Melissa McEwan at Shakespeare’s Sister is justifiably appalled and disgusted with the details of a putative rape that are emerging from Minnesota. It appears that the victim was accosted and raped in the hallway of an apartment building while people passed by in the hallway, and tenants emerged to gaze upon the scene, only to turn their backs and return to their rooms. The accused is named Rage Ibrahim.
Locke was a notorious Whig thinker (read, classical liberal) who wrote at length about “the social contract,” i.e. the distribution of rewards and responsibilities in a functioning commercial society. His theories of wealth and property were intensively critiqued by Karl Marx. At the root of his thought is the idea that when individuals (or small cohorts, such as a family) are invested in a property, that property is more likely to be managed in a responsible manner than if it is owned communally or by nobody in particular. For Locke, in other words, possession of property is the natural–inalienable–condition of mankind (despite what Andrew Sullivan may have to say on the subject). Marx speaks a great deal of alienation from the means of production, but has less to say about alienation from the fruits of production.
Property is used in the old and new senses, the new being something which has been earned or purchased by someone, and the old regarding those characteristics (and attachments) which belong to the person in question. Property in this older sense means what is “proper” to one’s self, characteristics that in some sense define who one is–for example, if a person is possessed of an oddball sense of humor. Cassio, in Othello, very distinctly regards reputation as a significant portion of one’s property, and is ashamed to have betrayed his own by his drunken behavior in office.
There is such a thing as alienation from the means of social preservation, and this is at the root of McEwan’s complaint. We have hired cops to patrol our neighborhoods, priests to perform our religions, professors to tell us what to think, and newspeople to tell us what has occurred. We have farmed out our responsibilities to our communities and our children to self-proclaimed experts, based on their ability to parrot the latest contrived providential means of addressing the problems, as they define them. I am not saying that there is NO place for social work–certainly there is; but when we pawn our common sense to the institution of higher insight, we both dismiss our own responsibilities and consent to subject our judgments and observations to the interpretation of those who have less information and less investment in our good than we do.
I recall quite distinctly being a teenager and renting a car with some friends to drive to a ski resort in Colorado. Everytime we bottomed the thing out going too fast for conditions, someone stated, drily, “It’s a rental car.” I’m not saying that the teachers, social workers, administration, state agents of every stripe in every case don’t care very much, but the fact is that we tend to care about our own youth more than others possibly can. And we care about our neighbors more, as well, when we are not absolved from responsibility to them by a society that sues over, or threatens suits over, for example, people who feel reasonably threatened by other passengers’ behavior prior to taking a plane somewhere. And though McEwan points out that “Rage” is an apt name for the accused, she omits the “Ibrahim” part, likely through concern that “Islamic Rage” will be politically incorrect, and although societies that coddle those who feel that Western women are legitimate targets for an intensified version of the dominance that they exercise over their own, such as Sweden, have reported a wave of violent incidents.
People, people such as those who refuse to serve those who wear pro-Israel t-shirts at food co-ops on the grounds that they have a right not to be confronted by unorthodox political opinions, rely on the law to intervene in situations that, in any normal society, could be worked out by individuals party to disagreements in an eye-to-eye manner, with recourse to cops or the courts. This is certainly the case in the school issues that Jeff has been following. When that happens, and when it’s assumed as a matter of policy that the claimant has a claim, the law becomes an instrument of aggression. And when that happens, we have situations like the one McEwan describes.
Part of her account has to do with the dispossession that I’ve described, and that is also described by Andrew Anthony in his personal account of his movement to the right. The difference is, Anthony recognizes the symptomology. Who is my brother? All of you. And it is not the duty of the Pharisees to take care of your troubles.
UPDATE: Sister Toldjah has thoughts on the subject, here.
They don’t really explain how they both ended up unconscious.
this is a direct link to the news account Melissa links
It would really suck to have that explain why that came up on a background check.
oh – *have to* – but more on point, does “alienation from the means of social preservation” have any exculpatory value, morally?
CNN interviewed some degreed dude who said that the more people who witness a crime, the less likely it is that anyone will call it in – both because of the assumption that someone else is taking care of it and the assumption that if no one else is taking care of it, then there’s no personal responsibility to take care of it. Apparently this sort of apathy grows with the crowd size.
The article doesn’t explain how they both ended up unconscious, but my guess is that since they were both at the same gathering earlier, they had both been drinking and they passed out drunk.
Maybe, or someone in the hallway used superpowers.
From Ms. McEwan’s page as it reads now – “the alleged rapist Rage Ibrahim (appropriate name)”. Did she do a NYT-style silent correction, or am I missing something? I do note that someone in the comments there refers to the creep as “Mr. Rage”, so I suspect it’s the former.
Meanwhile, the main contributing factor here is clearly not the VA Tech style of passivity from confiscated weapons and “let the authorities handle it” apathetic worldview, nor the combined effects of moral/cultural relativity conflated with the near criminalization of giving offense/John Doe-type reportage. No, these bystanders have clearly been pushed “into the shadows” by the neobushitl…ah, fuck it.
Token–
Please explain how you attribute it to the neobushitl . . . .
I don’t really grok you.
I was listening to the radio today when someone from Findlay, OH was interviewed about the flooding there. The man, a business owner, became emotional about the amount of help he had received from strangers who just showed up at his door with gloves on asking where to start.
The interviewer, I forget who it was, made, I thought, a very good point. He said he is proud when he hears how normal Americans pitch in like that, but when the FEMA trucks roll in…not so much.
Locke’s theories are based on the assumption that people recognize the greater good comes from cooperating. It’s in part an answer to the Hobbesian assertion that in the state of nature man is ruled solely by self interest and that in order to survive must relinquish a good bit of his liberty to the Leviathan.
Am I wrong, or do progressives today seem to be in the Leviathan-feeding business?
Dan,
I don’t. Maybe that dumb little line needed a /sarc tag. I was lashing out at the general “no individual is responsible for his actions”/”not my business”-type-of-apathy conflation I see all too often and detest so very much. Then I – futilely – decided to assign blame in an off-topic and rather clumsy shot at both the “into the shadows” and Bush=Root of all Evil crowds.
Long, frustrating day. Clumsy, lazy attempt at venting a bit. I hereby rescind the last line of my previous comment.
I grokked.
Sorry. I’ve been out of town for the past couple of weeks, and my memory for handles was never so good to begin with.
Personally I am disgusted by the inability of anyone to at least call the police, much less intercede on the victim’s behalf. A simple, and anonymous shout of ‘I’ve called the cops’ might have worked wonders.
But it is my understanding that there is some disagreement in interpretation of Talmudic law as to whether intevention to protect another is required or merely permitted.
My own gut says you have to do something, it is your obligation as a member of the society. But in some instances (e.g. an armed bank robbery) that something may be nothing more than being the best eyewitness possible.
You have an excellent gut. Go with it.
You have an excellent gut
Years well spent pumping aluminum.
By that standard, no one would have reported the Virginia Tech shootings. I think it’s much more likely that — to put it bluntly — rape isn’t that big of a crime in Muslim culture, particularly if you’re not related to the victim.
And if you are related to the victim, then it’s your duty to kill her to erase the shame from your family.
with recourse to cops or the courts
Is that supposed to be “without”?
Funny how easy it is to leave off a linguistic negator.
Is the building this occurred in primarily Muslim?
Alice H:
Is the building this occurred in primarily Muslim?
Yes, from the reports I have read, most of the occupants of the building are Somali Muslims.
Reporting crimes can be very expensive for some. You get a subpoena, they don’t care if your work won’t pay you for the time off. Family comes first, and it’s hard to judge without knowing individual circumstances. Mostly though it’s important not to get drunk with Islamic men you don’t know. They already ain’t supposed to be drinking, so you gotta figure they’re already in for a penny.
Which I mean in a very not-blaming-the-victimy kind of way.
Thus, we see the end result of what ‘The Great Society’ hath wrought.
More in a –
But when you think I’ve had enough
From your sea of love
I’ll take more than another riverfull
– way
The comments on Shake’s thread would be a near perfect view into the mind of the stereotypical leftist, if there was such a thing as a stereotypical leftist.
B Moe wrote:
Not taking the bait. Read through a thread about Scott Beauchamp and how the military “dehumanizes” its minions… despite comments by people who were in the military remarking how they seemed to have missed that sort of training.
“Not taking the bait.”
No problem. I was fishing for Fry.
Reason n+1 why I carry.
I know that intellectual pretension is the reigning motif of Protein Wisdom. But Dan Collins really should have read John Locke’s Second Treatis of Government before basing his post on Locke. For Locke, the initial point of forming a social contract is precisely to “alienate” men from the “means of social preservation” or, in Locke’s own language, from their right to enforce the natural law which mandates that individuals not harm others. “For the end of civil society, being to avoid and remedy those inconveniences of the state of nature which necessarily follow from every man’s being judge in his own case, by setting up a known authority, to which every one of that society may appeal upon any injury suffered . . . and which every one ought to obey” (1980: 48; also 66-67). In other words, the “end of civil society” for Locke is to substitute the police and the courts for self-enforcement.
Of course, the rape in Minnesota might be considered a special case. Given the failure to call the cops or lag times between calls and responses, it can be postulated that those who witnessed the rape had a duty to come to the aid of the woman being attacked. From Locke’s point of view, “Rage Ibrahim’s” attack on the woman was an assault on her divinely-given freedom and equality as a human being and could rightly be considered an act of blasphemy as well as an act of violation. In the special circumstances of the cops not being there or not coming at all, it’s reasonable to say that the witnesses would have an obligation to aid the woman if they could do so without endangering themselves.(1980:9) But Locke was emphatic that engaging in a social contract meant that individuals ceded their own power to protect themselves and others to the machinery of civil government. Perhaps Charlton Heston would be a more appropriate authority for what Collins wants to say.
“I know that intellectual pretension is the reigning motif of Protein Wisdom.”
Oh that is rich. Seems the only one making a pretense at being an intellectual is the author of this quote.
So why did no one want to get involved? Is it fear of retribution? Multi-culti poisoning, or a lack of societial responsibility? Maybe a combination of all three. ie: If I call the cops I’ll get in trouble with someone in the building, after all this is normal for somali muslims, and besides it’s not my job to help my neighbor, I’m not a cop.
I think we all have a responsibility to look out for our neighbor. The cops can’t be everywhere all the time. In an ownership society, don’t we all have a stake in maintaining the health of that society? So not only do I look out for my own kid, I look out for the neighbors’ kids as well. They do the same for me. The neighboorhood as a whole is strengthened because we’re looking out for each other.
Where was this poor girl’s neighbors? Is it better to hide in your apartment for temporary security? Or get involved and put a stop to it so people will at least think twice before trying anything like that again in your building?
Perfesser – Given the monumental hedge in your second paragraph, what exactly are you trying to say? Are people conditionally and/or tacitly giving consent to living under the laws of a society in order to better preserve their life, liberty and happiness in the United States or not? Are such laws partially established by a government, which government may be changed by the people? Does that social contract embodied by the laws and moral principles surrounding the social contract require people to intervene in the situation noted or not.
You are not a politician. You can risk a direct answer.
What’s amusing about that is that Prof. Caric imagines himself a Leftist. Dan mentioned Marx’s analysis of John Locke (no relation, so far as I know), and it’s important to remember that ol’ Karl was not a stupid person. (His analyses are either dead on or extremely plausible in the context of the time in which they were written: their defect is that they constitute a static analysis, grounded in the assumption that things would continue to go as they did. We still call it “capitalism”, for instance, but the actual practice today bears the same resemblance to what Marx railed against as a 600 SLK does to a horse-drawn farm wagon.)
John Locke was attempting to justify the continuation of the authoritarian system by giving it a philosophical underpinning, and Marx called him on it — and was later vindicated when Lenin and his associates built the concept of “cadre” (the Vanguard of the Proletariat) on top, thus making Socialism more acceptable to Europeans by grafting a nobility onto it. Professor Caric sees himself as a fully qualified member of the junior nobility, not merely entitled but obliged to instruct the ignorant
Proletariatpeasants, and to enforce the “social contract” with blood if need be. If you enjoy Pride and Prejudice, think of him as Mr. Collins (and apologize to Dan for it).Regards,
Ric
Yeah, Caric, call for a cop and a pizza. See who shows up first…. and who delivers what is wanted.
It only took Caricature two words into his comment to go off the rails. A new record.
I wonder if the victim was not a Somali muslim and her out group status had as much to do with the bystander’s non-action as anything else.
Maybe I’m evil for saying it, but my brain sort of shuts-down in self-defense whenever a feminist starts talking about “rape”. Not only do they act as if it’s the only crime in the world, they also can’t make simple distinctions between outrageous acts like the one in Minnesota and instances of regretted sex after a beery frat party. They’re all treated as if they’re the same. Well, I’ve been pressured into sex by a woman after a beery frat party, but I’m not considered a rape victim because of it.
Is something wrong with me because of my failure to be sufficiently sensitive?
John Locke got raped ??? Man, talk about plot twists I didnt see coming.. I’ve watched LOST since the beginning and no one has been raped… even though there’s like a billion dudes to only about 2 or 3 hot chicks… and the hottest hottie got killed in season one!
It was Dr Jack that jumped him wasnt it?.. I knew there was something fishy about that guy when he was so slow to hit on Kate…
— says the guy who writes 2000 word screeds for, as far as I can tell, timmy.
Face it, Ric. the only people who think you’ve bested me in any debate thus far are those who’d look upon a naked emperor and see Elvis in a sequined jumpsuit.
Intellectual pretension is all you have. That you can’t even make the intellectual part seem plausible is a testament to how flabby you’ve become as a result of surrounding yourself by status quo thinkers like yourself.
THE REVOLUTION WILL BE TELEVISED, DR RIC! AND I WILL BE ELLIOT GOULD, HOPPING UP ON THAT CONFERENCE TABLE AND RAILING AGAINST THE ENTRENCHED IDIOCY OF THE SYSTEM! MAN!
To which Locke concluded that for a society to truly be representative, political power must rest with the people. So whose rights were violated perfesser?
Oh look: Ric “Cancerman” Caric is projecting again.
Ric Locke: Isn’t “proletariat” and “peasant” pretty much the same thing, save that proles are in urban areas and peasants are in rural areas? Different occupations, same level of paternalistic contempt directed at them from their self-declared betters.
I think you are reading too much into this passage, perfesser, as you dimly allude to in your second paragraph. Locke’s dictum doesn’t mandate individual passivity in the face of antisocial behavior, and in no way does it confer sole legitimacy on public authorities to act against it. The police are not a substitute for for self-enforcement, but a supplement to it (see also: citizen’s arrest). The only requirement is that individuals work in concert with that legitimate public authority in the supression of said behavior.
Properly understood, this interpretation allows for a Good Samaritan to push the muzzle of his .357 into Mr. Ibrahim’s ear and request that he desist from his actions and remain immobile until the public authorities arrive.
until the public authorities arrive
…and start beating and arresting everyone they see.
People weigh risks based on their experiences. In the experiences of refugee Somalis, and of people who live where this happened — and me, and almost every man I’ve ever known — cops in your hallway are more dangerous than rapists in your hallway.
From another article on the story:
Ibrahim had a gauze pad on his forehead Thursday, under which were scrapes that he said he got from the police. [Police press spokesman] Walsh said there was no struggle between Ibrahim and police.
Sure.
Witnesses not intervening — shitty people. You should help people out. Witnesses not calling the cops — smart people. Gotta save yourself, too.
And fuck Locke.
(Not Ric.)
(Ric the Lesser’s gotcha is right, you know. Too bad it’s only a gotcha.)
#42
That’s kinda like saying … sick people not calling the doctor — smart people, just use leeches.
meshugga schmuck.
Don’t let him off lightly Darleen.
RR
I wanted to smear the floor with that idiot … but members of the stop snitchin’ mob just wouldn’t care.
psychologizer’s not wrong, this sort of thing, it’s local. It’s important for the local justice system to keep in mind that their reputations will in large degree determine their effectiveness. That’s at least I think a defensible hypothesis.
when I grow up I want to be psychologizer