The Why And The How Of Abuse In Care.

Please Explain: Victims of abuse in care are now, at last, receiving recognition, apologies and compensation, but have they been given a credible explanation as to why their suffering was inflicted, and how it was able to go on for so long?

READING THE ABUSE IN CARE REPORTS, two questions requiring clear and compelling answers remain unanswered: Why? and How? Why were so many children and young people abused in such awful ways? How was it possible for so much and such appalling abuse to continue unchecked for so long? Without satisfactory responses to these two critical questions, the chances of history repeating itself must remain unacceptably high. For some reason, however, the Why and How of Abuse in Care were not made the prime focus of the Royal Commission’s investigations. Its reports tell us the Who, When, Where and What of this horror story, but, those two key questions, Why? and How?, are not adequately addressed.

This failure is, in part, explained by the time period under examination – 1950-1999. Narrowing the Inquiry’s scope to the second half of the twentieth century made it possible for the dominant ideologies relating to physical and mental disability, social deviance, and race, the ideologies that drove official and institutional policy-making for most of the 100 years between 1850 and 1950, to escape the Royal Commission’s scrutiny.

At the heart of the world view that gripped the imaginations of Western intellectuals in the second half of the nineteenth century was Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – summarised as the ‘survival of the fittest’. In an unlikely alliance, not unfamiliar to those living in the twenty-first century, captains of industry and “progressive” social-reformers, alike, observed the condition of contemporary humanity and arrived at strikingly similar conclusions. Evolution, it seemed, was in urgent need of a helping hand. It was Darwin’s half-cousin, Francis Galton, who founded what was very soon feted as “Eugenics” – the new “science” dedicated to the systematically improving the human species.

Anti-democratic, elitist and profoundly authoritarian, Eugenics proceeded from the assumption that humanistic civilisation was, paradoxically, undermining itself by defying Darwin’s immutable law of the survival of the fittest and allowing the physically and morally “defective” to survive and procreate. Left unchecked, the survival of this inferior human stock would very quickly overwhelm and dilute the effectiveness of the superior human material upon which all successful civilisations depend. In short: by being kind to “unfit” human individuals, soft-hearted humanists were being cruel to the collective human species.

The ease with which social reformers, generally, and socialists, in particular, succumbed to the eugenicists’ argument that a kind future requires a cruel present is disconcerting. Preventing the reproduction of the “unfit” may leave us appalled, but at the turn of the nineteenth century the old excuse about the end justifying the means came with a scientific seal of approval.

It is at this historical juncture that New Zealand enters the story. Since the election of the Liberal Government in 1890, this country had earned the reputation of being the “social laboratory of the world”. Reformers around the world thrilled to the spectacle of a society in which socialists and progressives seemed to be in charge. Entirely predictably, eugenic science was forcefully espoused by New Zealand institutions as diverse as Sir Truby King’s Plunket Society and the Women’s Division of the Farmers Union.

As Hilary Stace, writing for the New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre, puts it in her essay “Eugenics in New Zealand”:

“The ‘unfit’ encompassed a whole range of ‘other’ including the following groups described in the language of the time: alcoholics, imbeciles, illegitimate children (and their mothers), prostitutes, criminals, the feeble-minded, lunatics, epileptics, deaf-mutes, the unemployable, the tubercular, the immoral (e.g. homosexuals), anyone from another race, those with incurable diseases such as Syphilis or tuberculosis, and even ‘mouth-breathers’.”

In “God’s Own Country” these categories had very few defenders. Many hoped that the settlement of New Zealand would produce a race of “Better Britons”. In a new country, these settlers hoped to perfect a new kind of human-being. Sir Truby King introduced his celebrated child-rearing regimen by declaring that: “The destiny of the race is in the hands of the mothers.” He was not referring to people of colour!

Always, at the heart of every eugenics project, lay the call for a comprehensive winnowing-out of the species’ “unfit” breeding-stock. Debate raged about how this could best be accomplished. Mandatory sterilisation was favoured by many eugenicists, and widely practiced in the United States of the 1920s and 30s. The compulsory sterilisation of “unfit” New Zealanders was advanced forcefully in 1928, but Parliament balked at legislating it into existence. The politicians of social-democratic Sweden were not so squeamish. Their eugenics programme, launched in the 1930s, was only brought to a close in the 1970s.

Those who think that selective human breeding and the compulsory “euthanasia” of “useless mouths” were crimes against humanity committed exclusively by Germany’s National-Socialist regime during the 1930s and 40s, should think again. The Nazi’s drew much of their inspiration, and received much helpful advice, from the eugenicists of Britain and the United States. The extremity of the German “solutions” may have been unique, but the deadly implications of eugenics were conceived in English.

Though eugenics may have been implemented with varying degrees of severity across the globe, on one strategy all those concerned with the “social hygiene” of their respective nations were agreed: the unfit must be separated from the “healthy” population – hidden away in institutions from which release, let alone escape, was to be made as difficult as possible.

Although the famous words from Dante’s “Inferno” – “Abandon hope all ye who enter here” were not inscribed above the entrances to these terrible places, the findings of the Royal Commission indicate unequivocally that they should have been.

Significantly, it wasn’t just the state that found its institutions and resources given over to the high-minded advocates of eugenic perfectionism. Before there were secular progressives determined to populate a flawless paradise on earth, there were religious institutions determined to make Hell’s spawn fit for Heaven. State and Church, alike, believed their lofty goals were best pursued away from the prying eyes of those who struggled to grasp both the importance and the difficulty of their scientific/spiritual work.

It was this perceived need for secrecy that sealed the fate of so many (one in four) of the young New Zealanders who fell into these institutions’ clutches. There is a distressingly large number of predatory human-beings for whom the information that places exist in which abuse can be carried out without significant risk of retribution will always be irresistible.

Installed within New Zealand’s “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” mental hospitals, orphanages and boys’ homes, with their patterns of abuse well established, these predatory sadists were kept safe by the sheer enormity of their offending. The bureaucrats and medical staff ostensibly in charge of these institutions were in thrall to the idea that, when it comes to the “unfit”, the “fit” population would rather not to know what is happening behind the barbed-wire fences and inside the locked wards. Aware of how disturbing it would be for ordinary citizens to be confronted with the unceasing and unpunished abuse of vulnerable and friendless youngsters, the state said and did nothing – for decades.

This is the Why and the How of the abuse that took place under the auspices of administrators, psychiatrists, doctors, nurses, orderlies, priests and pastors. It is crushing to discover that the number of children and young people victimised between 1950 and 1999 is officially estimated at 200,000. God alone knows how many suffered between 1900 and 1949!

Yes, a fraction of those victims are now, at last, receiving recognition, apologies and compensation, but have they been given a credible explanation as to why their suffering was inflicted, and how it was able to go on for so long?

In the end, it took a generational changing of the guard to finally bury the eugenicist impulses of the New Zealand officials who, even after the horrors of Nazism’s social and racial “hygiene” were made known in 1945, continued to oversee their closed world of incarcerating and coercive pseudo-medicine.

The idea that difference equals danger is embedded deep in the human brain, and the differences that make human-beings feel uncomfortable, even fearful, are all-too-easily transformed into suitable cases for treatment. Perhaps only those who had made a fetish out of their own differences with the generations that had come before them were sufficiently deprogrammed, ideologically, to see the “unfit” as people like themselves – imperfect but still precious vessels deserving of freedom and respect.

Sadly, and in spite of the Royal Commission’s best efforts, there is no happy ending to this story. Though the mental hospitals and boys’ homes are now derelict and empty of all but the ghosts of the unrecorded dead, New Zealanders are still unwilling to embrace the “other” as a fellow person and citizen. Those whom the eugenicists once condemned as “unfit” are now dismissed as “undeserving”. With a Social Darwinist sangfroid that would put last century’s eugenicists to shame, New Zealanders have learned to look through and walk around the homeless and jobless, the hopeless and friendless.

This country no longer needs to hide what it has taught itself not to see.

A version of this essay was originally posted on the Interest.co.nz website on Monday, 29 July 2024.

Justifying Progressive Taxation

About time Atlas shrugged? The creator of this 19th Century political cartoon had no difficulty in identifying who carries who in capitalist society. Ayn Rand notwithstanding, it is the countless millions of proletarian Atlases who prevent Capitalism's world from sinking. Progressive taxation is the price the capitalists' pay for keeping their feet dry.

IT’S ALREADY BEGUN – the wealthiest New Zealanders and their hired guns are already laying down a curtain of covering fire for what looks like being the most inequitable Budget since 1991. The report of the hand-picked Tax Working Group has already (and very predictably) recommended a reduction in the top marginal tax rate from 38 to 30 percent – to be paid for by an increase in the rate of GST from 12.5 to 15 percent. And to head-off the inevitable protests from the Left, the editors, journalists and columnists of the Right are already casting (here and here) the objections of the nation’s "progressives" as manifestations of "the politics of envy" and plain, old-fashioned class hostility.

And they’re winning.

Most left-wingers simply assume that "progressive taxation" – the more income you receive, the more tax you must pay – requires little or nothing in the way of economic or philosophical justification. It is simply presented as "a good thing" – like Motherhood and Apple Pie. If its defenders feel at all obliged to justify the fact that 44 percent of income tax receipts are extracted from just 10 percent of the tax-paying population, they do so by pointing out that this same group of taxpayers controls more than half the nation’s wealth. If their incomes weren’t redistributed by means of progressive taxation, the say, our society would rapidly become even more unequal than it is at present.

But, once again, the Left is assuming that everybody, like themselves, looks upon inequality as "a bad thing" – something which, if it can’t be entirely eliminated, must be ameliorated to the maximum extent possible.

But is this true? Do the wealthiest layers of our society, and those who aspire to join their ranks, really believe all human-beings are equal? Or that our society should be organised to give every one in it "a fair go"?

In my opinion, the answer to that question is: "No – they don’t." Reading the columns and blogs of the Right’s leading apologists, I get the distinct impression that the doctrines of Social Darwinism command a considerable following in this country. Just consider the reaction elicited by Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, whenever she exposes the worst excesses of the beneficiary class. Think about the widespread support for Anne Tolley’s campaign to impose a test-based "standards" regime on our educational system – a policy which the upper and middle classes instinctively recognise as likely to rebound to their social and economic advantage.

No. I don’t think all New Zealanders view inequality as "a bad thing". Not at all. Not by a long shot.

The Left needs to ask itself how the notion of "the more you earn, the more you pay" ever got established. How were the upper and middle classes of modern capitalist societies ever persuaded to go along with fiscal policies so manifestly designed to limit both their wealth and their power?

The answers might surprise them.

For a start there was the enormous moral and social force of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religious traditions. The Jewish prophets reserved their most devastating condemnations for those who refused to share their wealth with the poor; who "ground the faces of the widows and orphans". Jesus famously declared that it was "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". Philanthropy was similarly mandated by the Prophet Mohammed – all Muslims are required to contribute to the maintenance of the poor.

In an irreligious age, and in a nation as secularised as New Zealand, it is easy to forget that, in the past, conformity with these moral precepts was a condition for the salvation of one’s immortal soul. Jewish, Christian and Islamic culture expected people to turn over a significant portion of their wealth to their less fortunate brethren. After all, to see oneself as a child of God more or less mandates a belief in equality and fraternity: if God is our father, then we are all brothers and sisters.

These fundamentally religious precepts flowed naturally into the secular faiths of democracy and socialism.

The French Revolution struck down the notion that inherited privilege had any legitimate role to play in the modern age. The new capitalist wealth, however, was earned. In stark contrast to the wealth of the aristocracy, argued the bourgeois revolutionaries, the capitalist’s profits were the product of individual wit and energy and, therefore, manifestations of democracy.

Classical Marxism dispelled this notion with a vengeance, imbuing wealth with the same moral taint as the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed and the Old Testament prophets. According to Das Kapital, the capitalists appropriated the "surplus value" of their worker’s labour in the form of profit – exploiting the new industrial proletariat no less ruthlessly than their predecessors, the feudal landlords, had exploited their serfs.

The progressive income tax was simply "social democracy’s" means of clawing back the proletariat’s pilfered sweat and talent. Not for nothing was the second of Marx & Engels’ ten demands in The Communist Manifesto: "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax".

The Right, at least, recognises the revolutionary political, social and economic objectives behind the institution of progressive taxation, even as it rejects and denies the religious and/or ethical justifications for its imposition.

In the months ahead, New Zealand’s left-wingers will have to learn once again what their parents and grandparents came to grasp only after long struggle and bitter experience: that equality and social justice are never simply given; they must be fought for – and won.　

This Week Ten Years Ago: "Survival of the Fittest"

Capitalism for beginners: Social Darwinism, the pseudo-scientific justification for 19th Century laissez-faire capitalism, has been superceded by its 21st Century offspring - Sociobiology.

PERHAPS you’ve been wondering how it is that so many of this country’s high-flying chief executives can get things so incredibly wrong. Why they can’t seem to predict the negative public response to such triumphs of managerial excellence as Electricorp’s decision to transport a string quartet half way up a mountainside for the entertainment of its champagne-swilling clients, or WINZ’s folly in flying 100 senior executives on chartered jets to a luxury resort outside Taupo? Most of us would react against such profligacy instinctively. A string quartet for a daughter’s wedding – maybe. A weekend at a luxury resort to celebrate your 10th wedding anniversary – sure. These are luxuries; special treats to be paid for out of our own pockets - not somebody else’s!

The explanation for the reckless behaviour of the business and public service élite is, I regret to say, a profoundly depressing - and very dangerous - one. Since the rise of what might be called "yuppie culture" in the 1980s, there has been an extraordinary resurgence of Social Darwinism throughout the upper echelons of Western society – especially in the English-speaking countries. Except that these days it isn’t called Social Darwinism, these days it goes by the name of "socio-" or even "evolutionary-" "biology". Books like Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene postulate a world in which aggression and competitiveness are hardwired into our brain stems. Where the relationships between men and men, men and women, and adults and children, are calculating, exploitative, and profoundly unequal. A universe in which only losers bleat on about justice, compassion, and social solidarity.

These pernicious sociological falsehoods have percolated through all the layers of advanced capitalist societies - to the point of influencing popular culture. How often, for example, have you heard a man joking about wanting to "share his genes" with some particularly shapely young woman? Or read articles in the glossy women’s magazines extolling the "natural" attractiveness of "rich and successful" males?

The political purpose of sociobiology is as plain as that of the equally self-serving theory of the divine right of kings – to re-cast the predatory impulses of the ruling class as innocent manifestations of the "natural order of things". Just as the "Robber Barons" of late 19th century America explained the squalor and privation of their employees as the result of "natural selection", the sociobiologists accept the widening gulf between rich and poor as an inescapable by-product of the relentless pursuit of superior genetic material. It may sound like science, but its effect is purely political. Racism, sexism, homophobia, all the social evils we thought we had conquered, at least in the realm of the intellect, sneak quietly through the back door of sociobiological theory.

Now imagine the psychological effect of this theory on those who find themselves at the top of our economic, administrative and political institutions. In a world governed by the logic of tooth and claw (not to mention the ability to attract the patronage of "alpha males") they have fought their way to the summit. Their genes have triumphed over all their rivals in the cut-throat competition of the evolutionary playground. The men and women beneath them are not merely unlucky – they are inferior. To be a Chief Executive is not simply a matter of being first among equals – you’re the MAN! The victor! And to the victors go the spoils.

So you see, to the élite there is nothing really wrong with pigging out at the public’s expense. After all, what is "the public" but the discarded residue of the struggle for dominance, the worthless detritus of repeated genetic collisions? To the élite, "the public" is just another euphemism for "the losers".

This essay was originally published in The Dominion of Friday, 13 August 1999.