• HOME
  • Services
  • Launchability
  • Sustainability
  • Markets
  • Academic Interests
    • Academic research logic
    • Dissertation mentoring & editing
    • The Dissertation Literature Review
  • John Bryan
  • Business Blog
  • Contact
You are here: Home / Blog

Reflection on School Shootings and Affluenza

December 24, 2013 by John Bryan

Listening to Saturday evening’s news, I was saddened to learn that the teenage girl shot at a Colorado high school had died.  Each time I hear the reports of school shootings and other acts of violence, particularly in the United States, since that is home, I pause for a moment or longer and wonder why these things happen.  I increasingly find myself wondering if maybe the blame is off target.

It seems that news commentators and others are quick to blame guns or mental illness or some other external or impersonal source for the problem.  The recent claim of “affluenza” by an apparently professionally trained and qualified psychologist reinforced some of my earlier thinking that the problem is not as much external as internal.  This diagnosis seems to me to be an example of a misguided professional seeking notoriety for concocting a disease that seems nothing more than an excuse for people not being responsible for their actions.  In this case, a teenage boy and his parents staking parallel claims for the latest version of the Flip Wilson defense, the devil made me do it.

In the case of the recent shooting at the high school outside of Denver, we may never fully understand or know what drove the teenage boy to violence.  While the teenage boy in Texas, the alleged victim of “affluenza,” did not use a gun, he used an equally-lethal weapon to unintentionally kill more innocent victims than his Colorado counterpart.  Both boys made choices and both killed people who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In the Colorado example, it is easy to blame guns for the loss of life.  I don’t hear anybody blaming trucks, which the boy with affluent parents drove, or alcohol, which he consumed to well beyond the legal threshold for adults.  However, the more consistent theme not running through these two events and the multitude of comparable episodes in schools and on the streets of the United States is that nobody seems willing to mention the possibility that poor parenting and a declining culture play a major role in these acts of violence.

On the parenting side, I cannot claim first-hand experience as I am the biological father of none.  I understand parents today claim parenting is tough.  My parents and their peers claimed the same thing.  That does not negate the challenge, but only notes that he tough duty of parents is not new.

When I was young, and younger, I used to hear the occasional parent decry the tendency of children to play cowboys and Indians and other mock battle games.  The reality of today seems to be that, too few children are outside playing anything and too many are inside playing very realistic versions of electronic games that make most of what we did seem tame; paintball is tame compared to the electronic games that have been prevalent recently.

At some point, it seems that the conversation should turn to a combination of lack of responsibility and accountability combined with a sense of diminished value of human life and acceptance of violence through repetitive role playing among, primarily, young males in the United States.  When parents demonstrate lack of responsibility and accountability and raise their children in the same set of values and when it is so easy to role play violence and to deaden oneself to life itself, why do we act surprised and befuddled by young people killing their peers and others?  Do we not simply observe the natural outcome or consequence of our conscious decisions to reject traditional values?  It seems far too easy to blame external forces than to accept responsibility, but that seems so very consistent with the direction that the amalgamated culture of the United States has chosen for itself.

We want to do whatever we want to do, often in the name of one or more freedoms provided in our Constitution.  So many seem inclined to hold dearly to the rights they believe they have, but few seem to regard highly the responsibilities that accompany rights.

We claim freedom of speech, but do we speak responsibly and accountably, recognizing that words have power to encourage or to discourage, to be true or false, to enflame or to quench, and to instruct or to destroy?  We claim freedom of religion, but do we recognize that belief systems are often incompatible and sometimes not confined to building sand structures and systems?  We claim a right to bear arms, but do we instruct and preemptively instill in the bearer, the proper and responsible use of firearms, or do we just randomly authorize anybody to arm themselves and presume that they will act responsibly?

I would find it easier to support libertarianism if I could count on people with no more liberty than they currently have to act responsibly.  The daily news shows me what may be the current reality in the United States, no matter what I would like.  I cannot trust parents raise their children.  I cannot trust some young people to handle weapons, most of which are capable of mass destruction, in appropriate ways, even if most can.  I increasingly feel that too many people in influential public positions, given the opportunity, will not say or do the right thing, even though the majority can.  Too many cultural  role models seem unwilling or unable to model behavior that I would want my children to emulate, if I had any.

All I can do is to try to act and speak responsibly.  All I can do is try to make appropriate, informed choices, guided by the values my parents and so many others instilled in me.  As a person of faith, my values and actions will hopefully be consistent with what I have come to believe, but I know I will behave inconsistently.  So, I can start with me.

Somehow, it seems that I cannot let responsibility, accountability, and proper behavior, as shaped by my value system, end with me.  The parents of the boy with the alleged affluenza, no matter what a misguided psychologist says, need to acknowledge and accept responsibility and accountability for the child who is under their roof.  To date, I have seen nothing from those parents to indicate anything other than a sense of entitlement based on their affluence.  I do not know what to think about the parents of the boy in the Colorado shooting.  Apparently, they are at least as shocked by his actions as anybody else.  Perhaps, in each of these recent examples, we can see evidence that elements of the greater culture in the United States seem to be misguided, moving intentionally or otherwise in an unsustainable direction and warranting intentional and strategic change in direction. If we choose to do nothing, or if we choose to attempt to fix the wrong problem, then we should resign ourselves to more episodes of mystifying behavior and more public trauma, and probably with increased frequency.

Cultures change.  Some people have worked diligently to change the culture in the United States, and elsewhere.  As the changes permeate the culture, we begin to see evidence and consequences.  When boys do not learn right from wrong, seemingly because in some cases the parents abdicate that responsibility, we should not be particularly surprised when they make choices that end badly for themselves or others.  When children somehow learn, when the culture around them teaches them, that human life is of little value, that violence is normative, and that rules of appropriate conduct either do not apply to them or can be disregarded without consequence, we should not be surprised.  Unless drivers of cultural change take conscious, intentional steps to reverse at least fifty years of cultural decline, which some characterize as enlightened and progressive, more parents will be burying their children while other parents plead for courts and their neighbors to be merciful.

Filed Under: John's Perspective and Views Tagged With: affluenza, culture, school shootings

Where will social entropy take Western culture?

December 8, 2013 by John Bryan

Siegel (2013) presented what might be described as a history of the recent decline of Western culture, spanning more than the past 50 years.  Siegel’s focus was the way what was once considered vulgar, and inappropriate for discussion in so-called polite company, is increasingly normative.  It is not simply language that is changing, but the topics and tone of what is appropriate for public discussion seems increasingly unbounded.

I recall less about the 1960s than I probably should, but a summer camp missive to a group of junior high boys by our leader, Cliff, remains etched in my memory.  Like Siegel (2013), Cliff used the words of two songs by the Rolling Stones to illustrate the point that our cultural values were changing; the year was 1966 or 1967.  Siegel noted that the differences in lyrics then compared to now were tame.

I also recall less about a year of high school honors physics, three lower-division college physics courses and three upper-division college physical chemistry courses.  I do recall entropy, the principle that all things in the universe are irreversibly moving to a state of increased disorder or chaos.  Entropy seems to suggest that rules and frameworks will have less influence in all systems.  Could increasingly normative vulgarity be a reflection of entropy?

Many, perhaps most, of the world’s major religions promote a system of disciplines, of disciplined living based on a set of rules, precepts, guidelines, or standards for living.  The Ten Commandments and various addenda apply to Judaism and Christianity.  Islam has a set of rules for appropriate living, which are distinct from the systems of laws.  Buddists and Hindus have rules.  Taoists also have rules or precepts.  Some who reject the religions of the world seem to object to negative feelings associated with rules (Sullivan, 2009).

Trends away from rules may be pervasive in Western culture.  Legal systems and school districts seem to be migrating toward more accountability.  Is this a natural response to entropy or a futile attempt to maintain or save Western culture?  Libertarianism and various movements to reduce efforts to legislate morality may sound appealing, but may lead to continued decline in Western culture and provide an argument outside the Western world to reject elements of that culture.

Reference

Siegel, L. (2013, December 7). America the Vulgar. Whatever happened to the subtle thrill of real transgression? Wall Street Journal, 262(135), C1.

Sullivan, P. J. (2009). Women’s stories of rejecting organized religion and discovering a personal spiritual framework. (Order No. 3423879, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 167. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/761137464?accountid=35812

Filed Under: John's Perspective and Views

Homegrown domestic terrorists

December 6, 2013 by John Bryan

I have the privilege of mentoring some MBA students at the Rady School of Management, the business school at my alma mater. On December 22, 2012, the Rady School tweeted a quote attributed to Theodore Roosevelt: “To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society.”

Since the December 14, 2012, slaughter of innocents and innocence at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I have wondered how to constructively deal with this tragedy. The perpetrator was nothing less tan a domestic terrorist, a suicide bomber raised as a product of a United States society that seems increasingly amoral. This act of violence was facilitated by the perpetrator’s unfortunate access to deadly force that should be unnecessary in a self-described civilized society. However, the perpetrator proved to be far from civilized; he may be properly classified as mentally ill, as a psychopath with no regard for human life. He was, however, a product of our self-described civilized society.

Largely in the name of individual liberties and liberal thinking, culture and society in the United States has gradually and methodically removed and abandoned God, respect and reverence for human life, and self control from the way we raise the next generation. In the name of open-mindedness and free thinking, boundaries, values, morals, and standards for living, gradually have given way, in a large portion of U.S. society, to free expression, free love, unfettered living. In the name of these freedoms, society has abdicated its responsibility and ceded its authority to restrict behavior.

As a consequence, the entertainment industry glorifies violence and numbs impressionable minds to death, while decrying the death penalty and restrictions on abortion. In the United States, and elsewhere, we have systematically jettisoned any sense of rudder and keel for living and then wondered why people act as if they are misguided and lacking values. We proclaim that we cannot or should not tell people that certain behavior is wrong, or that it at least is not helpful, an then wonder why people behave badly.

We lament the lives lost by suicide bombing, which seemingly value the life of the perpetrator more than the other victims by emphasizing the loss of the perpetrator’s life over the lives of the others. The United States seems to be raising up its equivalent to suicide bombers, as evidenced by the mass killings in our homeland carried out by, for the most part, young men. Somehow, these mass killers, just like the suicide/homicide bombers in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, have never had or have abandoned value or respect for human life. They lack values because we are gradually replacing cultural elements, including religion, from their lives and filling the void with other cultural elements that provide different values.

It is easy to blame guns or video games. It is also easy, and unaccountable, to blame mental illness. Guns and mental illness seem to certainly play a part. The more difficult factor to address, that network news commentators never mention, is the decline in values. As a society, our leaders have led us down a wrong path, to destruction rather than freedom, and our leaders lack the discernment and the spine to propose a change in direction.

Filed Under: John's Perspective and Views Tagged With: domestic terrorists, Sandy Hook

Religion as an aspect of culture in shaping leadership

December 4, 2013 by John Bryan

Fareed Zakaria (2013) suggested that the US should not care, or fret, if the Saudi Arabian leaders are unhappy with US foreign policy.  Zakaria based his opinion on two basic points. First, Zakaria noted that Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of global terror.  Second and related to the first is Zakaria’s assertion that religion is the basis for most of Saudi Arabia’s positions regarding its neighbors and US foreign policy.  Almost lost in Zakaria’s argument is the influence of the perceived illegitimacy of the Saudi regime in governing the country.

Nevo (1998) asserted that religion is both the source of the Saudi regime’s legitimacy and its national identity.  If Nevo is correct, then Zakaria’s (2013) three points are, perhaps one. Many scholars recognize the role of religion in shaping culture.  Culture is certainly associated with national identity.

If Zakaria (2013) was correct in ascribing illegitimacy to the Saudi regime, and if, as Nevo (1998) asserted, the legitimacy of the Saudi regime derives from either Islam generally or Wahhabi Islam specifically, and from the derivative culture, it would seem that Zakaria may be making a statement about the Saudi culture or religion.  Zakaria effectively argued that religion is at the heart of growing differences or divergences between Saudi and US foreign policies.

Although many in the US embrace a belief in God, few would probably suggest that religion in the US influences US foreign policy.   Scholars within and outside the US noted the influence of religion on US foreign policy (Bacevich & Prodromou, 2005; Baumgartner, Francia, & Morris, 2008; Judis, 2009; Long, 2005).  Religion influences culture in the US as well (de Waal Malefijt, 1968; Hulsether, 2005; Onwubiko, 1991; Williams, 1996).  Perhaps a difference worth exploring is the role of the numerous religious expressions found in the US on shaping a heterogeneous US culture and how that diversity of culture or cultures influences our national identity, foreign policy, and governance legitimacy.

Reference

Bacevich, A.J., & Prodromou, E.H. (2005). God is not neutral: Religion and US foreign policy after 9/11. Orbis, 48(1), 43-54.

Baumgartner, J.C., Francia, P.L., & Morris, J.S. (2008). A clash of civilizations?  The influence of religion of Public opinion of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 172-179.

De Waal Malefijt, A. (1989). Religion and culture: An introduction to anthropology of religion. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveband Press.

Hulsether, M. (2005). Religion and culture. In J.R. Hinnells, The Routledge companion to the study of religion.  New York, NY: Routledge.

Judis, J. (2005). The chosen nation: The influence of religion on US foreign policy.  The Carnegie Endowment.

Long, J. (2005).  Religion and US foreign policy.  IDSS Commentaries, 31.

Nevo, J. (1998). Religion and national identity in Saudi Arabia. Middle Eastern Studies, 34(3), 34-53.

Onwubiko, O.A. (1991). African thought, religion and culture (Vol. 1). Enugu, Nigeria: Snaap Press.

Williams, R.H. (1996). Religion as political resource: Culture or ideology? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(4), 368-378.

Zakaria, F. (2013, November 11). The Saudis are upset? Tough! Why we shouldn’t care that the world’s most irresponsible country is displeased with the U.S.  Time, 182(20), 24.

Filed Under: John's Perspective and Views

Neither blind nor stupid

December 3, 2013 by John Bryan

Before the announcement of the tentative deal between Iran and the United States and a few of its allies, US Secretary of State John Kerry was quoted by Time (2013, November 25) as saying “We are not blind, and I don’t think we are stupid.”. Within hours after the preliminary deal’s announcement, elected and non-elected leaders from across the political spectrum in the US and their counterparts around the world seemed to be either questioning that or hoping for its accuracy.  Some may have remembered the words attributed to Wendy Sherman, State Department Under Secretary and chief US negotiator in Geneva, “We know that deception is part of the [Iranian] DNA” (Wright, 2013, p. 22).

Perhaps the question of blindness or stupidity is a frequent thought in the minds of followers and, perhaps, of leaders themselves.  Leaders certainly do not want followers thinking they are blind or stupid; some may however, assert that some of their fellow leaders, specifically their adversaries, are either or both.  Followers do not want to think that the leaders they support are either blind or stupid; analogous to the leaders, some followers may assert, perhaps regularly, that the leaders they do not follow are blind or stupid, or both.

Although having some elected leaders behave as if they were blind or stupid, with no disrespect intended to the blind or the stupid and not referring specifically to eyesight, may have political advantages, having people in leadership positions with either trait is not generally in the best interests of organizations, communities, or countries.  People in leadership positions who make decisions as if they cannot see or do not recognize reality and truth generally leads to a choice of poor vision and direction.

With the context of the Kerry quote, blindness has little to do with the proper transmission of visual signals from the eye to the brain along the optic nerve.  Such blindness results, instead, from the way individual or collective brains process what they believe they are seeing.  Such blindness is a matter of interpretation; as such, the Kerry-referenced blindness seems to be a matter of learning, either what one has or has not learned.

Within the context of the Kerry quote, stupidity may not have a correlation with intelligence.  Like the reference to blindness, the stupidity noted by Kerry more than likely refers to correct interpretation of facts and reality.  Like the blindness reference, the Kerry use of stupidity seems to be poor decision-making based on learning over time.

An on-going study that I am conducting, involving nearly 14,000 people in positions of leadership from 82 countries gives insight into what leaders believe about leadership.  Leaders believe leaders should have expertise and intelligence.  Leaders should be astute in processing facts.  Not all people in positions of leadership are necessarily leaders.  However, in the case of the negotiators involved in nuclear talks, one hopes that the individuals in positions charged with leading the way in these matters are, in fact, leaders who prove to be neither blind nor stupid.

Reference

Time. (2013, November 25).  Briefing. Time, 182(22), 11.

Wright, R. (2013, October 28). Iran’s man on wire. The country’s chief envoy faces a tricky balancing act. Time, 182(18), 22.

Filed Under: John's Perspective and Views

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 19
  • Next Page »

Search This Site

Social Media

Dr. John Bryan

Evisors: Enlist my expertise

Categories

  • Case Studies (28)
  • Economic Stimulus (17)
  • Jobs (7)
  • John's Perspective and Views (30)
  • Leadership (18)
  • Management (13)
  • News Feeds (7)
  • Strategic Business (12)
  • Technology (3)

Recent Posts

  • Reflection on School Shootings and Affluenza
  • Where will social entropy take Western culture?
  • Homegrown domestic terrorists
  • Religion as an aspect of culture in shaping leadership
  • Neither blind nor stupid

Resources

Institute of Management Consultants
International Leadership Association
Southern California Accelerator @ Co-Merge
Dissertation = Regional Transitions from Conflict to Post-Conflict: Observed Leadership Practices

Questionnaires

  • Competitive Positioning Questionnaire
  • Innovation Intake Questionnaire
  • Pre-Business Plan Intake Questionnaire
  • Startup Leadership in Economic Uncertainty A lengthy questionnaire seeking insight from leaders internationally about appropriate roles, practices, and behaviors of leaders.
  • Startup Leadership in Economic Uncertainty – Vietnamese

Recent Comments

  • John Bryan on Tobacco Processing and Cigarette Production
  • kanhaiya on Tobacco Processing and Cigarette Production
  • John Bryan on An Arab Fall
  • Karen V on An Arab Fall
  • Thomas A. Coss on Meet the 1% (BRK-B, COH, DIS, ESRX, JEF, UNH)

RSS Business

  • Bain Capital and 1980s-vintage Management Consulting John Bryan
  • Telecommunications Sales Force Reorganization John Bryan
  • What and What if? The start of a typical eProcesses client relationship John Bryan

We Support

Alliance For Africa 

San Diego Sports Innovators
San Diego Sports Innovators

 
connect_logo_trans

star-networking-header

Giving To Charities

Archives

Copyright by eProcessesinc · All Rights Reserved · · Log in