 |
| Hans and Sophie Scholl |
We seem to be
witnessing a change of the cultural consensus in two arenas that have recently
received considerable attention. Sexual harassment and assault; and pervasive
violence that revolves so much around guns because of their lethality and
availability. Both are very much in flux and lack complete clarity. The
integrity of various forces and people exerting influence in many directions is
being questioned. As much as we humans crave well-defined, stable definitions
of what is and what is not acceptable, cultural consensus in any realm is
always fluid and fuzzy. Some will always take exception to what is generally
accepted.
As typically
happens when a new awareness sweeps into popular thinking, not everything or
everyone speaking out against sexual harassment and assault is free of flaws.
But the groundswell of the #MeToo movement is evidence that the cultural
consensus has changed so that it is no longer acceptable for people who wield
power or think they are stars to believe that the victims of their sexual
harassment and assault let them do it. Of course, some will persist anyway. But
no longer will coercion and intimidation be accepted as consent. Nor will mere
acquiescence be consent. No longer will victims be blamed while predators are
excused if not celebrated. No longer will victims be shamed into silence.
The frequency
and magnitude of mass killings has repeatedly brought the problem of violence
to public attention for several years. Somehow, with the tragedy at Stoneman
Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, 2018, the
response seems to have reached a level sufficient to launch a change in the
cultural consensus. By speaking out so vehemently, publically, and promptly,
the survivors and families of those who were killed have unleashed a social force
unseen after previous mass killings. The power of their voices is evident in the
efforts to dilute, dismiss, discount, and discredit them. They have prevented
allowing this to fade with the passing of the next news cycle. Large businesses
have changed their relationship with the NRA. People who have avoided the fray
of the gun debates are speaking up. My own 46 year old son Jon who has focused
his writing on marriage, family, mission, leadership and men’s ministry wrote
at length about Parkland in his Stretched
blog. http://www.jonstolpe.com/in-response-to-parkland/
In these last
couple of weeks I have noticed increasingly strident messages not just
supporting gun rights but warning of dire consequences if they are limited. One
that has shown up is a quote attributed to Adolph Hitler about confiscating
guns as essential to taking over a nation. I did some research on this (not at
the level of a doctoral dissertation) and was unable to find a citation of when
and where he said that. That is not to suggest anything positive about Adolph
Hitler. This research pointed me in a different direction that I believe speaks
to the dynamics of changing cultural consensus.
After World War
I, gun ownership in the German Weimar Republic was tightly restricted. When the
Nazis came to power they relaxed gun regulations for “ordinary German citizens”
but they prohibited those they considered “untrustworthy” from possessing guns,
most obviously Jews, but also citizens of those countries they occupied and
considered inferior: e.g. Poland, France. Some have suggested that if the Jews
had been better armed they might have prevented the Holocaust and brought down
the Nazi regime, but most historians consider that highly improbable.
My research
brought me again to the White Rose student movement that opposed the Nazis with
the distribution of leaflets. On February 18, 1943 Hans (age 25) and Sophie
(age 22) Scholl were caught distributing White Rose leaflets at the Ludwig Maximilian University of
Munich. On February 22, 1943 they were executed by Guillotine.
(Today’s terrorists do not have a monopoly on beheading.) On her way to
execution Sophie said, “Such a fine, sunny day, and I have to go, but what does
my death matter, if through us, thousands of people are awakened and stirred to
action?” And Hans shouted from the Guillotine,
“Long live freedom!” The Nazis were far more afraid of the leaflets of the
White Rose students than all the people with guns. Though in a different time
and place, with a different awareness, thousands of people seem to be awakening
and are stirred to action. Perhaps not as dramatically as for the Scholls, but
I suspect that some, especially the young and inexperienced, may pay a high
price for speaking out.
For some time
those who have advocated more restrictions on guns have been told, “We do not
have a gun problem; we have a heart problem.” The typical logic is not to
change laws but things like bringing back rote prayers in public schools. The
assumption seems to be that individuals who have not had that exposure are more
prone to kill. I do not want to get side tracked into debating those sorts of
arguments. I do believe that what we all think and how we all feel about guns
is a matter of the heart. From my experience as a spiritual director, I have
written an inventory that anyone can use to explore the place of guns in their
hearts regardless of their views on guns in our society. I invite you to visit
this site and see what you learn. http://nstolpepilgrim.blogspot.com/2016/01/guns-in-your-heart.html
I would also
suggest that our cultural consensus is a question of the heart. I am not
meaning what particular religious tradition one identifies with or follows, but
in the sense that what we value in our hearts blends together into a picture of
what we aspire for our society to be and become. In general laws reflect the
cultural consensus on many things. Sure, not everyone agrees, and some
disregard and even break the law for their own reasons. As cultural consensus
changes, laws are adjusted accordingly. And, yes, laws also shape the cultural
consensus. Open housing laws enabled more people of different races,
ethnicities, and cultures to become neighbors and friends, promoting acceptance
of diversity. So we have laws prohibiting theft and assault, even though we
know some people break those laws, because we want to live without being robbed
or attacked. In this time of changing cultural consensus, we are seeking a new
vision of the kind of society we want with regard to violence, and yes,
firearms.
We are seeing a
rising groundswell of calling for change in our society’s cultural consensus
about violence, much of it directed at doing something specifically about gun
violence. While an outcry follows every mass killing, they have not launched
the kind of speaking out we are seeing now with things like students walking
out of schools. We may disagree about whether this is good or effective, but I
would suggest that if it persists it could begin to precipitate a change in our
cultural consensus about violence. If it reaches a critical mass, it will
result in political and legal changes to reflect the emerging consensus, which
will in turn, reinforce the emerging consensus. Mass killings get public
attention that seems to be prompting unprecedented action, but it will also
affect the much more common but hidden tragedies of accidents, domestic
violence, suicide, and even criminal acts.
I am no prophet
and have no idea where this might head, but something tells me we are not going
back to business as usual any time soon. I don’t think we can project a
trajectory from the last couple of weeks that will tell us what to expect,
except that I am sure the law of unintended consequences will play a part. Without
a doubt, this will be messy and the consensus might not be crystal clear. I am
also sure that some people of nefarious intent will seek to capitalize on the
shifting winds of change, wherever they blow. I am also certain those who have
substantial investments in the current consensus or the confusion about it,
will push back vehemently. I am sure we will not find one grand, sweeping
solution to the problems of violence, but take small incremental steps that
will not end mass killings or other acts of violence, but may slow down the
pace of death, perhaps imperceptibly at first, but relentlessly sparing lives
of loved people one by one.
I have tried to
write about the changing cultural consensus about violence in our society that
seems to be developing and not make this a polemic about guns one way or
another. I have written not only where I stand on this but also why I must
focus on caring for my wife, Candy, and not engage in that discussion any
further. http://nstolpepilgrim.blogspot.com/2018/02/relinquishing-grasp-of-joy-thief.html
I believe I have contributed what I
can to the discussion of violence in our society, of which guns are such a
prominent lightening rod. Rather than try to convince, I have tried to promote
thought and discourage either-or and all-or-nothing wrangling. I have no
illusions that what I have written is any more persuasive that the flood of
words that are out there, but they are available to anyone who cares to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment