Two young men in the prime of their lives hung from trees, not far from each other. Their deaths were inter-related, but in total contrast to each other. One of these young men was a 33 year old from Nazareth, called Jesus. The other was Judas Iscariot.
Christians believe that Jesus died voluntarily on the Cross, for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the human race. Judas was one of Jesus’ disciples. He was infact the treasurer of the motley group. He had seen Jesus giving hope, healing and forgiveness, even to drunkards and prostitutes. He had heard the parable of the Prodigal Son, the classic case of forgiveness and being welcomed home. Even when Jesus was dying on the Cross, Judas heard him cry out, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do”.
There was therefore no apparent reason for Judas to commit suicide, post Jesus’ crucifixion. Why did he take this extreme step? Behavioural scientists have no cogent explanation for the most notorious case of suicide in human history. Because the answer is spiritual, not psychological or sociological. It was a case of despairing of divine mercy and forgiveness, and an act of free will. In India we are so heavily indoctrinated by karma and kismet that we find it difficult to accept that each human being has a free will, to do as one chooses.
There will be many extraneous or external factors that influence human behaviour. But ultimately it is the individual human being that takes the call. It is a factor that modern society chooses to ignore, at its peril. If we do not know the purpose and meaning of life, then it is a natural corollary to end a meaningless existence. That is what happened to the famous French existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Satre. He eventually committed suicide, for he had not found the fundamental answer to his own existence! Despair is what leads one to suicide, be it Marylyn Monroe or Rouvanjit Rawla; be it a case of forlorn love, financial problems or terminal sickness. The moment we say “I give up”, the game is over.
The antidote for despair is hope. This is a spiritual gift, but it can also be acquired psychologically by autosuggestion or external influence. How can we give hope to society and to individuals? It is here that parents, educationists, religious and community leaders have a vital role to play. What image do they project? What message do they convey? What values do they cherish? Pressing this point would sound preachy, so I will leave it at that.
Behavioural scientists tend to explain away every act as caused by something else; and the media indulges in the blame game. How many columnists or talk show hosts have the time and grist to probe deeply into the root causes of human behaviour? It is so much easier, and unprincipled, to simply blame the Principal or the ubiquitous cane!
I have been reading two best-sellers. The first is “Freakonomics – The Hidden Side of Everything” by Steven Levitt. The other is “The Tipping Point – How little things can make a big difference” by Malcolm Gladwell. Both have attempted to analyse modern human behaviour, one with economic parameters and the other with sociological ones.
Levitt claims that “Morality represents the way that people would like the world to work, whereas economics represents how it actually works”. He also says that “incentives are the corner stone of modern life”, and “dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle causes”. He further observes that Adam Smith, the founder of classical economics, was essentially a philosopher. He strove to be a moralist and ended up as an economist. His book, written in 1759 was titled “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”.
Gladwell develops the theory of the Tipping Point, a factor that literally tips the scale. What factors affect the equilibrium to cause the tipping? He claims that “ideas, products, messages and behaviour spread like a virus – contagious”. He agrees with Levitt when he says that “little changes have big effects”. But he differs when he claims that “Change occurs in a dramatic moment”. He calls this the Tipping Point. He further states that “the effect seems far out of proportion to the cause”.
Levitt and Smith would therefore have us believe that morality and economics are inter-linked; though in modern society economic incentives outweigh moral disincentives. This will help us understand the phenomenon of suicide. Though Levitt believes in subtle changes, Gladwell is inclined towards dramatic or sudden ones that influence human behaviour. Who is right? An analogy will help.
In a World Cup football match does a forward suddenly score a goal and tip the game in his own team’s favour? Or is the goal a careful build up from the defenders passing to the mid fielders, who split the opponent’s defence, create an opening, give a through pass, and the forward strikes the goal? Many of the moves would have been quite subtle, lest the other team saw through the game plan. So I would subscribe to Levitt’s view, that dramatic changes have distant and subtle causes. This has a direct bearing on human behaviour, and specifically on the “dramatic” act of suicide.
Unfortunately, in the blame game, we could simplistically and superficially observe that a “defence lapse” caused the goal, or an act of caning caused the suicide. Be it a goal or a suicide, there are several subtle moves and a gradual build up. Since parents have the maximum physical and psychological proximity to their children, it is primarily their responsibility to raise their children in a climate of love, trust and hope. If, for reasons beyond their control and understanding, they pick up signals of despair, depression or aloofness, then their parental antennae should twitch with concern. If they find themselves inadequate to the task they need to seek outside help from a professional or competent counsellor.
Gladwell has a case study on suicides. He found that the rate of suicides in Micronesia was 7 times that of the USA. It was a contagion there. “As suicide becomes more frequent the idea itself acquires a certain familiarity, if not fascination, to young men, and the lethality of the act seems to be trivialised. Especially among some younger boys, the suicide acts appear to have acquired an experimental, almost recreational element”.
Gladwell then quotes David Phillips, a sociologist at the University of California, saying that “Immediately after stories about suicides appeared, suicides in the area served by the newspaper jumped” Such a “contagion is neither rational nor necessarily conscious”. He gave another instance that “news coverage of suicides by self immolation in England in the 1970s prompted 82 suicides by self immolation the next year”.
The lessons need to be learnt. Over exposure of suicide cases in the media have a snowballing effect; so the media needs to exercise restraint in the larger interests of society. Moral responsibility must take precedence over economic benefits that accrue from sensationalising news.
On the other hand parents and guardians must be alert to the danger signals, be they distant, subdued or subtle. They are seldom blatant. Teachers or principals who notice something askance must convey their observations to the parents immediately. An elder once said, “There are no bad children, only bad parents”, so let us parents wake up before it is too late.
We have a choice – to be Jesus or Judas. We can either make sacrifices ourselves to help others; or blame everybody except ourselves, and just give up. We have our own free will. Let us exercise it responsibly, and save precious lives.
* The writer has for several years been involved in youth and family counselling.
No comments:
Post a Comment