Who's in Charge Here?

Why do some people seem to be chronic “blamers” while other people accept the tough situations the world throws at them? Is it possible that those with a certain psychological profile exhibit a greater propensity towards blame? If so, a possible place to begin looking is within a concept called “locus of control.” Largely attributed to Julian Rotter’s work in the 1960’s, locus of control essentially means that some people view their experiences as a result of forces outside of themselves (an external locus of control) while other people believe that they control their own destiny (an internal locus of control). For example, one traveler (external locus of control) who just missed his airline flight might believe that the cause was due to the traffic jam on the way to the airport, the long lines at security, and the date being Friday the 13th. At the same time the other traveler (internal locus of control) who missed the same flight is saying to herself, “I knew I shouldn’t have hit the ‘snooze’ button on my alarm for the third time.”

Rotter proposed that we all lie somewhere along a continuum. Those at the “external” extreme believe that events occurring in their lives are largely beyond their influence, and that fate, or destiny, or the gods, or luck, determine what happens. Those at the “internal” extreme believe that events are primarily due to the actions they’ve taken to shape those outcomes. Most people do not lie at the extremes, but probably do have a tendency to lean one way or the other. (There are several fun and informative online surveys you can take - some free, some not - to determine your own locus of control.) Try the one at:
http://www.psych.uncc.edu/pagoolka/LocusofControl-intro.html

What might this have to do with blame? In general, those with an internal locus of control are less likely to blame others when things go wrong. They believe that their own actions have contributed to or shaped the current problem in some way and are quick to begin looking for how to change the situation instead of blaming. Those with an external locus of control are more likely to blame forces outside of themselves for the problem. They believe that some person or event is responsible for the problem and that they are merely the victims of circumstance.

Bert and Ernie were each recently issued speeding tickets while driving along a 4-lane boulevard in a commercial district. The speed zone was 25 miles-per-hour. They were both ticketed for going 40. Both were frustrated. However, Bert (an external) blamed the municipality for setting such a low speed limit on such a wide-open street; he blamed the officer for not considering the lack of other traffic at the time; he blamed the person whom he was driving to meet (if not for that appointment he wouldn’t have been there); and he blamed all the other speeding drivers who didn’t get ticketed. Ernie (an internal) said to himself, “Dang, I finally got caught.”

Next time you find yourself blaming someone else for your misfortune, think about whether you are feeling in charge of your destiny or feeling a victim of circumstance. Then, think about what you could have done to alter the situation.

Otis McDonald Gets His Gun

This week in a landmark decision on the American Constitution’s Bill of Rights the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) applies to individuals nation-wide, and not just in federal jurisdictions. The case was brought on behalf of a Chicago resident who wanted to own and keep a handgun in his home for personal protection.

For nearly three decades the City of Chicago outlawed the private ownership of handguns. The rationale for this ban was to minimize violent crime committed with handguns. But as with so many other social policies this control was driven by the search for a simple, black-and-white solution to a complex, systemic problem. Gun control advocates often blame gun ownership for violent crime, but the real problem is crime, not guns.

If we want to solve violent crime we need to alleviate the interrelated underlying causes. Unemployment, poverty, and social ostracism all create incentives to take by force what cannot otherwise be obtained. Weak and ineffective enforcement, including low likelihood of arrest, low conviction rates, and trivial sentencing removes key disincentives. Destructive gang or reference group value systems encourage criminal behaviors. Low quality education inhibits the vision of one’s potential constructive opportunities. And lack of positive intervention systems to assist with mental health and emotional guidance limit the ability for preventive measures. But all of that is rather overwhelming to understand. Trying to fix it all is even more daunting. Wouldn’t it just be easier to ban guns?

Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1977. By the 1990s the murder rate had tripled. In the years since handguns were banned, most murders were committed with handguns.

Chicago imposed the registration of all handguns in 1968. However, murders with handguns continued to rise. To tighten control the city implemented a handgun ban in 1982. Over the next decade handgun-related murders doubled.

With the promise of curbing violence, England confiscated all privately owned pump and semi-automatic shotguns in 1988. By 1998 they had also confiscated all handguns. By 2001 England had the highest violent crime rate among the top 17 industrialized nations.* And in 2002, London's Sunday Times reported that: "Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began 100 years ago, undermining claims by ministers that they have got violent crime under control."**

Sometimes the search for “Who’s to Blame?” can lead us to inanimate culprits. In the case of violent crime, those who want a simple answer choose to believe that guns are to blame. Until we aim at the right target, we will continue to miss the mark.

* John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, "Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries: Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey," the Hague, Ministry of Justice, WODC, Onderzoek en beleid, nr. 187, 2000.

** A. Travis, "England and Wales Top Crime League," the Guardian, Feb. 23, 2001.

On the Cover of Rolling Stone

Long, long ago, in a culture far, far away, coverage in Rolling Stone magazine was a coveted symbol of having arrived – at least for budding musicians. Dr Hook’s 1973 hit record portrayed in colorful fashion the glories bestowed upon any musician to attain that milestone. But that was then, this is now. Today one former top military commander is likely regretting his coverage in Rolling Stone.

I’m not sure it’s a good thing for our long-term welfare when a pop-culture, pseudo-news magazine has the ability to directly impact foreign policy – especially military operations. I can envision that capability trending to very scary conclusions. Personally I wish Rolling Stone had stuck with being the flagship media source for the world music scene instead of trying to become the beacon of light for far-left ideology. I guess I’d feel the same if UFO Magazine beamed-down Ben Bernanke from his Federal Reserve position by revealing a bar-room conversation where he considered the possibility that aliens were siphoning off our Treasury funds. To me it’s unsettling that an entity with no expertise in (and highly biased opinions on) critical world affairs can impact them so dramatically. Yet, this week Rolling Stone accomplished what Al Qaeda could not - eliminating the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Few people are thrilled by this outcome (other than the stakeholders at Rolling Stone who reap the financial benefits) because we all realize it’s a black eye for the United States, and even jeopardizes the lives of soldiers in that theatre. But who’s to blame? Michael Hastings, the reporter, was successfully making a name for himself with a shocking article that was a blockbuster for his editors. Rolling Stone is trying to remain viable in a print industry that is struggling for its existence and this piece generated enormous publicity for them. President Obama couldn’t let this pass without undermining long-standing code that military commanders respect the political direction set by their civilian leaders; and, as a politician he undoubtedly calculated the political impact of his decision. Finally, it’s understandable that General McChrystal’s frustration with trying to implement a political strategy (nation-building) using military force would come to the surface in what he believed were confidential moments. So it’s hard to blame any of the individual players.

Many powerful figures throughout history with long records of achievement have been toppled in a few short moments when personal thoughts escaped into the public domain. So General McChrystal is not alone in the consequences for what may have seemed a harmless lapse in prudence. For a while many others will learn from this incident and be more wary of what they say to whom. But eventually another prominent leader will fall victim to the same fate. The most interesting blame question here is this: Most of us have muttered unfavorable comments about our own authority figures, or those with whom we work. But if those comments did not fall into the wrong ears we incurred no consequence. So the blame arises from being exposed, not from the underlying values or beliefs held. What benefit derives from a culture wherein getting caught for expressing understandable and ordinary thoughts can ruin you, while proficiently concealing your thoughts allows you to be a hero? I’d love to read your comments. (But be careful who else sees them!)

Oil in the Gulf

Lesson:
Blame is about “who dunnit.” Causes are about “what happened.” As problems get more complex they no longer lend themselves to simple black & white explanations. “What happened” may expand beyond our mental capacity to comprehend. And if the consequences are tragic the pressure to nail it on a culprit increases. That way we can rest easy knowing justice has been served. But often hundreds or thousands of people had at least a cameo role in the plot.

Application:
The images of dolphin carcasses and dying pelicans coming out of the gulf coast are infuriating, and our gut reaction is finding who’s to blame. (Yesterday a commentator on CNN actually said, “BP is the enemy.”) But if you want to blame someone for the gulf oil spill you can pick from a wide-ranging menu. Let me offer people who:

• manufactured the shut-off valve that was out of commission
• allowed the well to operate knowing that the valve was out of commission
• built the platform that wasn’t supposed to sink
• believed that any oil platform was unsinkable
• issued permits for platform operation
• were involved in the initial explosion
• poured so much water on the platform as to cause it to sink
• designed rigid piping from the well-head to the surface instead of flex tubing
• designed each of the failed attempts to stop the leak
• executed each of the failed attempts to stop the leak
• should have anticipated this type of disaster
• should have spent the money on preemptive solutions for this kind of hazard
• pushed for restricting oil drilling to deep water environments
• drive cars that use oil
• dug the first oil well in 1859 and switched us all off of whale oil
• are members of BP, Transocean, or Halliburton management
• are BP, Transocean, or Halliburton shareholders
• work for the Departments of Interior, Homeland Security, Energy, Coast Guard
• are members of Congress
• are named Barack Obama
• are named George Bush

Everyone on this list (and more) played at least a supporting role in the disaster. The interesting thing about complex events is that they involve many interconnected links. Often, if you remove one of those links the entire event fails to materialize. So, perhaps if someone on the assembly line where the errant shut-off valve was produced had rejected a certain spring or bushing and installed a different one there wouldn’t be any leak. Or perhaps if foam was used instead of water in fighting the fire, the rig might not have sunk. Or perhaps if we had all taken up the challenge to reduce our dependence on oil after the shortages in the 1970s this rig might never have been built. This tragic event is the result of many, complex, interconnected pieces. Pinning the blame on someone may feel good. And maybe more significantly, blaming someone takes us off the hook for our role in this mess. But sending someone to the gallows does nothing to improve our understanding of the problem, find a solution, or prevent a reoccurrence.

Conflict Near Gaza

In my last post I stated: “It is our own willingness to be caught up in these kinds of blame that provide the political, financial, and human support necessary to wage war.” I didn’t realize that within 48 hours an incident near the Gaza strip would ignite an intense example of such emotionally-charged finger-pointing, or that so much of the world would get caught up in the blame. Over the weekend the Israeli navy intercepted a flotilla of boats attempting to run a naval blockade and deliver aid to Palestinian residents of Gaza. On one of the boats an Israeli boarding party was attacked while rappelling from helicopters and responded by opening fire. Nine people on the boat were killed. In the following 24 hours the Turkish president condemned the incident as a bloody massacre and violent protests broke out across Europe and the Middle East.

This incident is full of errors and situational mistakes on both sides. It was the ninth time this aid organization tried to forcefully run Israel’s naval blockade. Israeli intelligence misjudged the cargo. The aid organization ignored warnings it would be intercepted and refused to route the cargo through an Israeli port for inspection. Members on one of the six boats attacked the Israeli boarding party. Israeli forces were not prepared for physical resistance to their boarding efforts, so ended up using lethal force instead of riot-suppression tactics like tear gas. Moreover, this particular incident is only one small act in a much larger, and much more complex story with root causes going back nearly a half-century. Consider this brief background:
· 1967 - Israel seizes control of the Gaza area as part of the Middle East War. For the following 27 years continual conflict waged between the Palestinian residents and Jewish settlers.
· 1994 – Israel officially recognizes the Palestinian Authority and withdraws its military from the population centers but continues to control the borders.
· 2000 – An uprising of Palestinian residents in Gaza begins launching rockets into Israel. Israel responds with military strikes.
· 2005 – Israel evacuates all Jewish settlements in Gaza and withdraws all troops.
· 2007 – Hamas seizes control from the Fatah ruling party. Israel closes its borders and imposes a blockade of Gaza to prevent the build-up of arms by Hamas. However, the blockade also creates severe economic hardship on the residents of Gaza.
· 2008 – Israel allows six boats of aid into Gaza but suspects that shipments also contain weapons. In December Israel invades Gaza in an attempt to halt years of rocket fire. But the conflict further impoverishes Gaza’s population.
· 2009 – Israeli navy captures one boat headed to Gaza and blocks two additional flotillas.

The accumulated emotions of the Palestinians and Israelis living within this scenario understandably drive them to blame each other for every new incident. But nobody is really to blame. And there is no innocent victim. Over the past 50 years an enormous number of individual decisions and actions taken by individual people have brought us to the present moment. Each of those individuals thought they were doing the right thing to support their cause at the time. But many of those actions aggravated the larger problem. Solving the conflict will require thoughtful solutions that provide for the economic welfare of Gaza residents while also providing for Israel’s security against cross-border rocket and terrorist attacks. It will also require dissipation of the hatred built up between both parties.

Those of us watching from the outside have a moral obligation to mitigate blame and to call for calm, rational thinking focused on a viable agreement over Gaza. Incendiary protests or inflammatory patronization of one side while blaming the other only hardens positions and drives further escalation of the conflict. To that extent we become partially responsible for the aggression. Blame is a powerful emotional reaction when things go wrong. It stokes our sense of righteousness. It allows us to vent our frustrations on the chosen scapegoat. But it doesn’t solve problems.

Memorial Day

In the United States we dedicate the last Monday of May in honor of all American soldiers killed in combat throughout our history. First celebrated nation-wide in May of 1868 after America’s bloody Civil War, Memorial Day attained official national holiday status by a congressional declaration in 1971. Today many Americans view Memorial Day as a kick-off to the summer season – a three day weekend for camping, boating, parades, festivals, and home cook-outs. In a moment of reflection some might also pause to consider the 627,000 Americans whose lives were snuffed out in military combat. Each year I’m one of those who, while being thankful for the courageous sacrifices paid by those defendants of American ideals, can’t help but wonder, “Who’s to blame for this carnage?”

Of all the bad things that happen in life, war may be the most difficult to truly understand. Ordinary people all over the world share much more in common than any ideological differences they may possess. They all raise families whom they love, they all strive for some kind of happy existence, they all want to feel respected. What drives them to hate each other to the point of mass slaughter? I must confess I find it hard not to blame the rulers of the opposing forces. Those who initiate war in order to expand an empire or propagate an ideological belief seem pretty blameworthy for the ensuing destruction. But waging war all by oneself is a difficult proposition. What dynamics convince a collection of ordinary people to assault a neighboring country or tribe, or even to turn upon their own people in civil war? Such hatred is often spawned by blame. We blame the “enemy” for their failure to honor our chosen religious deity, for their immoral way of life, for their undeserved wealth and conspicuous consumption, for their disregard of civil rights, for trying to undermine our economic stability, for adulterating our race, for spreading their ideology, or for resisting our ideology. It is our own willingness to be caught up in these kinds of blame that provide the political, financial, and human support necessary to wage war.

You might respond that half of those killed in war are defending themselves from aggression, and I can buy that argument to some extent. But history has shown that the best defense is more aggression than the opposition can muster. So when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese fleet in 1941, the result was escalating aggression that concluded with the nuclear annihilation of two entire Japanese cities. On that week in August of 1945 millions of Americans at home were routinely going about their business, and I doubt most of them were feeling particularly threatened by the residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But they clearly blamed Japan for the war in the Pacific and had developed sufficient hatred to self-justify the horrible toll in human life.

As long as humanity wages war, we will need courageous soldiers willing to risk their lives in preservation of the principles our societies deem essential. And it is right that we honor those who have made that ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield. A “Memorial Day” should be a solemn moment of recognition. But let us also contemplate how we can allow ourselves to develop the animosity needed to wage war against others – others who are, at their core, so much like ourselves. Without that aggression memorial days would not be needed.

Welcome!

Over the past 50 years I’ve watched with interest as people blamed other people for maladies ranging from running out of peanut butter in the home cupboard to nuclear proliferation of rogue nations. Most fascinating to me about these observations is that blame never solves the underlying problem. So over the past five years I launched a concerted effort to examine blame from a variety of perspectives. I chronicled its costs to individuals, families, organizations, and society at large. I researched blame’s cultural origins, its psychological underpinnings, and its situational influences. I analyzed how in a systemic universe blame is simply irrational. But most importantly I came to understand how by reducing blame we can displace its costs with positive outcomes for ourselves, our families, our workplaces, and our social institutions.

A few weeks ago I completed the draft manuscript of a book summarizing these findings and passed copies to a few select individuals for intense critical review. Consequently, the next few months will be consumed with editing, indexing, contracting for publication, and arranging distribution. But with any luck, Who’s to Blame? - the book, will be available to the public around the time the leaves drop from the trees and frost coats the pumpkins here in Wisconsin. At that time I hope to use this blog as a forum where readers can comment on contemporary issues related to blame, share personal experiences, and find ideas on how to reduce blame’s impact in their own lives.

In the meantime, the world of blame continues and perhaps we can begin to chip away at it here. (I just finished listening to a presidential press conference discussing the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico and I can assure you blame is alive and well!) So I hope you will choose to be a regular visitor at this site, and to contribute your comments and ideas. If we all begin to unmask blame for the unproductive and destructive habit it truly is, then I have high hopes that, collectively, we can change the world for the better.