Preserving American Values

In the aftermath of the massacre at Newtown, CT, most of the discussion has centered around how to lessen the risk of such events happening through better gun control measures, including improved databases to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed. While these are important measures that need to be taken, they avoid the real issue … why is it that so many people are killed in the United States each year by guns.

In addition to the well-publicized random mass shootings, there is a far greater problem out there. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans. Roughly 20,000 of these were suicides; the rest  were intentional homicides. Only 5% were accidental shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. 

These numbers are huge – 3 times the number of US soldiers who died in Vietnam in 1968, a single year. They evidence a significant problem in the psychological stability of many Americans. I include in this group not just those who perpetrate mass shootings or commit suicide, but also those who commit intentional homicide. One does not kill another person if one is emotionally stable.

But the vastness of America’s psychological problem is far greater than evidenced by gun deaths. If we look at the extent of domestic violence, the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that between 960,000 and 3 million people are physically abused by their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend each year. Other sources report estimates between 600,000 to 6 million women and 100,000 to 6 million men per year. Even taking the more conservative DOJ figures, the problem is serious.

There are no statistics for children who suffer physical abuse or anyone who suffers verbal/mental rather than physical abuse – although the National Institutes of Health estimates that 25% of all children suffer either abuse or neglect at some point during their childhood. But just from observing friends and family, as well as strangers, we know the numbers if they were available would be staggering

Whether someone verbally abuses a spouse or child, or physically abuses them, or commits suicide, murder, or a mass shooting is a matter of degree, both as to the severity and the nature of their psychological disturbance. But in most cases, whether the disturbance is mild or severe, the root of the disturbance is insecurity.

What has caused this epidemic of insecurity? The cause lies in the simple fact that children, spouses, parents, and siblings are typically not loved unconditionally, or certainly do not feel so loved. To many if not most people reading this, this will sound like rubbish for a variety of reasons. First, people think that it is quite right not to love people unconditionally; the very idea sounds like nonsense. Second, it sounds like the ultimate example of permissiveness, which rightfully should be viewed negatively.

The first reaction arises because most of us have no experience with, no role models for, unconditional love. We have not experienced it ourselves, either from our parents or spouses, nor have we seen that trait in others. A recent cartoon in the New Yorker showed a mother with her arm around her young son, saying, “Heavens no, sweetie – my love for you has tons of conditions” Take away the hyperbole and that states the basic fact of much child-rearing, at least in America (I can’t speak to other countries), and not just currently but probably for a good century and more.

This is not a judgment of parents. Most parent are good people who would never do anything  intentionally to harm their child. But parents are people who are a function of their own upbringing and learned experience. They have their own fears, frustrations, angers, and desires. And they see things through the lens of that experience and those emotions, which in turn impacts how they interact with their children.  Plus they have to contend with the demands of their work and other aspects of their lives.  And so they are not able to give their children the constant love and attention that all babies and young children need.

And so, as children we have been exposed to conditional love at home and conditional respect among our peers. The result is an epidemic of insecurity. And not just among those who have negative experiences with family and peers. Those who get positive feedback are also insecure because they realize, by looking around them, that their approval is based on their status at that point in time; should that change … whether it’s one’s looks, one’s talent, one’s grades … they will lose their position at the top of the social pecking order. They know that their approval is very conditional and the fact that they have so much to lose makes them even more insecure, which they often mask with large egos and bravado. This is what accounts for so many people at the top being imperious and often belittling others … whether it’s “mean girls” in school or financial titans.

As to the second reaction, it stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of “unconditional love.” Unconditional love is a Buddhist concept that pretty much means what it seems to … that you love someone, whether child or spouse, for who that person is. And so regardless what that person does, they are still loved because it does not change who they are. An example of this are parents who accept a child who turns out to be gay because it doesn’t change who the child is in their eyes and thus doesn’t change their love, as opposed to those parents who ostracize such children because they have committed an abomination or at least an unpardonable social behavior.

What unconditional love does not mean is that one does not provide direction or criticism to a child. An important factor in the development of a child is receiving direction on a large variety of matters from its parents. So if one loves unconditionally, it means that when providing direction or criticism, you couch it in such a way, use such words and tone of voice, so that it is clear to the child that the direction or criticism does not impact the unconditional love that they are given. If one loves a child unconditionally, one never yells at a child or calls them “bad” or other negative labels. That would be an example of not speaking with loving kindness, which is the opposite of unconditional love.

As an aside I should note that unconditional love also does not mean that if one finds oneself in an abusive relationship that one stays in it. One may have unconditional love and compassion for an abusive spouse/partner, but if your mental or physical well-being is threatened, one should put as much physical and legal distance as necessary between yourself and the abuser to protect yourself,  and if you have children, your children.

“OK,” you may say,  “I agree that lots of children and adults are insecure, but why does that cause people to be abusive or violent?”  The answer is that if one is insecure, you are very sensitive to criticism and slights, and feel that you are not as smart or good or attractive, etc. as other people.  With that mindset. you are more likely to become angry when criticized and you are more likely to try to make yourself feel superior to others. Both of these emotions increase the likelihood of abusive mental action as well as violence.  So for example. a wife criticizes her husband harshly, and because it hits a tender, weak point he gets abusive mentally and perhaps even violent in “defending” himself.  Or, when bullies assault a victim, it isn’t to show their strength but rather to prove that they are superior to the victim, thus eradicating feelings of inferiority they feel in whatever way.

Assuming that to some degree at least you agree with my assessment, you may well ask how this problem can be addressed? If generations of insecure people are raising insecure children in a vicious cycle, how can it be broken?  The answer is by making prospective and existing parents aware of this problem and encouraging them to take steps to both raise happy and secure children and at the same time make their own lives better, happier, as well. Bit by bit, we must start with individual parents and have the effect spread outward. 

To that end, I have written a book that has just been published, Raising a Happy Child. It is a secular book written for people of all faiths or lack thereof.  It is available through my website, http://www.ThePracticalBuddhist.com. as well as through the major online retailers and your local bookstore by special order. For more information about the book as well as the Table of Contents and sample text, go to the website.

But the problems caused by this learned insecurity go beyond interpersonal interactions.  Insecurity plays a major role in the social conflict and war that mankind has been enmeshed in for most of his history.

For thousands of years, there has been a divide in most societies between the haves and the have- nots. Whether we look at the English nobility, or the WASP establishment in the United States prior to 1960, Southern whites, or the caste system in India, the haves put in place a system which protected their interests and kept “others” or the masses from having the power to be a threat.

The reader might look at these leaders of society and say that they were immensely secure; that this is not an example of insecurity causing conflict. But I would argue that they were only secure because they had put in place these systems, which they did out of insecurity and fear. They were at some level afraid of “others” or the masses gaining power.

The English nobility put in place a system where there was little upward mobility, and then only to a certain point. The English class system … which was the gate into good schools and good jobs … was firmly in place until after WWII; many would say it still is. Politically, even after election reforms in the 1800s which gave a political voice only to men who either owned or rented property worth a certain amount, the House of Lords, which was the province of the nobility, had the power to veto what they didn’t like until 1911.

In the United States, the WASP establishment until around 1960 had a pretty exclusive grip on all handles of power. Whether someone was Jewish or Catholic, let alone black, all “others” were excluded from the seats of real power, for example, WASP law firms, country clubs, and private clubs. Representative politics provided a path to elected status for many of the “others,” but real power was reserved for members of the WASP establishment until well after WWII.

In the South, whites from the highest to the lowest socio-economic groups put in place and violently supported a system in which blacks had no rights, or what rights they had were systematically denied them. The language may have been one of superiority, but here more than in the other instances I discuss, the fear of losing control was always close to the surface and apparent.

Today in the United States, while we live in a very egalitarian society in many respects and there are many laws protecting the equality of people, discrimination based on fear and insecurity is still a major issue. Much has been written, for example, about the vehemence of the Tea Party’s and Far Right’s attitude towards President Obama as being in large part based on their fear of blacks’, and other people of color, gaining more social and political power as the majority status of whites in this country begins to fade away, an opinion with which I agree.

And this is not just a Western phenomenon. For example, the caste system in India, which until relatively recently was very rigid and still causes many problems, especially for those formerly labeled “untouchables,” was an ancient system devised to keep everyone in their place and protect those with power from those below them.

As to the issue of international war, the issue of insecurity is more visible. Virtually all alliances and wars have been an effort to make countries feel secure against the threat of enemies, real or imagined. Even the strong have constantly been worried about attacks on their hegemony. And understandably so.

While the context is different, the basic dynamic resulting from children, spouses, and others not being loved unconditionally—a feeling of insecurity, of not feeling safe, of needing to project strength to counter such feelings—directly impacts peoples’ actions in the larger social and world arenas. 

It is because those in positions of power grew up feeling insecure—and are well aware of the power arrayed against them—that they feel the need for both the national and international systems that have ultimately caused much suffering in the world. 

If on the other hand, everyone were raised with unconditional love, listened to deeply, and spoken to with loving kindness, then man would not grow up to be the way man is now and has been for millennia.  World-wide systems of sharing and other cooperation would be put in place.  The us v them dynamic would not be present and the threat of war would be minimized.  I’m sure there would still be conflicts over scarce resources, and if they were not resolved would lead to conflict.  But I believe such instances would be greatly reduced.

There have been efforts, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, that have attempted to reduce the conflict between nations and eliminate war.  They have failed—and yes I believe the United Nations has failed—because these organizations did not address, could not really address, the underlying cause … the insecurity of man and his distrust of others.  The idea that their goal could be reached by getting countries to talk to each other was naive.

The only way of addressing this issue is to change the underlying dynamic of insecurity by changing the way our children, and thus our future citizens and leaders, are raised.  But it would have to be a world-wide effort; if any sizable portion of the world is feeling insecure and thus belligerent and rapacious, then no country will feel secure, regardless their upbringing.  

While this is a daunting caveat, it does not impact the importance of moving in this direction parent by parent as I urged earlier.  For to the extent that any parents raise their children to be secure and happy, not only they, but those they come into contact with will benefit.  

To end the cycle of insecure parents raising insecure children, read my newly published book, Raising a Happy Child.  It is available through http://www.ThePracticalBuddhist.com. as well as through the major online retailers and your local bookstore by special order. For more information about the book as well as the Table of Contents and sample text, go to the website.