December 18, 2003

Roger Simon's Paris Trip

Roger Simon writes about his Paris trip in this post. This is a quote:

"I was escorted to the notorious suburbs where I was told, for my own safety, not to speak English—I didn’t. I also didn’t take pictures, for obvious reasons."

I read a book years ago by Czeslaw Milosz called The Captive Mind. This google search will get you to several web pages about his book. He introduces the term ketman as a psychological complex which develops in those living under totalitarian rule.

In essence, it is the subtle loss of realization that the subject undergoes as he tries to conform to the state's expectations. At first, he realizes he is censoring his actions, but that realization fades over time. To use a rather silly modern example, do any of Star Trek's individual Borg units have any level of self-awareness? No, they have been assimilated.

The reason I bring this up and start with the Simon quote is this seemingly innocent sentence: "I also didn’t take pictures, for obvious reasons." Although I could be way off, it struck me quite strongly that this was a ketman moment. Not to sound dense, but I don't know what the obvious reasons are. Confiscation of camera? Putting friends' lives at risk? Interrogation? Immediate threats of violence? Deportation? Or perhaps that this behavior will be noted by the authorities. Don't get me wrong: Roger's description is creepy and his actions (or lack thereof) clearly justified. Yet, it's as if even thinking about takes pictures posed a danger; to think the "obvious reasons" (cripes! all out loud and everything, right in your mind!) is the risk. shhh!

The curious part to me (and the reason for my post) is not that this behavior was exhibited in a dangerous Parisian neighborhood, but that it was exhibited by an American. This is the crux of what I want to comment on: ketman now exists in American minds.

Let me give just one example. You do not talk back to police. You just do not talk back to police! Twenty years ago you could argue about a traffic ticket, youths could argue about curfew, demonstrators could argue about their rights of assembly. In the 21st century, the perception is now that the policeman's job is so dangerous, their need to get your immediate cooperation so important, that any evidence of anything other than kowtowed submission is viewed as a lethal threat (and dealt with accordingly).

Pretty big jump in twenty years. Why we have traveled this path so quickly is the subject of another (big) essay. It is not about the war on terror. Ketman has been creeping into American society for more than a generation.

I'll say this. We have legislated our way here. There are individual arenas of legislation, like the War on Drugs, which have been responsible for introducing ketman into American society, but the culprit is bigger. The culprit is zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is hell-spawn. I'll write about it soon.

Nopundit

Posted by nopundit at December 18, 2003 11:53 AM
Comments

Zero tolerance is a spawn of the War On Drugs.

Posted by: M. Simon at December 18, 2003 04:02 PM

Or, in Watership Down terminology: You do not talk about the snares.

Posted by: Brian Tiemann at December 18, 2003 07:03 PM

I look forward to your essay. I have been calling the unfortunate societal characteristic "brittleness" (as distinct from "resiliency"), but "Zero Tolerance" might do just as well. Brittle structures snap under load; Zero Tolerance crackles and bangs. It's not just about the cops, of course.

Posted by: ytf at December 18, 2003 10:44 PM

Fighting the tendency to go ketman could really help fight the pathetic war on drugs. Zero tolerance towards drugs has never made any sense. Prohibition didn’t work. I thought we’d already learned that lesson.

I don’t really agree with the policeman analogy, though. Back in the sixties, it was okay, it was even very groovy to call cops pigs and to treat them with disrespect. Question authority and all that. While I have no problem with questioning authority, (I’ve recently had a long and involved argument with cops about a traffic ticket. They were threatening to arrest me and I will take this case to the supreme court if I have to!) – but we should save that tactic for when it’s necessary.

In general, doctors, policemen, pilots and fireman are willing to take on risks and responsibilities that most people shy away from. What they do in their everyday lives can often be defined as heroic. They deserve respect.

Zero tolerance for crime works. That’s been proven, in New York City. Back in the early eighties, it was a mess. Now it’s the safest city in the country.

Zero tolerance for drugs (prohibition) doesn’t work. We should approach the zero tolerance question with a certain amount of pragmatism when we decide where and when to apply it.

Posted by: mary at December 19, 2003 10:13 AM

Zero tolerance has always been with us in the form of "moral backbone", which didn't need to be spelled out or legislated for, because it was assumed - falsely, as it turns out - that the individual knew of their responsibilities as well as their rights. The role of education, paricularly in the teaching of the persuasive arts (media, medicine, law), needs to be looked at as an aggravating factor in fostering reactionary responses.

Posted by: Peter Ness at December 23, 2003 08:01 AM