Every person who did not stop to help this
man is a dangerous sociopath and should be removed from society. This is what the radical individualism of postmodernism that tells you to mind your own business lest you get sued or distracted from your own navel-gazing gets you.
12 comments:
My initial reaction, for which I am a little ashamed, was to think, "Well, that's American individualism--everybody's got a lawyer on speed dial and a gun in their pants, so why stick your neck out?" I wonder, however, if there isn't a less damning explanation than postmodernism or national character or straight-up sociopathy, like maybe the bystanders, having just witnessed an accident involving a pedestrian and a car, were instinctively uneasy about rushing out to divert traffic themselves, and wary of moving someone with a possible spinal injury. Or maybe it was shock combined with a kind of collective action problem in which everyone was waiting to see what everyone else would do. I'm not a sociologist or a game theorist, so I guess I really don't know.
There's really no excuse, though. Whatever the reason, it's appalling, and I hope that man comes out of this alive and intact.
This has become so prevalent in some places in the U.S. that some places have passed "good samaritan" laws that require that people help. This was the basis for the end of the Seinfeld show. THe problem isn't American individualism, but the imported pomo individualism that got tacked on, creating an antisocial individualism.
I've read that four people called an ambulance within minutes, so it's not all bad.
Based on what I see and hear, if you removed everybody who doesn't help if s/he easilty could from society (whatever you mean by that), pretty soon you'd have a pretty empty society.
John, I am a sociologist, and the term you're looking for is "diffusion of responsibility" (aka "bystander effect"). I bet there's a Wikipedia entry for it.
Here in Germany, we actually have what you call a "good samaritan" law ("unterlassene Hilfeleistung"). It's a federal law. The problem is that you have to prove that a person a) realized that someone needed help and b) could have done so without putting him/herself in danger. Good luck.
I would be curious to know of the "bystander effect" is more prevalent in some kinds of societies or cultures over others.
I think too that this sort of thing becomes standard behavior because we excuse it with such terms as the "bystander effect" rather than expressing outrage at every time it happens and attempting to shame the people who act this way. Good for the people who called, but still, you don't leave someone out in the street, unattended, like they're some sort of dog. Heck, my guess is that if it was a dog, he would have been attended to more quickly by someone.
Troy,
I agree, of course, that those people should be blamed, and, if legally possible, be put in jail. I'm appaled at the indifference I witness and read about in my own society. Just a small example: Two weeks or so ago, I addressed a small boy (maybe four years old) who was crying and wandering around aimlessly on his own. It was the old "I've lost my mommy" problem. (Mommy reappeared within 15 seconds.) I don't want any praise for that because this should go without saying. But as a matter of fact, all of the other people were reacting by simply putting their stupidest possible looks on their faces. This was a crowded square, and I wasn't the first person to see him. Shocking.
I'm not aware of research testing for differences in the bystander effect between different societies. I would be surprised to learn that there are no differences at all. My stereotypical guess is that, all other things equal, the effect will be less pronounced in smaller places (village vs. big city).
I don't think using the phrase "bystander effect" helps to excuse that behaviour - we have terms for homicide and rape, too. It is important to study this phenomenon in order to reduce its occurence, so you need some vocabulary. This research has had at least one practical result. The German police now recommend that if you are threatened in public and you want somebody to help (or want to help somebody else who's being threatened), you shouldn't say, "Somebody help me!", which diffuses responsibility, but rather something like, "You in the green shirt, help me!", which focuses responsibility.
Certainly labeling something can and does help one to study it. But what do you think would happen if you started referring to the act of rape as "the rape effect," which diffuses the responsibility and externalizes it? If we asked "what causes indifference" or called it "shameful indifference," would that have an effect on behavior? Which would you rather be guilty of, "the bystander effect," or "shameful indifference"? We come up with the former term because we don't want to judge people -- but that results in tacitly excusing the behavior.
I do think the German police are absolutely right with their recommendation. Sounds like they're pretty good psychologists.
Troy,
I think there should be a distincition between scientific and nonscientific discourse. The sciences, including the social sciences, should be about "is", not "ought", and should thus use neutral, descriptive terms.
I would prefer to read "bystander effect" in an academic article, I would prefer to read "shameful indifference" in an op-ed.
Perhaps, if true neutrality is at all possible. Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to attach emotional meaning to even "neutral" terms. Scientific terms tend to show up in op-eds and are then used to justify bad behavior (I'm not responsible, I'm a victim of the bystander effect). No matter how much we would like to pretend that we can create neutral terms to describe human behaviors, the fact is that we really cannot. When we come up with neutral terms, they will be interpreted by others as a way to excuse their behaviors, leading to more of those kinds of behaviors. I would love it if this weren't true, but I'm afraid it just is. That being the case, I don't know what could be done to solve the problem.
Yes, I agree.
We've all heard about the "I had a bad childhood, so don't blame me if I raped and beheaded four little girls" defense. But I also don't think that psychologists should stop studying the reasons why some people rape little girls (maybe a bad childhood is one of them).
What I think you want to do is to educate judges about the differences between explanations and justifications. Maybe you'll even have to change the law.
I agree entirely with that. I try all the time to explain to people that an explanation is not an excuse. In fact, in a book currently under review by a German publishing house, I talk about neoteny as a possible explanation for pedophila -- and then I have a statement that this is an explanation, not an excuse. I did that because I had already run into this problem. I wish as you that judges were taught the difference. Too many don't seem to understand that there is a difference between understanding and excusing.
Heck, we've come to agreement. This is the Internet! We should be comparing each other to Hitler by the 11th comment!
I always try to engage in rational discourse because I'm more interested in learning and working out solutions and coming closest to truth than I am asserting that I am right, even if I'm not.
And I would never accuse you of being Hitler. Himmler of Goebbels, perhaps, but never Hitler. ;-)
Post a Comment