5.5: Analysis of Community Problems

Value System Formation

People are not born with values, so we ask how do people develop their values? The majority of experts conclude there are three periods during which values are developed as we grow. The Imprint period, the Modeling period, and the Socialization period.

The Imprinting period is dominate until approximately age seven. Children absorb everything around them and accept much of it as true, especially when it comes from their parents. Some believe this can form confusion and faith in what you are told during this period can lead to the early formation of trauma and other deep problems. Others believe it is a natural progression of maturation and causes no trauma at all.

The critical component during this period is to learn a sense of right and wrong, good and bad. This is a human construction which we nevertheless often assume would exist even if there were no example for imprinting. This is the primary principal in the Natural Law theory, which indicates there are actions that people instinctively know are wrong, such as murder, rape, or robbery. The Modeling period is approximately between the ages of eight and thirteen. Adolescence imitate other people, sometimes their parents, but also in many cases other people. Rather than complete acceptance of their values and beliefs, they are trying them out in the world to determine how they feel, and in an attempt to find their place with groups within society.

During this age adolescence may become impressed with values or beliefs not imprinted from their parents or guardians. This might include embracing values associated with religion, or teachers, or music stars, or athletes. Think back to junior high years and you may remember being particularly influenced by teacher who seemed so to be so knowledgeable, even more so than your parents. Maybe a political cause, or humanitarian relief beliefs of your favorite singer or actor, and how that may have shaped your sense of right and wrong.

The Socialization period is approximately between the ages of 13 and 21. People are largely influenced by their peers during this time. As we develop as individuals, we look for ways to evaluate the earlier experience, or even challenge the values they had been taught. Determine if the values and beliefs they have been taught are the values they truly believe. Young adults naturally turn to people who seem more like them. They may gravitate toward a certain group, or people who may have differing values and beliefs in order to evaluate their teachings.

Other influences at these ages can include the media, especially those parts which seem to resonate with the values of our peer groups. This can become problematic if a person allows others to dictate how they should believe and what values are acceptable. There are some American media outlet which overtly try to convince people what beliefs are correct, and other outlets take an opposing position and overtly attempt to dictate beliefs. Determining what is truth and what is propaganda is part of the values evaluation process. The Socialization period can be very confusing and differing beliefs and values collide as the person forms the belief system that will be the basis for their value system.

Basic Principle Formation and Development

It's tough to have high moral values and be a principled person. Many people try, many people fail, and some make no attempt. What are principles? How are they formed? How are they utilized? How are they evaluated by society? Generally speaking, the prevailing theory is that there three types of people, Pre-moral, Conventional and Principled.

The pre-moral person has no real values, thus amoral. Young children are pre-moral. Our basic nature drives us to be selfish, Machiavellian, taking whatever steps are required to achieve our goals, including hurting other people. A two-year-old child striking another for a toy. These same traits are displayed in psychopaths as well. A person with psychopathic personality manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lacks the ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience. Sometimes our basic needs drive us to act in ways that help us but may be unhelpful or even harmful to others. Social values (laws) are hence created as a control mechanism to counteract people’s tendency to put ourselves before society.

Conventional values are probably the most common within a society. These values are learned from their parents, teachers and peers. Conventional values in essence relate 'these are the rules needed to live in reasonable harmonious relations with other people in society. The core of the conventional value state is that people will follow the rules just so long as they think they need to. People will break their values occasionally, and especially if their needs are threatened. Example; breaking into a store after a major earthquake and stealing food and water. There is argument that people will move away from their values when they are pretty sure they can get away with breaking values and nobody else knowing about it. Example; knowing the police are busy with a major incident and not in the area you are driving, so you drive 40mph over the speed limit. When is a person truly principled? Values to the point where they are an integral and subconscious part of a person. Right and wrong are absolute things beyond the individual person.

Principles are, in fact powerful drivers of how we think and behave. They direct people in what is good and bad, right and wrong. They tell us they should do's, the should not do's, and shall not do's of life. They also help us decide which principle is more or less important than other principles. Principles help people make decisions. When we are evaluating intent and choosing from alternatives, our principles tell us an action might help us reach our goals, however it would be socially unacceptable, thus choose not to do it. Principles help people decide what is necessary, as values often conflict with one another.

Being principled is a very powerful and effective method of influence. If person or group can understand how a specific groups values develop, then they can guide the process. This concept has been well understood by totalitarian governments throughout the world. The totalitarian government will utilize the education system and re-educate or brainwash children in their ideals. The student is indoctrinated into a belief system and not allowed to believe differently or face punishment, including separation from the social collective. There is a disputed saying (Greek Philosopher Aristotle or Jesuit Priest Ignatius Loyola): “Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man.” This is a chilling description of shaping people’s values, thus their core principles for a specific goal of society or a group. The principles can be for good, such as helping the poor and teaching people to be self-sufficient, or for evil like with Revolutionary Marxism and Nazi Fascism.

A principled person is truly put to the test when their principles are put to the test. Will they will stick to their values through adversity and hardship, and even will sacrifice themselves rather than break their principles. Many great leaders were principled like Martin Luther King and Gandhi. They were prepared to sacrifice their lives, rather than deviate from the path their principles were leading them. To be a principled person doesn't mean you have to sacrifice yourself in a noble cause, it can far more simplistic. Consistency is an additional element in being a person who lives by principle. For example; if you are a person who is a firm believer in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states in part “It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.” You have a steadfast principle that the government should not be allowed to stifle an individual citizen voice. That principle should be adhered to no matter the speaker.

Jemele Hill, a commentator for ESPN (sports network) and American citizen stated she believed President Trump was a white supremacist, and that his supporters had the benefit of white privilege to distance themselves from certain issues. President Trump responded by saying “with Jemele Hill at the mic, it is no wonder ESPN ratings have tanked”. Additionally, the White House released a statement indicating “the most outrageous comment that anyone could make and certainly something that they think is a fire-able offense by ESPN.” President Trump placed the full weight of the executive branch behind condemning a citizen from exercising her constitutionally protected rights of free speech and attempted to pressure her employer to terminate her employment.

Basseley Nakoula, an American citizen completed a low budget film titled “Innocent of Muslims” in which he portrayed the Muslim Prophet Mohammed in such a way as it would be offensive to Muslims. The film was falsely portrayed by the Obama Administration as the catalyst for the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. President Obama condemned Basseley Nakoula by saying “you have a video that was released by somebody who lives in the United States, a shadowy character who made an extremely offensive video directed at the prophet Mohammed and Islam which led to protest”. Additionally, according to Charles Wood, father of a United States Navy SEAL killed in Benghazi, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him “we will make sure that the person who made the film is arrested and prosecuted.” President Obama placed the full weight and authority of the executive branch behind falsely condemning Nakoula of causing protest, which led to the death of four American citizens, when he was solely exercising his constitutionally protected right of free speech by making the film.

As a person who has a strong principle grounded in the First Amendment, it should not matter your political affiliation, your position on either President as an ethical person, or on your support for the positions of Hill or Nakoula. You would be opposed to what both Presidents did by aggressively attempting to punish an American citizen for exercising the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Evaluating Significant Emotional Controls

Law Enforcement

Policing is universally recognized as one of the most stressful occupations a person can choose. A significant source of stress for this population is the constant risk of being exposed to traumatic events, a burden that far exceeds that of the average citizen. Although the officers may not encounter such events on a daily basis, a police officer always faces the threats which are mostly unpredictable and random. The threat of tragic, violent, and dangerous, situations, which appear suddenly can leave emotional and psychological scars. The officer’s status as law enforcer, problem solver, peacekeepers and rescuers expose them to repeated instances of psychological trauma, which can disrupt an officers functioning and interfere with their personal and professional life.

The officers experience from exposure to such traumatic events is concerning for many reasons. Policing is a highly stressful occupation, and the daily stress of the job may interfere with an officer’s ability to cope with the traumatic event. Because of this, the process of healing may utilize the officers mental and emotional energy, leaving few mental resources available for proper and expected safe job performance. Many other trauma victims are able to avoid the types of situations which led to their traumatic events. Police officers are unable to avoid future situations similar to the traumatic event. They are susceptible to re-victimization, compounding the ability to fully recover. Repressed reactions may be delayed weeks, months or even years in an officer who may appear to be functioning appropriately. Many times, these reactions precipitated by new stress that accumulate on an already taxed mind and body.

Officers often report that the daily stresses of police work, organizational structure, shift work, and lack of support contribute more to the chronic stress they experience than does the danger associated with actual field police work, the impact of traumatic events can be much more mentally and physically damaging. This is, due to the infrequency of such events relative to daily stresses. The impact on officers can be much more unexpected and harder to handle. In many psychological critical incidents, it is the reliance of self-reported symptoms, many of which the officers might not even be aware of. Officers are prone to underestimate the magnitude of their distress, particularly when it might impact their job duties. This is why it is incumbent on police management to ensure an officer involved in a critical incident in properly evaluated. This is important for the officer’s health, and ability to perform their required job functions, but for the safety of the public as well.

Officers response to a horrific event can be quite different. Cognitive appraisals are defined as “the ways in which individuals construe stressful or traumatic events in terms of their personal significance and meaning.” People in general, and officers specifically will assess a situation with respect to their own well-being (primary appraisals) as well as their ability to psychologically deal with the situation (secondary appraisals). These appraisals can be influenced by stable personality characteristics, such as optimism versus pessimism and controlled ego. Additionally, learned behavior patterns, such as coping style, and more incident specific perceptions like perceived supports.

Appraisals reflect the amount or significance of damage sustained in a trauma. For an officer, this may include physical injury from being attacked, psychological pain such from losing a fellow officer or not being able to save someone. When an officer dismisses the mental component of a critical incident, they risk developing a passive form of coping, such as avoidance, fatalism or unrealistic thinking. Rather a more effective method of cognitive processing is crucial in dealing with trauma, such as critical incident debriefings, mandatory psychological evaluation and monitoring by supervisory personnel.

Threat appraisals, which refer to some anticipated harm or loss, reflect the often uncertain and unpredictable nature of policing. The uncertainty of many situations requires a cautious and skeptical approach from officers, and the heightened awareness that results from such situations can help to prepare an officer for action. However, an increase in emotional stress that is too great may distract the officer and may actually hinder information processing and the ability to act. Studies found that officers with self-reported symptoms of PTSD after being involved in a critical incident, were more likely to make statements reflecting vulnerability or threat than were those without such symptoms.

Perceived control is the officer’s assessment of his or her ability to influence their surroundings in order to bring about desired outcomes. Perception of control has a powerful influence on people’s ability to cope successfully with stressful situations. Police work is a total paradox of control. The officer’s role is granted considerable authority and control over others by society. Additionally, police officers encounter numerous events that are beyond their control, such as the unpredictability of a traffic stop to the unyielding nature of departmental policies. Because of the control conflict, officers often experience considerable incongruous as they attempt to understand the stressful events that seem to be beyond their control. The more uncontrollable or unpredictable an event is perceived, the greater the risk of developing post traumatic symptoms. Studies have indicated when officers who maintain an internal source of control and who appraise events as being within their ability to control exhibit less psychological distress than do those who maintain an external source of control.

Policing is a field that requires complicated, delicate, and often immediate decision making that can have dreadful and far-reaching consequences. As such, officers may give meaning to a critical incident depending on how well they were able to manage the difficult situation. An officer who reflects positively on his or her handling of a situation most likely will believe that he or she can manage future situations appropriately and will experience less distress over traumatic events than one who is completely overwhelmed with self-doubt and anxiety. However, police officers faced with repeated critical incidents may start to second guess their actions for the negative outcomes and, consequently, may begin to doubt their adequacy as law enforcement officers. Such attributions of self-blame in response to negative response from the media, or public from a critical incident can hinder adjustment, as they can lead to a perception of hopelessness. To mitigate negative emotional pressure on officers, executive management should have a clear and legally factual response to negative responses. If the actions of the officers conformed to current legal standards and department policy, executive management has moral and ethical obligation to be support the officer’s actions regardless of political considerations.

Communities

The criminal justice system's purpose is to deter crime, punish those who break the law and to keep citizens safe. However, some research indicates people of color are treated unfairly which leads to negative perceptions of police officers within that community. The murder of ten police officers in New York City, Baton Rouge and Dallas by black men have exposed many non-minority individuals and their families to incidents of alleged police brutality, which led to the retaliatory actions by the murders. While any rational clear-thinking person can denounce the actions of the murders, the incidents reinforce the need for society to work on improving police and community relations.

Many people have witnessed the aforementioned traumatic incidents through social media and television. The perceived violence witnessed towards people of color from police continues to damage perceptions of law enforcement and the violent actions of some in the minority community further negative stereotypes involving people of color. One study published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that 85% of the participants reported being stopped at least once in their lifetime and 78% had no history of criminal activity. The study also found that people who reported more invasive police interaction experienced increased anxiety symptoms. Furthermore, those who reported fair treatment during encounters with law enforcement reported less anxiety.

Researchers have noted the impact of perceived and actual discrimination and racism on the psychological health of communities of color. People can develop increased vigilance and suspicion of social institutions, and only trusting persons within their social and family relationship. They can have an increased sensitivity to threat, taking defensive postures, avoiding others not in their social group, over sensitivity to perceived disrespect, or avoid taking risks beyond the social sphere of influence.

Unresolved perceived or actual traumas increase chronic stress and decrease immune system functioning, increasing the risks for depression and anxiety disorders. This can increase drugs and alcohol use in managing perceived or real pain and increases the danger of unresolved trauma leading to substance abuse. Those dependent on substances to dull the trauma of perceived repressive actions of the police can develop increased aggression. This could lead to defiant behavior, domestic violence, street violence, gang involvement, inflated sense toughness, which can be a way to control social and physical environments. All, which in probability will lead to more negative interaction with police, propagating the perceived oppressive and bigoted actions of the police.

Act It Out! “Communicating Across Cultures”- The Task

The idea behind this exercise is for you to get to know one another’s cultural identities. First, form into groups of three and find out from each other what your cultural/ethnic backgrounds are. Then “interview” one another using the questions below to get as much detail as possible about the culture of your group members. We’ll ask you to report back to the class what you have learned.

Concrete Expressions

1. What are typical foods served in the culture?
2. Are there any typical styles of dress?
3. What do people do for recreation?
4. Do buildings have identifiable features?
5. How is public space used? For example, do people tend to “hang out” on the street, or are they in public because they are going from one place to the next?

Recognized Behaviors

1. How do people greet one another?
2. Describe how a holiday is celebrated.
3. How would a visitor be welcomed to someone’s home?
4. What are the norms around weddings? births? deaths?

Explicit Beliefs

1. How important is hierarchy?
2. How are gender roles perceived?
3. How do people view obligations toward one another?
4. What personal activities are seen as public? What activities are seen as private?
5. What are the cultural attitudes toward aging and the elderly?

Deeply Embedded Beliefs

1. How important is the individual in the culture? How important is the group?
2. How is space used (e.g., how close should two people who are social acquaintances stand next to one another when they are having a conversation?)
3. How is time understood and measured? (e.g., how late can you be to a business appointment before you are considered rude?)
4. Is change considered positive or negative?
5. What are the criteria for individual success?
6. What is the relationship between humans and nature? (e.g., do humans dominate nature? does nature dominate humans? do the two live in harmony?)
7. How is divine power viewed in relation to human effort?
8. Is the culture a high-context or low-context one?
9. What is humorous?
10. How do individuals “know” things? (e.g., are people encouraged to question things? are they encouraged to master accepted wisdom?)
11. Are people encouraged to be more action-oriented or to be more contemplative?
12. What is the role of luck in people’s lives?