Part 4 of 4
Now one question is, how did the matter come to be so desperate? The ground has already and pretty deeply to be laid before the distortions of the subculture can display such – malevolence. But it’s just a symptom. It’s not the disease.
That part is cultural history. It’s too much to undertake: another argument into which everyone can insert their own propositions for the missing premises.
Go back to the question of remedies. What can be done?
You can’t arrest the whole subculture. It’s not practical. In fact you can’t hold the subculture as such legally responsible, or even morally to blame, except in an extended sense. Even if you could arrest all the actual perpetrators, it wouldn’t do any good. The subculture would just grow more. (By the way, the list of actual perpetrators in an incident like to the one at State Fair probably includes people who aren’t physically or socially members of the subculture in question. It’s enough that the incident gets its impetus, or example, from members of a culture so predisposed.)
You can’t buy it out either. It’s not just a matter of the price or the source of funds. It’s that there can be no reasonable assurance the public will get what they’re paying for.
Maybe trying to deal with the subculture as a whole is a false path. Maybe all society (society as a whole and not just the dominant culture) can do is change the subculture just enough so it doesn’t grow so many malefactors.
But changes in cultures don’t take place in the short- or mid-term. It could be that public policy doesn’t have enough consistent focus to bring about a change that might have to be generational. This suggests that change would have to come from somewhere else. Leaders of many stripes have said it has to come from within the community (as opposed to the “subculture”) itself; many community leaders are making their best efforts with the resources they have in hand.
I have a suggestion – two suggestions. Two of the most ubiquitous kinds of organizations in the community are day care centers and churches. Suppose the aides in the centers were not just sitters, but were trained and certified to socialize their charges. Or suppose they had the support of highly trained professionals on the public or a non-profit payroll. Either way, if they were more professional, they’d have to be better paid.
Then the churches. They have influence; what could they do with resources? Suppose, just for example, a church received a modest payment – a referral fee, if you will – for directing persons at risk to public or private social services organizations acknowledged to be effective at what they do. A fee for enrollment in a program and another fee for successful completion.
If the day care centers were effective, in twenty years, you might see some results.
It’s just a suggestion.
