Monday 12 August 2024

Default Settings.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: The institutionalised had few friends and no respite from the abuse that persisted, unreported and unpunished. Behind the barbed wire and inside the locked wards, the hunger of those who feed on pain and violence continued to be sated.

LET IT BE KNOWN that appalling behaviour will not be prevented, or punished, by the authorities, and watch it flourish.

To confirm this grim assertion, one has only to consider the example of the former Yugoslavia. Families who had lived next to one another for decades, whose children had played together, grown together, married one another, suddenly found themselves sucked into a maelstrom of horrific communal violence. Overnight, a murderous, state-sanctioned nationalism began portraying one’s neighbours as deadly enemies, whose destruction, far from being punished, would be rewarded. How quickly former friends became rapists, torturers and murderers was chilling.

The same terrifying spectacle unfolded in Rwanda.

That these examples point to a terrible hunger for pain and violence lodged deep in the human psyche is profoundly confronting.

That these destructive urges do not tear our society to pieces cannot be wholly explained by the ordinary citizen’s fear of retribution. From an early age we are schooled in the virtues of kindness and consideration. These, we are assured, are the default-settings of humankind, and those who behave otherwise are portrayed as dangerous deviations from the norm.

That unkind, often brutal, treatment is meted out to our fellow citizens by persons we regard as perfectly normal, is explained by the recipients’ actual or alleged propensity to harm the communities in which they live. Convince people that any given individual, or group, constitutes an existential threat to their wellbeing, and you can do pretty-much anything you want to them – and not be punished for it.

The multiple reports of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care reveal in excruciating detail how this stigmatising of individuals and groups played out in New Zealand between 1950 and 1999. Our empathy for the victims of the policies and practices of that half-century is so strong that it has left us curiously uninterested in identifying what it was that permitted so much pain and violence to be inflicted on so many mostly young New Zealanders for so long.

The brutally straightforward explanation for those 50 years of abuse is that, for at least the 50 years that preceded 1950, persons categorised as: “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” were branded by credible authority figures – senior public servants, academic experts, medical professionals, political leaders – as threats to the moral, social and racial “hygiene” of the nation.

To safeguard the nation’s genetic health, argued the promoters of the new “science” of Eugenics, “unfit” and/or “defective” individuals must be isolated from the rest of the population in closed institutions. The most extreme eugenicists went further. Those declared “unfit” in the United States and Sweden were subjected to forced sterilisation. In 1928, New Zealand eugenicists were poised to do the same, but, to their eternal credit, the parliamentarians of the time refused to oblige them.

Nowhere did the eugenic ideology take firmer hold than in Nazi Germany, where tens-of-thousands of “useless mouths” were murdered with the blessing of the state and its professional servants.

The horrors perpetrated in the name of social and racial “hygiene” by the Nazis turned Eugenics into a dirty word, but the ideas at its core – that the different were dangerous – lingered on in the state institutions erected in its name.

And it wasn’t just the medical superintendents and senior bureaucrats who continued to treat the different as dangerous, the overwhelming majority of “normal” New Zealanders concurred. Out of sight and out of mind, the institutionalised had few friends and no respite from the abuse that persisted, unreported and unpunished. Behind the barbed wire and inside the locked wards, the hunger of those who feed on pain and violence continued to be sated.

It is estimated that upwards of 200,000 young New Zealanders were abused in institutional settings during the second half of the twentieth century. Such massive and prolonged mistreatment cannot be perpetrated, or successfully hidden, unless its victims are first reduced to something less-than-human.

In Yugoslavia and Rwanda that dehumanisation was achieved by making them enemies of the nation, of the tribe. In New Zealand, by presenting them as a challenge to our tragically narrow definition of “normality”.

Leaving us with just two questions: What appalling behaviour goes unpunished today? And against whom?


This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 2 August 2024.

8 comments:

Guerilla Surgeon said...

While after World War II eugenics did become a dirty word, but the memories lingered on, and New Zealand was always a bit of a stultified place when it came to difference, and the way it treated people who were different. Eccentricity was reserved for the ruling classes, in ordinary people it was regarded with horror. But let's face it, physical punishment was rife in our schools. And apparently it did no one any harm. While I can assure you it might not have harmed some – I have the distinction of being whacked on the backside with a strap by Jonathan Hunt at one stage, which I guess I could dine out on – it certainly did harm some, possibly many.
And flogging as a punishment was not abolished in New Zealand until 1941. I doubt if it did any more good than hitting kids at school.
I once worked in a school where one of the teachers took – it seemed to me more than a little too much pleasure in hitting kids, humiliating them while he did it. Again in my youthful fervour, I reported it. Nothing was done, so all I could do was refused to be a witness for the guy. People who do this sort of thing as I said before, often put themselves in positions where they have the respect and authority to get away with it. And in the past society facilitated this sort of thing. Hopefully not so much now.

whetu star said...

It wasn't specifically the young who were abused. The commission focused on the young to leverage public sympathy because, as you point out, the public didn't care and supported what became, despite some good people involved, rubbish bins for unwanted people.

This has been a core problem of abuse, as well a passive form of abuse in itself in such institutions and situations. It was not just that those who need to abuse had the perfect playgrounds for their need, it was that our community gave, and continues to give, implicit permission.

Children are the only such group that is sympathetic to the public, hence the commission focused there. Its report suggested nothing that might change the problem, not specific, focused research, not actual mechanisms to protect the vulnerable and actually identify abuse - such as cameras that could provide recordings in the case of disputed claims, and it was careful to downplay those in such situations that had actual power and acted to cover-up abuse when it was reported - not by busy-bodies but those whose experienced or witnessed it.

The commission was a tragedy. It was unwilling to rattle cages and seek real solutions. It chose instead to offer a single 'shock-horror-probe' in a single news cycle.

The commission has not created a brand-new witch hunt against the innocent because to be in an actual position to report continues to incur serious consequences to the reporter - staff or 'inmate' - a dangerous action that incurs punishment and zero reward. People will always gossip from a position of distance and safety, but nothing will come of it unless those with power choose to scapegoat as part of cover-up of something that is going on. Which has always been a part of cover-ups of abuse.

Abuse in care is the community's shame and one the community refuses to face - until the next brief public hand-wringing about some incident that happened safely in the past. It's worth noting that the commission's term of reference excluded anything that wasn't well in the past.

CXH said...

The last part is an impossible question. The horrors being carried out today will not be known for some time. It requires new generations to formulate new ideas on what is right or wrong. They must then look back at where we are now and judge us using their new morals.

Much like we do now, denigrating our past for not living up to our present ideals.

John Hurley said...

I don’t think your comparison with Yugoslavia and abuse in care is appropriate. Yugoslavia was inter-ethnic violence. Ethnic groups are cohesive identities. You can think of the members as molecules who bond but are repelled by other ethnic groups. Unless the members of individual ethnic groups bond into one dominant ethnic group, there will be tension. It will take more than John Campbells exhortations to achieve that.
Institutions are unnatural (although necessary). In primitive societies, children were surrounded by uncles and aunts and there was very little violence against children (once they had been accepted).
Institutions for children attract pedophiles (unfortunately) and the last thing a religious institution would want to display is ungodliness.
When people become work some can become cynical (like the a/hole at the Freezing Works who used his prodder on the cows vagina).
Eugenics is about avoidance, is why you’ll see more good looking people at private schools (people with superior genetics marry people with superior genetics.; if fixes were available for people's deficiencies societies would readily apply them.
As Chris points out measures can be indiscriminate. I’m a believer in the death penalty; on principle, that there will be occasions when it is justified and because my basic model is of society as being in a lifeboat where there are minimal standards for behaviour, rather than a wrap around do no harm.

New view said...

The estimated numbers of abused in those institutions might indicate a systematic collaborative abuse on a massive scale over many years but I don’t believe it was quite like that. There would be good and bad staff. Those who gravitated to these institutions with their prey already corralled for them so they just waited for their opportunities. Alongside them are those who take work there and because of their questionable values and careless attitude, treated their patients with little dignity and respect which amounted to abuse. Let’s not forget that good staff who worked In these institutions now have their names listed alongside those who were most certainly guilty of abuse. The only thing that has changed is where the abuse happens. Then, in large residential hospital like institutions, now in private homes where the predators could be a relative, friend or even a parent, real or foster. I believe institutional abuse is far harder to hide these days. More of us are aware and phone cameras are everywhere. Where state care places children is harder to monitor but monitor each situation it must to minimise and stop any abuse. The human mind is definitely open for business when it comes to showing our dark side. Believing misinformation, being swayed by the crowd and being tempted by opportunism will always be an option.

Larry Mitchell www.cprlifesaver.co.nz said...

The horrors of our recent ... currently and of the distant past ... of these... child and people abuses while in State care ... do NOT need any more apologetic "hand wringing" and sociological pontificating ... see above for 3 examples.

If we really want ??? TO DO SOMETHING... that has a good prospect of ensuring that these excesses will not in future continue, then the "SOMETHING" involves comprehensive trial, sentencing and if warranted incarceration of the perpetrators.

I know ... I know ... I hear you cry. Impractical pie in the sky et al.

BUT!!! ... if New Zealand, which has always imagined itself a world leader in human rights is to be worthy of the title then ... "let's do this".

If all the public money spent on State care institutions was to be redirected to imprisonment... to Work Camps of the criminal persons involved .. then maybe ... just maybe ... WE ... we! can change.

greywarbler said...

Larry Mitchell downgrades sociological pontificating, but what about his? Should that be downgraded ? It is a fair example of trying to look at a sad situation of humanity objectively. But sociological study is needed not mere irritation and throw-away gestures.

The problem with Mitchell and most of we others, is that we think we are the model that others should shape themselves to. We however are faulty in our own way. If not, we have been seriously derelict in our duty these last 50 years not to get society working to a rational and happy standard.

This is from a comment I put up on TDB which link is at the bottom.
chapter nine: Conclusion: The Poor of Naples and the World Underclass
(pp. 137-144)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/belm13370.15
HUMAN HISTORY IS tragic only because it is self-aware. Men can measure and lament the distance they have traveled from each other and themselves. They can know when they are fully human and sense when they are only pre-human. Or, as Ludwig Feuerbach has suggested, they can isolate and ignore the possibilities of their humanity, preferring to displace their finest human potentials onto the idea of God…
and
chapter seven: The Triumvirate of Want
(pp. 103-122)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/belm13370.13
…Poor people care about money to the point of obsession. But with the poor, money is for spending. It is for quick conversion into life. Since money and life are so closely interconnected in their minds, they…

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2024/08/13/just-listen-to-matthew-hooton-and-apply-market-based-technology-to-solve-complex-social-problems/

Okay, then offer monetary reward for these young or old ones that are sent to boot camp. Everyone to get something for giving everything a go - no high falutin' targets, no high jump required. But for those who can be seen to have done well, there is an extra sum paid out.

Perhaps the group themselves decide which of them are worth the extra,
say two or three they judge to have managed well. Then they can talk about what would help for the overall standard to rise. Get their ideas going and see how they can set their own targets. Of course respect needs to be shown to their own living conditions, bedding, warm rooms, decent food, regular clean water, appropriate clothes. Give them some agency and a few percentage can take it up from the start. But gradually they will all revitalise to some extent, and have a good memory and form different goals later.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

" "SOMETHING" involves comprehensive trial, sentencing and if warranted incarceration of the perpetrators." That's ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. We need to make sure that these people are not in positions of power and authority over young people. Because I suspect that their compulsions – like most criminal compulsions do not take into account the fact that they may be put in jail. If the opposite were the case, there would be many fewer criminals.