In a Word

Part 1 of 4. Draft begun August 9, 2011. [Originally posted on November 29, 2011, in order of composition. Reposted on January 10, 2012, in reading order.]

The explanations people give of incidents like what happened at the Wisconsin State Fair last summer are varied, but it seems they all have one thing in common.

The Journal-Sentinel’s community columnists, if not well worth reading, certainly meet the criterion for being selected: they represent a variety of viewpoints. The newspaper’s paid columnists add to that variety, yet all of them together never quite get to, much less beyond, the common ground I perceive.

One community columnist blames the whole thing on the want of sexual mores (my term, not his) among the rioters. I think the connection is indirect at best, but both tendencies do occur together in certain, let’s say for now, cultures.

Another emphasizes that young white folks are perfectly capable of behaving as badly as the young black folks behaved on this occasion, just as black adults can be as good parents and citizens as white adults. It all depends, I guess, on what culture they were raised up in, and not on their color.

And some people would not like to go so far, and say instead that it’s the family, not the culture, that’s responsible when a young person participates in a wilding. But then I’d like to ask them, what sort of culture creates families like that?

A third community columnist wanted to get to the “root cause” of the matter, without being able to specify what it is – apparently thinking our political and community leaders would be able to identify it forthwith if they would just act upon his simple advice.

The paper paid Mr. Kane for his view of the matter. He took two or three kicks at the can.

One try was aimed at a couple South Side aldermen who blamed the incident, like the others (Mayfair Mall, Riverwest), on an impliedly defective culture, without being able to what they mean by using the word “culture” in a context like that.

In another post, Kane asks the question whether it’s a hate crime. Hate, like malice is a state of mind. As an element of a crime, it must be inferred from circumstances that can be directly observed and put into evidence. According to Chief Flynn, I think wisely, if all the perpetrators are one color and all the victims another, that’s evidence of race antipathy. Whether it’s a motive, whether it’s hate: that’s one for the jury.

Then a black mother was murdered with her child watching by a number of “deviants” who were also black. Kane blamed the juvenile justice system and dysfunctional parenting.

So, as much as he would like to claim black culture for himself, or at least deny it to the aldermen, he can’t help but use it as an (unthematic) premise in his (inconclusive) arguments: a culture of hate, a dysfunctional culture.

The official editorial position was that Mr. Barrett ought to use his well-earned moral authority to – to do what? – address the matter? remedy the defect? First you’d have to decide whom to make an impression on, and then figure out how to make it. I suppose if you’re a member of a certain culture, the only impression mayoral posturing would make, if any at all, would be negative.

Mr. Stingel’s notion is, not to blame society, but rather hold the thugs responsible. Well, responsibility is a moral and legal concept. We lay the blame once we have been able to make a moral judgment. This is altogether possible and suitable to do, and none of the columnists, paid or unpaid, have failed to reach the correct result.

On the other hand, the question why opens up several avenues of explanation. And normally, explanations are expected to be objective. That’s true of cultural explanations too. Sociologists and anthropologists describe cultures; they don’t judge them. That’s unfortunate sometimes – if you are dealing with a defective culture.

Yet, it’s a whole lot easier to fix something if you can explain it first.