Jusletter IT

While the author was trying to make a good start for this paper, the news presented loudly that now for sure the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima was officially declared to be as severe as the catastrophe of Chernobyl in 1986. While working on this concept it was an idea of taking responsibility for a more just future, resulting from former work on this topic and more than anything else from drawing consequences of history. The questions were very simply drawn and very hard to answer: What world are we passing on to generations not yet born? And furthermore, how can we ensure, that it will be a world worth living in, a more peaceful and a more just world? Where to make a start? And so the idea was presented in Fiesole in February 2011. On March 11th 2011 the earthquake in Japan and the following events changed many things and some things did not change at all. One thing that did not change for sure is the importance of being aware of a very serious responsibility we all share for the future and that there should be no need to point out in an introduction, why it is important to work on concepts of shared responsibility and to explainwhy they are worth their time. So the author does not care in writing an introduction with such argumentation.

Let’s get down to brass tacks.

First of all this paper will give a short summary of the earlier work of the author on this topic to point out the key argumentation that serves as basis for the main topic of this paper. It mainly deals with the necessity to overcome the question of guilt as a decision factor and replace it by a concept of shared responsibility.

Then this necessity will be explained by one very severe example: (sexual) child abuse. This will make more precise what is to be understood here by shared responsibility and why it represents a more realistic point of view than a perspective following the question of guilt.

The paper will close with another clarification on how a concept of shared responsibility can be realized practically. How can we identify degrees of responsibility and what measures are thinkable that would leave a sustainable impact considering the responsibility for future generations?

Modern legal systems serve a certain and essential function for society¹ . To put it very short and in its complexity strongly reduced: modern legal systems have the duty to find resolutions for conflicts within a society and in doing so preserving public peace. This function is fulfilled by jurisdiction, by decisions in courtyards and these decisions are based on certain decision factors. Furthermore these decision factors have to be acknowledged as just or fair by the public if they shall be truly helpful in peacemaking processes. One of the most important decision factors for modern legal systems (especially within the criminal law) is the question of guilt.

To get a more precise view on the impacts that this decision factor leaves within society, we have to take a look on what happens if it is integrated into strategies of conflict resolutionsbesides the modern legal systems.

On a social micro level, searching for and punishing the one who is guilty, is a typical coping behaviour of people suffering from traumatic experiences. This is very well know and pointed out be the research of KÜBLER-ROSS² . But what is more important than this simple finding is what can be said about the consequences. What happens if people in a serious life crisis follow this decision factor in their coping strategies? The answer is not surprising at all. These people never come to an emotional equilibrium. Even if they do find a person that can be considered as solely responsible for their suffering, and even if this person is punished, this changes little after all. The peaceful status (better to say: the satisfaction) resulting out of the punishment of the guilty person is very short-lived³ . In short: People that are dealing with traumatic experiences and are following the question of guilt as a decision factor never reach an enduring peaceful status.

On a social meso level there is a well known phenomenon that therapies for families and couples are dealing with, which is called emotional blackmail⁴ . This is a term for communication forms that are blaming only one person for all problems within the relationship. These communication forms are based on assignments of guilt and are often focused on threatening the blamed person that it will completely loose the support and the love of the family and/or the life partner if it does not change its behaviour to better fit into the demands. Through this emotional blackmail becomes a form of manipulation and mostly leads to the result that the emotionally blackmailed person truly feels solely responsible and guilty about these problems. This process often leads to the result that the blackmailed person is suffering on severe psychosomatic illnesses⁵ . In any case a deep emotion of being guilty can be considered as a serious risk factor for suicidal tendencies and suicides in general⁶ .

On a social macro level the question of guilt is also very well known within the research about concepts of the enemy. There the phenomenon that a certain group or certain people are accused for being solely responsible for the problems within society as a whole is not only an important but a fundamental factor for a concept of the enemy⁷ . You don’t really have to be an expert on conflict researching to get that point. Without blaming several persons for the problems within society it is not possible at all to consider them as enemies. Furthermore we have to ask some serious questions: If a concept of the enemy cannot be stable without the question of guilt, what change can be started by overcoming it as a decision factor within society? Is there a war thinkable at all without a concept of the enemy?

There could be many more examples given on the different social levels but for now this will have to suffice.

To shortly summarise: On all social levels, whenever the question of guilt is integrated into strategies for conflict resolutions, it always becomes a fertilizer of escalation and never leads to an enduring peaceful status.

It is also important to point out, that of course the way the question of guilt occurs in these examples is not the exact interpretation of the question of guilt within legal systems but there is indeed on crucial similiarity. This is all about the basic principle behind the question of guilt within these examples and that is exactly the basic principle of the understanding of the question of guilt within legal systems. The causes and sources of the problems and the pain and suffering emerging from them are solely located within single persons or groups. The influence of social structures and communication forms – which are e.g. most important for a systemic point of view⁸ – are not taken into account. If they are considered by the criminal law at least, it can lead to a slighter degree of punishment, but punishing the person/s considered as guilty is all that happens in the end. This phenomenon is also very well known in social research. In the Studies in Prejudice ADORNO called itpersonalization⁹ and ZIMBARDO even considers it asthe fundamental attribution error¹⁰ . Finally GALTUNG points out that in any case conflict resolutions aiming at an enduring peaceful status must strictly separate the actions from the actors and must focus on the actions¹¹ , in other words: the focus must be laid on the communication forms and the underlying decision factors. The focus must not be laid on the persons, at least if the goal shall be an enduring peaceful status.

So from this basis, the author suggests a perspective shift that overcomes the question of guilt and replaces it by a concept of shared responsibility. What is meant by such a concept will be specified in the following.

Now let us take a more specific look on one phenomenon that is truly disturbing public peace and seriously matters to legal systems and especially the criminal law. We are talking about (sexual) child abuse.

The German BUNDESKRIMINALAMT deals every year in its general statistics with the relation between offender and victim. Considering only the complaints for child abuse constantly in over 95% of the cases, the offender is always a relative or another person very close to the child¹² . Now we have to make straight what this data means and what it does not mean.

These general statistics are only counting the complaints, i.e. the cases of child abuse that the police get to know and that are passed on to prosecution. This means first of all we are only talking about the bright field. But what does this tell us about the dark field? In families and close relationships the inhibition threshold to accuse someone publicly is very high, probably the highest inhibition threshold in all social relations. So we cannot give much data about the dark field, but we can say for sure that it will be at least the same percentage as in the bright field; probably it will be even higher.

So let us set this straight. In the end the harmful and dangerous stranger is a myth. The place where our children are mostly in danger within society is their close social environment. It is exactly the place that is supposed to be their save haven.

The data from these statistics yet tells us nothing about the sources of this phenomenon or how to find out more about it.

Now let us explain what happens if we are following the question of guilt as decision factor. Let’s search for the guilty persons and take a closer look at them. Well this is exactly what the research on offender profiles is practicing. If we gather all offender profiles we have so far and compare them to each other to find out what similarities are constant, we find a very clear picture. There is one and only one similarity at all and this is a sexual interest towards children¹³ . Except this one aspect there are no similarities at all. Take a moment and reflect about what this is telling us. The only aspect we can point out in explaining what personal characteristics are related with the crime of sexual child abuse is exactly the personal characteristic that should be explained by the research on offender profiles. To put it short: this form of psychological research is a dead end. Offender profiles tell us nothing at all that we do not know already. This research has failed without exception.

But if we take a closer look on the social and not the personal characteristics (remember ADORNO and ZIMBARDO!) that are typical for the social environments in which the crime of sexual child abuse is happening, we do find many similarities indeed. Two very important similarities are the social powerlessness of children and the sanctity of family values¹⁴ . And if we also take a closer look on the strategies – the communication forms, the actions and not the actors (remember GALTUNG!) we also find many similarities indeed. Mostly the child is threatened that if it starts talking about what happened to him, it will loose the love and the support of the family. The child is threatened that if it does not remain silent about its suffering it will ruin its family and so the child is forced and manipulated to feel guilty about what happened and to search the sources of this suffering within the characteristics of its own person¹⁵ . We can describe these strategies completely with two words that are one term: emotional blackmail.

Here we have to face an unadorned truth.

Considering the offenders as sick, locking them away or even harder punishment will bring no change at all. And if we think about our everyday practices, all of us know situations on subways, busses, airplanes etc. where we are confronted with children that cannot hold still, that cannot remain silent and cannot keep secrets (e.g. that are asking their parents very delicate questions in the public). And perhaps we are sometimes close in loosing our nerves about these children. But let us make this clear. Children that cannot hold still, cannot remain silent and cannot keep secrets are almost perfectly protected against the process (and it is mostly a long-time process indeed¹⁶ ) of sexual child abuse. Thenice obedient child that does what the adults tell it , the children we wish for so often and the children our schools and institutions are aiming at, is almost the perfect victim of these processes¹⁷ . And now we can bring this down to one very important question, and to put it in more polite words will once more change nothing at all: What is on top of our priority list?

What is more important to us: Our nerves in public or the protection of our children? And what does this tell us about the social power of children within our society (remember the importance of this aspect!)?

Now let us make another thing clear. It is not intended here to say: let us give up family values. All that is said is, if there is emerging a conflict between family values and the well-being of a child, we have to decide for the well-being of the child. The family values have to stand back, not the child. And the question of guilt is a decision factor that will not be helpful in drawing this decision.

In the end we can point out by this example why the point of view of personalization is completely useless in peace making processes within society. We can point out why the offender is never a hundred percent solely responsible for the suffering emerging from the actions. The social environment that we all are shaping is preparing children to be perfect victims for these actions and we shape this environment not at last by choosing and representing decision factors. We can and must point out that there is indeed a shared responsibility, not only for our climate but also for the peace within society (remember the research about concepts of the enemy!). We cannot get rid of this responsibility. We can only ignore it or take it.

How it can practically look like to take this shared responsibility will be specified in the discussion closing this paper.

Especially after the incidents in Fukushima we are probably better aware then ever before that there is indeed a responsibility we all share for the world we pass on to generations not yet born. But this awareness is up to now pretty much limited to the aspect of our natural environment. What this paper wants to point out is that this shared responsibility is nevertheless realistic considering the aspect of our social environment. To the question how healthy the planet will be that we are passing on, we have to add the question how peaceful the society will be that we are passing on.

Closing this paper the author wants to make a precise suggestion how a concept of shared responsibility can be practically realized, considering the aspect of the social environment.

If we do admit that the offender is never a hundred percent solely responsible for the suffering emerging from the actions, how can we find measures to locate the degrees of responsibility of the offender and of the social environment? Well legal systems and especially the criminal law are already aware of the role of the social environment. This is why the maximum sentence is relatively seldom and mostly related to what we callparticular serious culpability¹⁸ . It is a part of every day decision making in courtyards that the role of the social environment is taken into account and this leads to slighter sentences. So the degree of punishment can function as basis to get a better picture of the degree of responsibility of the social environment in which the crime was committed.

But also if we admit that this role has an inevitable impact on criminal actions, the measures emerging from these decisions still aim solely on the person of the offender¹⁹ . The social environment remains untouched by courtyard decisions. It is completely obvious and admitted that there is a need to leave an impact not only on the life of the offender but also on necessary changes of social structures. And we must not forget that if we are aiming at a more peaceful society the only justification of punishment is the goal ofgeneral prevention²⁰ . Now if we take seriously in account what was pointed out in this paper we have to acknowledge as long as there are no measures aiming at sustainable impacts on necessary changes of social structures there is no such thing as a general prevention.

The final question is: How can such measures look like?

First of all there is a need for another aspect to be considered in general statistics that is lacking so far. It is statistics about the motives of offenders. It can be expected that e.g. most motives especially considering domestic violence will be linked to the sanctity of family values. But if we strengthen – or at least start – cooperation between legal and educational systems, we can learn from such statistics what values are intensely linked to the violence within society and then these values can be considered especially within the curricula of ethic classes. By such a simple change in social structures we can leave a remarkable impact, for the upcoming generation will deal exactly with the aspect of values. This generation will deal with those values that are most problematic within their society and the question how to learn to keep these values without letting human beings suffer from them by declaring them taboo. When this generation has grown up and there is still a high degree of violence within their society – but probably then it will be a different form of violence – jurisdiction is able to find out to what values this violence is related and put them on the agenda of education of the next upcoming generation and so on and so on.

Of course such a measure will not solve all the problems and of course it has to be worked out way more precise. But it truly can be a start in bringing a practical change to social structures. It truly can be a contribution to the goal of general prevention by opening the black-box of impacts on the social environment.

Perhaps it is just a practical way on a macro level to do something that is so important within education on a micro and meso level. We can pass on to generations not yet born what were our mistakes, what were the decisions we regret. And there is for sure no need to tell them how they have to decide and what mistakes they shall not make, for this would be another version of demanding obedience.

We have to leave it to them what they are doing with it. In the end it is not so important to pass on certain values to the future and patterns for right and wrong decisions. It is more important that there will be a future at all, leaving enough potential for generations not yet born to draw their own decision and shape their own society.

A concept of shared responsibility will be merely a tool. We can leave it to future generations how to handle it. But for that it is up to present generations to construct it.

No more, no less.

Strafgesetzbuch (39th ed.). (2004). München: dtv.

Adorno, T.W. (1995).Studien zum autoritären Charakter . Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

Bundeskriminalamt (2006).Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik 2006. Bundesrepublik Deutschland [PDF-Document]. Retrieved from http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006/download/pks-jb_2006_bka.pdf

Bundeskriminalamt (2007).Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik 2007. Bundesrepublik Deutschland [PDF-Document]. Retrieved from http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2007/download/pks-jb_2007_bka.pdf

Bundeskriminalamt (2008).Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik 2008. Bundesrepublik Deutschland [PDF-Document]. Retrieved from http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2008/download/pks-jb_2008_bka.pdf

Fath, M. (2011).Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit. Entwicklung eines Theorie-Modells. Münster: LIT.

Forward, S., & Frazier, D. (1997).Emotional blackmail. When the people in your life use fear, obligation and guilt to manipulate you. New York: HarperCollins.

Galtung, J. (2007).Konflikte und Konfliktlösungen. Die Transcend-Methode und ihre Anwendung. Berlin: Kai Homilius.

Hassemer, W. (2009).Warum Strafe sein muss. Ein Plädoyer. Berlin: Ullstein.

Kübler-Ross, E. (1997).On death and dying. What the dying have to teach doctors, nurses, clergy and their own families. New York: Touchstone.

Kübler-Ross, E., & Kessler, D. (2005).On grief and grieving. Finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss. London: Simon & Schuster.

Kuhnen, K. (2007).Kinderpornographie und Internet. Medien als Wegbereiter für das (pädo-)sexuelle Interesse am Kind? Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Luhmann, N. (1987).Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

Luhmann, N. (1995).Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

Sommer, G. (2004). Feindbilder. In G. Sommer & A. Fuchs (Eds.),Krieg und Frieden. Handbuch der Konflikt- und Friedenspsychologie (pp. 303-316). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.

Sonneck, G. (2000).Krisenintervention und Suizidverhütung. Wien: Facultas.

Zimbardo, P. (2008).The lucifer effect. Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.

---

Dr. Markus Fath
Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter, LMU München, Fakultät für Psychologie und Pädagogik, Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Pädagogik und Bildungsforschung.
http://www.edu.lmu.de/apb/personen/dozent/fath/index.html
Markus.Fath@edu.lmu.de

---