As ons Merton kan glo dat ons onbereikbare ideale aanleiding gee tot pogings om ons hartsbegeertes te vervul met onaanvaarbare kort paaie; dat ons langs hierdie dwaalweg in misdaad verval; dan is een antwoord tog seker dat ons ons weerbaarheid teen sulke versoekings moet opskerp; dat ons Eysenck se raad moet volg en ons kondisionering teen die versoekings moet verhewig.
Sal ons nie sommige van ons begeertes kan verdoof as ons 'n kultuur van armoede aanhang nie? As ons ons kultuur so wysig dat armoede 'n edel staat word nie? Laat dit deur Eysenck se kondisionering of deur die rasionele brein geskied (watter een maak tog seker nie saak nie?) Of laat dit dan maar neerkom op 'n vermindering in Merton se anomie.
Laat ons dan van die kateder, die preekstoel en die klaskamer af die edel staat van armoede verkondig. Laat die kinderoppassers en die media dit daagliks uitbasuin: "Streef na armoede want dit is meer menswaardig as die gejaag na die reënboog se pot goud".
Met eensklaps los ons ook die aanslag op moedertjie aarde op want die hulpbronne wat sy in haar boesem koester hoef nie meer gemyn te word om almal kougom en warm water te gee nie.
Armoede sal ook die sterftesyfer die hoogte in laat skiet en die bevolkingsaanwas drasties verminder.
Die mag van kultuur en godsdiens om die mens se geesteswêreld om te keer en hom in staat te stel om die uiterste van uitmergelende omstandighede te aanvaar en selfs te omhels, word grafies geïllustreer deur die volgende vertelling van Kenneth Clark in sy "Civilisation" reeks (1971 sagteband uitgawe, 8ste druk (1974)).
"In the years [ongeveer 1220] when the north portal of Chartres ['n katedraal in Frankryk] was being built, a rich young dandy named Francesco Bernadone suffered a change of heart. He was, and always remained, the most courteous of men, deeply influenced by French ideals of chivalry. And one day when he had fitted himself up in his best clothes in preparation for some chivalrous campaign, he met a poor gentleman
St Francis and the poor gentleman
whose need seemed to be greater than his own, and gave him his cloak. That night he dreamed that he should rebuild the Celestial City. Later he gave away his possessions so liberally that his father, who was a rich businessman in the Italian town of Assisi, was moved to disown him; whereupon Francesco took off his remaining clothes and said that he would possess nothing, absolutely nothing. The Bishop of Assisi hid his nakedness, and afterwards gave him a cloak; and Francesco went off into the woods, singing a French song.
The next three years he spent in abject poverty, looking after lepers, who were very much in evidence in the Middle Ages, and rebuilding with his own hands (for he had taken his dream literally) abandoned churches. One day at Mass he heard the words 'Carry neither gold nor silver, nor money in your girdle, nor bag, nor two coats, nor sandals, nor staff'. I suppose he had often heard them before, but this time they spoke directly to his heart. He threw away his staff and his sandals and went out bare-footed onto the hills. In all his actions he took the words of the Gospels literally and he translated them into the language of chivalric poetry and of those jongleur songs that were always on his lips. He said that he had taken poverty for his Lady,
St Francis marrying his lady poverty
and when he achieved some still more drastic act of self-denial, he said that it was to do her a courtesy. It was partly because he saw that wealth corrupts; partly because he felt that it was discourteous to be in the company of anyone poorer than oneself.
From the first everyone recognised that St Francis (as we may now call him) was a religious genius - the greatest, I believe, that Europe has ever produced; and when, with his first twelve disciples, he managed to gain access to Innocent III, the toughest politician in Europe (who was also a great Christian), the Pope gave him permission to found an order. It was an extraordinary piece of insight, because St Francis was not only a layman with no theological training, but he and his poor, ragged companions were so excited when they went to see the Pope that they began to dance. What a picture! Unfortunately the early painters of the Franciscan legend do not reproduce it.
The most convincing illustrations of the story of St Francis are the work of Sienese painter Sassetta, although he painted so much later, because the chivalric, Gothic tradition lingered on in Siena as nowhere else in Italy, and gave to Sassetta's sprightly images a lyric, even a visionary quality more Franciscan than the ponderous images of Giotto. But they have more authority, not only because Giotto was working almost a hundred and fifty years nearer to the time of St Francis, but because he, and his circle, were chosen to decorate the great church dedicated to St Francis in Assisi. And when it came to the later and - how shall I say it? - less lyrical episodes in the saint's life, Giotto's frescoes have a fullness of humanity that was beyond Sassetta. Where they seem to me to fail is in their image of the saint himself. They make him too grave and commanding. They don't show a spark of the joy that he valued almost as highly as courtesy. Incidentally we don't know at all what he looked like. The earliest representation which must date from just after his death is (appropriately enough) on a French enamel box. The best know early painting is attributed to the first famous Italian painter, Cimabue. It looks quite convincing, but I am afraid that it is entirely repainted, and only shows us what the nineteenth century thought St Francis ought to have been like.
St Francis died in 1226 at the age of forty- three worn out by his austerities. On his deathbed he asked forgiveness of 'poor brother donkey, my body' for the hardships he had made it suffer. He had seen his group of humble companions grow into a great institution, and in 1220 he had, with perfect simplicity, relinquished control of the order. He recognised that he was no administrator. Two years after his death he was canonised and almost immediately his followers began to build a great basilica in his memory. With its upper and lower church, jammed onto the side of a steep hill, it is both an extraordinary feat of engineering and a masterpiece of Gothic architecture.
Assisi Church
It was decorated by all the chief Italian painters of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, from Cimabue onwards, so that it became the richest and most evocative church in Italy . A strange memorial to the little poor man, whose favourite saying was 'Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests: but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head'. But of course, St Francis's cult of poverty could not survive him - it did not even last his lifetime. It was officially rejected by the Church ; for the Church had already become part of the international banking system that originated in thirteenth-century Italy. Those of Francis's disciples, called Fraticelli, who clung to his doctrine of poverty were denounced as heretics and burnt at the stake. And for seven hundred years capitalism has continued to grow to its present monsterous proportions. It may seem that St Francis has had no influence at all, because even those humane reformers of the nineteenth century who sometimes invoked him did not wish to exalt or sanctify poverty but to abolish it.
And yet his belief that in order to free the spirit we must shed our earthly goods is the belief that all great religious teachers have had in common - eastern and western, without exception. It is an ideal to which, however impossible it may be in practice, the finest spirits will always return. By enacting that truth with such simplicity and grace, St Francis made it part of the European consciousness. And by freeing himself from the pull of possessions, he achieved a state of mind which gained a new meaning in the late eighteenth century through the philosophy of Rousseau and Wordsworth. It was only because he possessed nothing that St Francis could feel sincerely a brotherhood with all created things, not only living creatures, but brother fire and sister wind.
This philosophy inspired his hymn to the unity of creation, the 'Canticle of the Sun'; and it is expressed with irresistible naivety in a collection of legends known as the Fioretti, 'The Little Flowers'. Not many people can make their way through the arguments of Abelard or the Summa of St Augustine, but everyone can enjoy these holy folk-tales, which, after all, may not be completely untrue. They are, in contemporary jargon, among the first examples of popular communication - at any rate since the Gospels. They tell us, for instance, how St Francis persuades a fierce wolf that terrified the people of Gubbio to make a pact by which, in return for regular meals, he will leave the citizens alone. 'Give me your paw', said St Francis, and the wolf gave his paw. Most famous of all is the sermon to the birds - those creatures whcih seemed to the Gothic mind singularly priviledged. Seven centuries have not impaired the naive beauty of that episode, either in the text of the Fioretti or in Giotto's fresco.
St Francis is a figure of the pure Gothic time - the time of crusades and castles and the great cathedrals. Although he interpreted it in a curious way, he belonged to the age of chivalry. Well, however much one loves that world, it must, I think, remain for us today infinitely strange and remote. It is as enchanting, as luminious, as transcendental as the stained glass that is its glory - and in the ordinary meaning of the word as unreal. But already during the lifetime of St Francis another world was growing up, which for better or worse, is the ancestor of our own, the world of trade and of banking, of cities full of hard-headed men whose aim in life was to grow rich without ceasing to appear respectable..."
[pp74-79]
Daar is so baie gedagterigtings hier dat dit moeilik is om 'n eenvoudige samehangende opsomming te gee.
Ek dink egter wat indirek beklemtoon word is die omvang van die probleem en dat daar nie 'n gekoördineerde program is om werk van misdaad te maak nie.
Dit is na my mening aksiomaties dat dit 'n probleem is wat vele fasette het en dat 'n aksieplan opgestel moet word om die vele aspekte gelyktydig te takel. Alleenlik dan kan 'n mens resultate verwag.
Dit is ook ontstellend dat mense aktief betrokke by misdaadbestryding nie die omvang van die probleem besef nie. Kyk hier (uittreksel uit webwerf hierbo geskakel):
.... Thomas Sithole, chairman of the Alexandra Community Policing Forum;.....
The discussion began with Newham and Jafta acknowledging that crime rates were unacceptably high and that there had been an increase late last year, fuelled by organised gangs including foreigners and by the security officers’ strike.
...
There have been pockets of positive change, like Alexandra where a focu sed programme is reaping visible rewards, and perceptions there can be quite different.
Sithole: “With the excitement of 2010 we drive the whole thing out of proportion to say the crime level is high. I’ve been involved in our community policing forum for 10 years. Compared with previous years, the level of crime ... has tremendously decreased.”
Major surveys, including ones by Markinor and Afrobarometer, do not confirm Sithole’s perception, however. After improvements up to 2006, public confidence about its own safety has plunged. [beklemtoning my eie]
Louw: “The biggest percentage drop [in confidence] was in the black population. The white population and the Indian population are always the most unhappy and the most fearful, but the percentage of these people who had confidence in the government went from 13% to 12%. But in the black and coloured populations, which are generally more positive, it dropped by about 20 percentage points between February and November 2006. It’s very clearly not just a white, middle-class thing.” "
Die verwysing na Alexandra is nogal interessant want dit was een van die plekke wat die ANC werklik gedurende die tagtigs onregeerbaar gemaak het (Sien Magus Malan se onlangse outobiografie). Die weermag het daar 'n grootse poging aangewend om die situasie weer leefbaar te maak. Dit is nogal heel gepas dat die regering van vandag hul gemors daar moet regmaak.
Eysenck glo dat ons anti-sosiale gedrag in toom gehou word deur 'n gekondisioneerde onderbewuste en nie deur die deel van die brein wat logiese denke beheers nie. Want, sê hy, as jy rasioneel daaroor dink, vertel jou brein eintlik vir jou dat misdaad sin maak. Die hoof rede waarom ons ons onthou van misdaad is omdat die gekondisioneerde onderbewuste 'n rem op anti-sosiale gedrag is.
Onthou dat Eysenck 'n skerp teoretiese onderskeid maak tussen die leerprosesse wat ons rasionele denke omvat, aan die een, en kondisionering aan die ander kant. Laasgenoemde skuil in 'n deel van die brein wat saamhang met die emosies - daarom dat ons 'n skuldgevoel het omtrent anti-sosiale gedrag. Ons rasionele denke (en leerprosesse) is emosioneel meer neutraal en logika word nie deur die onderbewuste gedryf nie.
Logika dikteer dus (aldus Eysenck) dat die kanse dat jy sal moet boet vir jou anti-sosiale gedrag so skraal is dat dit meer aantreklik is om jou in misdaad te begewe as om vroom te lewe. Dit is net die feit dat 'n afkeer van anti-sosiale gedrag in ons ingedril (gekondisioneer) word en 'n deel van ons onderbewusyn word, wat die meeste mense van misdaad weghou.
Hier is na my mening 'n teenstrydigheid. As dit so onlogies is om vroom te lewe hoe het dit dan gekom dat ons gemeenskaplike lewenswaarhede ons noop om ons kinders te kondisioneer in die weë van geregtigheid en vroomheid? As misdaad betaal, hoekom stroomop voeter en die kinders opsaal met teenstrydighede. Hoekom leer ons hulle dan nie dat 'n lewe van misdaad hulle weg sal vergemaklik nie?
Ek is van mening dat Eysenck die bal hier mis slaan. Die meeste gemeenskappe aanvaar dit as 'n gegewe dat wet en orde en sosiale gedrag noodsaaklik is om gemeenskappe tot stand te bring en te laat vlot. Daar is wel stamme in Indië wat van misdaad lewe maar hulle het steeds wetsgehoorsame samelewings nodig om op te teer. Op 'n rasionele vlak (aanvullende tot die gekondisioneerde vroomheid) dus is daar ook 'n dryfveer wat mense aanpor om sosiaal (vroom) te lewe.
Dit mag wees dat die enkele individu mag argumenteer dat sy dwaling nie die alsiende oog sal vang nie, maar in meeste gevalle (na my mening) sal hy erken dat indien almal sou optree soos hy, die samelewing in chaos sal verval.
Daar is dus bo en behalwe die gekondisioneerde vroom onderbewussyn 'n sterk rasionele basis om anti-sosiale gedrag te verafsku. Hierdie rasionele basis na my mening speel 'n veel groter rol in ons lewens om anti-sosiale gedrag te temper as wat Eysenck beweer.
Hierdie leemte in Eysenck se siening veroorsaak dat hy straf as 'n afskrikmiddel grootliks negeer asook al die meganismes (soos kultuur) wat beskawingsnorme van geslag tot geslag oordra om sosiale gedrag bevorder. Die normale leer- en denkprosesse wat aangewend kan word (en ook effektief is) om die bose te besweer word nie genoegsaam erken in sy leerstukke nie. Miskien is hierdie meganismes nie so sterk soos die kondisionering van die paleocortex (die breinbasis van kondisionering) nie, maar dit sou tog onsinnig wees om hulle te ignoreer in die soeke na die dryfvere van anti-sosiale gedrag.
As die mens kan leer om 'n mes en vurk te hanteer, kan hy tog seker ook leer dat dit verkeerd is om te steel. Miskien word in hierdie leerproses gedupliseer wat die paleocortex ingedril word of miskien is dit nie so 'n sterk rem nie, maar dit maak dit tog seker nie oorbodig nie? Ek vind dit totaal teenstrydig met die idee van die mens as rasionele wese om te argumenteer dat gewone denke nie 'n mens noop om sosiaal op te tree nie.
'n Mens vra jouself ook af, gegewe die sogenaamde onlogiese van 'n vroom lewe, waar kom die gemeenskap se dryfveer om sosiale kondisionering toe te pas vandaan (iets wat Eysenck vanselfsprekend aanvaar)? Die dryfveer (ek noem hierna maar dit maar sommer 'n drang) om nuwe aankomelinge te kondisioneer in die vroom rituele van die gemeenskap val tog seker nie uit die lug uit nie? Is dit nie 'n geval dat die bestaan en inhoud van hierdie drang hoofsaaklik kultuur gedrewe is nie? In so 'n geval moet daar tog 'n rasionele proses van 'n aard betrokke wees in die vorming van die kultuur wat die gemeenskap se ervaring van die voordele van die vroom lewe weerspieël ....
Of miskien word die drang om ander te kondisioneer om vroom te lewe self ook dalk deur 'n proses van kondisionering vasgelê ? Of miskien deur beide kultuurwerking en kondisionering? Selfs al word die drang om kinders vroom te kondisioneer deur 'n kondisioneringsproses vasgelê of al is dit moontlik instinktief, erken Eysenck implisiet dat die voorskrifte oor wat vroomheid behels, kan verander. Dit wat die kinders dus deur kondisionering ingeskerp word, kan verander. Hy spekuleer bv dat die huidige verswakkende toestand in morele weerbaarheid toegeskryf kan word aan onder andere die arme Dr Spock se liberale voorskrifte omtrent die grootmaak van kinders.
Ons het dus die situasie dat wat ons die kinders indril, doelbewus kan verander in ooreenstemming met die gemeenskap se wense. Die situasie is dus nie ondenkbaar dat rasionele denkprosesse dit wat deur kondisionering ingeskerp word kan verander nie. Daar is dus 'n wisselwerking tussen kondisionering en rasionele denke.
Opsommenderwys: Na my mening speel rasionele denke wel 'n rol by die voorkoming van anti-sosiale gedrag (beide by kondisionering en die leerprosesse) en behoort dit doelbewus aangewend te word al is dit maar om die gemeenskap se bewustheid van die nadele van sosiale verval en wanorde te verskerp.
Nota omtrent sekere terme hierbo gebruik.
In 'n poging om die leesbaarheid van die argumente te verhoog gebruik ek sekere terme wat in werklikheid kodewoorde is vir meer uitvoerige begrippe wat deur Eysenck ontwikkel word.
So word die terme vroom, rasionele denke, onderbewuste en bose bv gebruik vir konsepte wat meer volledig in Eysenck se werk gevind word.
Die woord drang word 'n bietjie buite sy normale aanwendingveld gebruik.
Ook verwys ek uitsluitlik na die kondisionering van kinders. Dit sluit egter nie die kondisionering van volwassenes uit nie en Eysenck verwys uitgebreid na maniere om volwassenes ook te rehabiliteer.
Ek gebruik die terme misdaad en anti-sosiale gedrag ietwat los en vas. Baie van die teorieë fokus nie uitsluitlik op misdaad nie maar sluit alle anti-sosiale gedrag in. So ook Merton en Eysenck. Misdaad is natuurlik 'n meer beperkte vorm van anti-sosiale gedrag.