in our world , you are already admitting that you are part of the capitalist cultural system that produces subjects that will maintain that system; namely, one that will defend it by removing responsibility off of individuals; because otherwise, the system will collapse. In a capitalist culture system like the one we are in right now, we have to puts responsibility on each individual in order to have maximum productivity. Not to say this is a bad thing- it's just what it is. And it is a concept so conveniently ingrained into the souls of the system that the subjects in the system feel neither morally nor practically inclined to any other kinds of distribution of responsibility.
I think people are often quick to say, "Well sure, we're sort of responsible in an abstract sense, just as long as we're (and I'm) not culpable by law."
ReplyDeleteThe truth is though, there are many laws that can persecute a more indirect responsibility as you're portraying it. If you see someone commit suicide and don't do anything, in certain states you can be punishable by law. There are more direct responsibilities, yes. If you shoot someone, you will be persecuted for doing that. However to say that everyone who is not directly related is not culpable is empirically wrong. When the cop was allowed on campus at UC Davis last year and the people were outraged by his actions, the dean's resignation was demanded.
Will, I agree with you in that you fail to feel responsible for school shooting tragedies, particularly the one at Virginia Tech. I believe this is because we feel so removed from the incidents. I hate to say this, but perhaps it is due to the fact that school shootings have become more and more common over the years, however this is no reason to downplay their importance. When I look back on the Columbine shooting, one can't help but think what was going through the minds of these kids before they slaughtered innocent people. Something was psychologically wrong with these kids. With that being said, I don't believe at all that every murderer is mentally ill. To me, this is more unsettling than those who actually have mental illnesses, because they think like you and me, and for them to have been pushed to the edge of taking someone else's life is profoundly abhorring. If only we had the technology that was seen in Tom Cruise's "Minority Report," then all of the world's murders would be prevented by a futuristic swat team.
ReplyDeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteI like the way you decided to define responsibility by using its boundaries. However, I also believe it is nearly impossible to accomplish this. Yes, the Virginia Tech students and faculty could not have seen the incident coming, but they could actively offer counseling to students having trouble. I know things like this can happen spontaneously without any warning signs, but I do not think this is usually the case. A student that kills his fellow students must have shown some outward signs of trouble. He might of felt alienated from his fellow students or just cracked under the pressure of college life. You are right in saying that it is unrealistic for us to be expected to attempt to help everybody, but I also believe that there is no way everyone is doing the most they can. If everyone took it upon themselves to do the most they could, a lot of the problems we face today would not be so insurmountable. I think it was Briana that mentioned "dispersion of responsibility" when we were talking about the car wreck example. After hearing this, I felt a lot of anger towards the way people act today. Everyone should take it upon themselves to help those in need rather than assuming that someone else will do it. So, though we may not be able to take on all the responsibility, I believe it necessary that we each take on the greatest amount we can.