Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 Bystander Indifference to Instances of Injustice and the Book

of Job

The book of Job presents a prototypical account of the psychological dynamics of injustice. Its primary figures, Job and God, loom large in the narrative, and as such it is easy to focus on the account of Jobs internal struggle as a victim. However, the bulk of the text addresses the perspective of witnesses reactions to injustice through the arguments of Jobs three friends: Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. In the course of the text all three present arguments that Jobs protestations of innocence are misguided, and that he must be guilty of some offense against God; as Eliphaz rhetorically puts it, Can an innocent man be punished?1 This paper will consider why otherwise empathetic and moral individuals, such as Eliphaz, often react with denial or indifference when confronted with instances of injustice through a close reading of the Book of Job and by reference to modern theories of psychology and social philosophy. The perspectives presented will then be applied to, and analyzed within the context of police brutality in contemporary Chicago.

I. Background A. Textual Analysis of the Book of Job As the protagonist of his eponymous text, Job and his struggle with, or perhaps against, God can eclipse secondary characters. While Job himself presents a window into the mind of the victim, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar present us with the psychology of the bystander. This oftenoverlooked third perspective is of supreme importance both practically and theoretically. When presented with a literary or historical account of grave injustice and criminality, the reader is
1

STEPHEN MITCHELL, THE BOOK OF JOB 17 (HarperPerennial 1992) (1979) 1

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 drawn towards a binary interpretation of victim and perpetrator. In literature it is often the victim that is empowered to correct the wrongs enacted against him. This is arguably the case in our text, as Jobs stubborn refusal to admit guilt seems to be the source of his ultimate redemption. The motivation behind this tendency of interpretation and narrative is not difficult to understand. There is a poetic justice and dramatic power in the reversal of fortunes, the weak become powerful, the powerful weak, and all is well. Unfortunately, this binary model of interpretation often does not play out in reality. In the vast majority of cases the victims of injustice begin and remain powerless throughout their ordeals. As unsatisfying as it is, injustice is usually correctable exclusively through the intervention of a third-party. The three friends come to Job, seemingly to comfort him, but instead contradict his claims of innocence with accusations. They are introduced in our narrative with language that stresses their profound empathy and concern for Jobs well being. When these friends heard of all the calamities that had come upon him, each of them left his own country to mourn with Job and comfort him [] They then sat with him for seven days and seven nights. And no one said a word, for they saw how great his suffering was.2 It is made clear the three friends decision to speak with Job was motivated, at least initially, by simple concern and love. Furthermore, they demonstrate profound sensitivity to Jobs ordeal, in simply sitting with him, and, at first, refraining from commenting. It is notable in this regard that the text creates a causal link between the friends silence, and the severity of Jobs suffering. We are left with the impression that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar came to Job with the assumption that he was in fact deserving of his suffering, but held their tongues temporarily, until it was appropriate to confront him.

Id. at 9. 2

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 There is a seeming contradiction, however, in the three friends presentation as being motivated by sympathy and their utter refusal to take Jobs side in the matter. In normal human interactions there is a tendency to take the side of ones compatriots, even against facts that imply otherwise. Why then, do Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar reject Jobs account with such ease? There is no implication in the text that they lacked genuine affection for Job, and there is no mention of ulterior motivations for their visit anywhere in the text. Similarly, there is no indication that the three friends are especially unkind or indifferent, on the contrary, they are consistently presented as bastions of virtue and ethical behavior. The text thus presents the puzzling reality of observers of injustice who, despite empathy for the victim and sound ethical standards, fail to correctly assess a given situation.

B. Police Torture and Coercion in Contemporary Chicago The problem of third-parties indifference to manifest injustice is all too familiar. I first became aware of the problem when confronted with the epidemic of torture and the coercion of confessions perpetrated by the Chicago Police Department in my hometown, Chicago.3 I had become aware of the problem in the late 1990s through personal interactions with both police officers, and impoverished residents of the citys Southside, who were often the victims of police brutality. As a somewhat overly optimistic teenager, I began recounting what I had learned not only to my peers, but also to members of my parents synagogue, and nearly anyone who would listen to me. I was astounded to learn that many of the adults I spoke to at the time were aware of

See the reporting of John Conroy for the Chicago Reader for an extensive account of police torture in Chicago. Archive of Columns by John Conroy, http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/police-torture-in-chicago-jon-burge-scandal-articles-byjohn-conroy/Content?oid=1210030 (last visited August 28, 2010). 3

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 the problem, and noted that it had been a well known issues since at least the 1970s. At the time, I could not grasp how it was possible for such horrific crimes to be regularly committed in my own community without overwhelming public response. My confusion with the situation was compounded by the fact that such profound apathy and disregard was to be found, not only with otherwise indifferent individuals, but also from the very people within my community who inculcated my peers and I with activist ideals. How could it be that the very same teacher who spoke passionately about the greatness of individuals like Medgar Evers, who risked their lives for the advancement of civil rights, reacted so sanguinely to continued racial and economic motivated oppression occurring on a weekly if not daily basis in their own backyard. Perhaps even more surprising, I encountered rationalization for this practice among members of the very communities assailed by the Chicago Police. Often, law-abiding residents of Chicagos more dangerous neighborhoods would justify the polices abuses, claiming that coercive measures were necessary due to the severity of criminality in their community. The situation was publicly addressed in 2002, with the publication of Cornelia Grummans Pulitzer winning editorial, No More Excuses. Go to the Tape.4 In that article Grumman poignantly presents numerous instances of individuals sentenced to death because of coerced confessions, who were later exonerated by DNA evidence. Her editorial, coupled with the efforts of then State Senator Obama soon paved the way for the passage of a bill in the Illinois legislature that required the videotaping of all police interrogations. While this effort fell short of addressing the issue completely, it stands out as the only recent public effort to prevent police torture in Chicago. Impressed with the success of Grumman and Senator Obamas efforts, I had expected to see momentum build, that would eventually lead
4

Cornelia Grumman, No More Excuses. Go to the Tape, Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2002. 4

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 to the complete elimination of police torture in Chicago, as well as the punishment of those responsible. I soon was relieved of this notion. By random circumstance, my fathers consulting firm was hired to install the cameras and recording equipment for all of Chicagos precincts, and he was individually tasked with the project. Knowing that I was deeply troubled by this problem, he recounted conversations that had occurred with members of the Chicago Police establishment on the project. He frequently encountered detectives who explicitly complained that the cameras would prevent them from doing their job because they would prevent the use of torture. One detective bragged that he would hold suspects in interrogation for hours on end while denying access to a restroom. This would cause severe physical discomfort, and often ended with suspects defecating in their clothing, and be forced to sit like this for long stretches of time. Another detective explicitly told my father that he would routinely pick up random people off the street in Chicagos poorer areas, and attempt to coerce confessions for crimes he was assigned to investigate. The justification he gave for this practice was that they probably did something else anyway. Similar stories were recounted to me on a weekly basis for the duration of the cameras installation. It was apparent that the Chicago Police Department was so unconcerned by the prospect of public sentiment turning against them, that bragging about their horrific practices to my father, who was tasked with preventing these very practices, was perceived as utterly unthreatening. This situation confounded me for a number of years. Police torture in Chicago was an injustice that was known to the public for decades, was recently exposed in the mass media, and addressed by legislative action. Nonetheless, I encountered indifference and apathy far more often than genuine concern. The matter would have been easy to understand if apathetic reactions were limited to those who exhibited moral failings, such as general indifference to the

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 plight of the low-income African-American community in the city. However, more often than not I encountered the same apathy and indifference among individual who were otherwise empathetic and moral. Thus, I realized that in order to address this issue in particular, and similar instances of bystander indifference, some greater understanding of the human psyche was necessary. The behavior of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in the Book of Job opens an intriguing interpretive window into this problem.

II. Theoretical Approaches In the following section we will consider four distinct, but interrelated theoretical approaches to the problem of indifference and the denial of manifest injustice. The first two approaches considered are rooted in psychology generally, and dissonance theory in particular, while the final two present philosophical interpretations. Each approach will be explicated, and critiqued. They will additionally be considered in relation to the Eliphaz, Blidad, and Zophars behavior in the Book of Job.

A. Belief in a Just World The first perspective that will be explored on the problem of witness denial of injustice is the tendency of individuals to distort their perception of realty in order to conform with preexisting biases. While this concept is far from novel, as bias is encountered in nearly all human interactions, and can stem from a myriad of sources, including: race, class, and ideology,5 the precise manner and extent of bias is far from clear.

See Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman & Donald Braman, Whos Eyes are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive IllIberalism, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 837 (2009). 6

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 In the 2006 article, When Effort is Threatening: The Influence of the Belief in a Just World on Americans Attitudes Toward Antipoverty Policy,6 a study is presented which purports to demonstrate how the belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get7 affects individuals opinions on the use of public funds to alleviate poverty. The article makes the general claim that when presented with data that contradict deeply held ideological biases, individuals will alter their assessments of a given situation in order to preserve their belief structure. If an individual believes that the world is generally fair, a certain degree of cognitive dissonance will be experienced when confronted with instances of underserved suffering. The claim is made that the trauma of this contradiction will cause this individual to experience decreased sympathy, and even indifference towards the victims of injustice as a coping mechanism. We are thus left with the astounding possibility that reactions of indifference to instances of injustice may arise, not out of apathy towards ideals of justice, but out of its centrality in a persons moral framework. In other words, the reality of unjust suffering is so upsetting to some, as to require the denial of its very existence. In order to prove its claim, the study surveyed the beliefs of 1,570 individuals, utilizing rigorous statistical controls. An established methodology for measuring belief in a just world, known as the General Belief in a Just World Scale was utilized to assess the degree to which the surveys participants believed that the world is just.8 Participants were presented with the story of a single mother, known as Lisa, who experiences economic hardship, and are asked to assess if she was deserving of government assistance. Four aspects of the single mother vignette
6

Lauren D. Appelbaum, Mary Clare Lennon & J. Lawrence Aber, When Effort is Threatening: The Influence of the Belief in a Just World on Americans Attitudes Toward Antipoverty Policy, 27 Political Psychology 387 (2006). 7 Id. at 390. 8 Id. at 394. 7

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 were altered between the surveys participants in order to create varying degrees of responsibility for her own fate, which included, Lisa's working status (i.e., whether she is working vs. on welfare or her status is not indicated); whether Lisa attends school to improve her job skills; whether she is looking for a job (or a better job if she is employed); and whether she sometimes skips a meal so that her family can eat.9 The results of the survey show that belief in a just world tends to correlate with the assessment that the vignettes single mother is less deserving of assistance. Furthermore, individuals were less likely to conclude she was deserving of assistance when the four variable factors mentioned above indicated increased effort on her part to alleviate her own situation. A remarkably similar mental process to that described above is presented in the Book of Job. In his first speech Bildad asserts belief in a just world. Would Shaddai pervert justice?10 God would not reject the innocent.11 He concludes based on this that Job must be at fault in some way. In response Job simply denies the accusation and clearly states that God does not, in fact, deal justly with the world. Quite the opposite, The good and the guilty He destroys alike.12 This same conversation plays out in numerous instances in the course of the text. It is notable that in all such instances there is a distinct lack of actual debate that occurs. Job and his friends repeatedly assert contradictory positions on the justness of Gods treatment of the world, without any real change in the positions of either party. We are thus left with an interpretive dilemma as to what the Book of Jobs author meant to communicate by the repeated rehearsal of this difference of opinion. With the perspective of When Effort is Threatening, an interpretive

Id. at 395. RAYMOND P. SCHEINDLIN, THE BOOK OF JOB 70 (Norton 1999) (1997). 11 Id. at 71. 12 Id. at 73.
10

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 approach can be formulated. The possibility that God acts capriciously towards his creation is so terrifying to the three friends, as to blind them from Jobs innocence.13 The mental trauma they would suffer as a result of siding with Job is so severe, as to prevent any rational argument from reaching them, and on the contrary, the more evidence of the occurrence of injustice that is presented, the greater their resistance to the idea. Just as those surveyed in the above study showed less empathy for Lisa the more she made an effort to reach economic stability, Jobs friends position is only hardened by Jobs counter-arguments.

B. System Justification Theory A correlating approach to why witnesses will uncharacteristically react with a lack of empathy when presented with injustice is System Justification Theory. John Jost and Mahzerin Banaji developed this theory in 1994. Its most basic assumption is that people tend to provide cognitive and ideological support for the existing social system. Among other things, this means that they should often view systems and authorities as beyond reproach and inequality among groups and individuals as legitimate and even necessary14 This theory is novel in that in starkly contradicts preexisting assumptions on human behavior based on the Rational Choice Model.15 According to Rational Choice Theory, individuals will tend to support public policies that tangibly benefit them directly, or groups they closely identify with. System Justification Theory

13

See Id. at 156. ([God] said to Eliphaz the Temanite, I am very angry at you and your two friends, for you have not spoken rightly about me as did my servant Job, indicating the three friends claims were ultimate incorrect). 14 John T. Jost et al., Social Inequality and the Reduction of ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System: Evidence of Enhanced System Justification Among the Disadvantaged, 33 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 13, 14 (2003). 15 See Gary Blasi & John T.Jost, System Justification Theory and Research: Implications for Law, Legal Advocacy, and Social Justice, 91 Cal. Law. Rev. 1119, at 1120-1121 (2006). 9

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 asserts that rational choice is often overridden by a desire to support the status quo, even at ones own expense. The most widely supported rationale as to why there exists such a tendency is rooted in dissonance theory. Dissonance theory claims people are motivated to resolve inconstancies among their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and to provide justifications or rationalizations for their actions and experiences.16 The study considered above in regards to belief in a just world is a clear example of dissonance theory in action. Rather than live with the dissonance between their belief that the world is just, and manifest injustice, the surveys participants altered their perception of Lisas situation, to conform to their preexisting beliefs. System Justification Theory takes this as its basis, but extends the dynamic to a wider context. For example, disadvantaged groups would experience psychological discomfort because their own disadvantage implies that, either consciously, or unconsciously, they would feel complicit in perpetuating the status quo.17As a result, members of such groups may feel compelled to deny the unjust treatment of members of their own group when witnessing such events. Because this dissonance does not exist for members of advantaged social groups, System Justification Theory predicts, counter-intuitively, that there will be an increased stake in the status quo for those most disadvantaged by it. It is important to note, that System Justification Theory does not claim to be predictive of behavior in all scenarios, but rather asserts one internal dynamic among many. People do act rationally, demonstrate in-group favoritism, and act in their self-interest, however, these motivations may fail to actualize when confronted with the contradictory impulse to resolve
16

Jost et al., Social Inequality and the Reduction of ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System at 15. 17 Id. at 16. 10

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 cognitive dissonance. If such an impulse does exist, however, it is a factor that must be taken into account in a variety of social context for an accurate analysis of a given situation. Because the claims of System Justification Theory run counter not only to much of our experience, but to simple common sense, it is important to present the extensive empirical data for the theory. In their aforementioned article Jost and Banaji present a comprehensive array of supporting evidence.18 Because a full presentation and analysis of these studies is beyond the scope of this paper, they will be considered generally. All the studies brought in support of Jost and Banajis theory involved surveys of disadvantaged groups on a range of issues that addressed relative trust in the government, and satisfaction with the status quo. Various disadvantaged subgroups were surveyed individually and collectively, considering factors such as race, sexuality, personal status, and income. It has been constantly demonstrated that members relatively disadvantaged groups will show greater deferral to authority than relatively advantaged groups. In one such study19 data previously collected from the Latino community was analyzed with System Justification Theorys claims in mind. It was demonstrated that, not only were Latinos more likely than whites to defer to governmental authority, but similarly, poorer Latinos demonstrated greater deference than wealthier Latinos. In another study,20 increased agreement was shown with the statement large differences in income are necessary for Americas prosperity, among economically disadvantaged, and racially marginalized groups in the United States.

18

See also John T. Jost, Mahzarin R. Banaji & Brian A Nosek, A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo, 25 Political Psych. 881 (2001). 19 Jost et al., Social Inequality and the Reduction of ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System at 20-23. 20 Id. at 27-29. 11

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 Despite the impressive array of data accumulated in support of System Justification Theory, there are problems with a number of the studies methodologies. A number of the studies presented involved face-to-face polling of disadvantaged social groups by largely middle class, white college students. The possibility that those surveyed were either unconsciously intimidated, or attempting to avoid reinforcing negative stereotypes was not accounted for statically in any of the studies presented. This problem is particularly poignant in studies that measured agreement with the notion that wealth in America is distributed based on merit. There is a pernicious and long-existing stereotype that African-Americans and Latinos are lazy, and it is eminently possible that they agreed with the meritocratic myth of the American Dream, to avoid its reinforcement. Furthermore, studies, which demonstrated that low-income whites showed increased deference to governmental authority, do not necessarily imply that the resolution of cognitive dissonance was their primary motivation. It is equally possible that ideological patriotism, and the privileging of economic freedoms above civil freedoms were far more salient. Despite some questionable methodology, however, Jost and Banajis claims are strongly supported when the studies presented are considered as a whole. Coming back to the question at hand, System Justification Theory provides another perspective as to why Jobs friends would choose to contradict him, despite their filial bonds. As was mentioned above, there is a tendency to assume a degree of favoritism and regard for ones friends and compatriots. We additionally noted, that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are presented as displaying genuine affection for Job, but perplexingly accost him with accusations and side with God against him with no evidence of wrongdoing on Jobs part. System Justification Theory accounts for this behavior in its contention that individuals can side with authority for the sake of preserving the status quo, even against group affiliations. Eliphaz goes so far as to claim

12

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 that all individuals must be guilty of some sin, stating, How can mortal man be guiltless? How can womans brood be innocent?21 In asserting the inherent culpability of humanity, Eliphaz maintains the status quo of Gods authority at the expense of all personal and group allegiances.

C. Objective Versus Subjective Violence Thus far we have considered how internal psychological biases or fears can distort a bystanders perception of apparent injustice. In his expos on the social dynamics of violence, Marxist philosopher Slavoj !i"ek presents us with a manner in which an individuals reaction to injustice can be dulled by the particular manifestation of violence witnessed. He proposes a conceptual dichotomy between, what he terms subjective and objective violence. Subjective violence is enacted by social agents, evil individuals, disciplined repressive apparatuses, fanatical crowds.22 The fact that both the perpetrator and victim of subjective violence, as well as the very act itself are well defined, allows for the creation of a moving narrative in the mind of the bystander. In witnessing the victims suffering or the perpetrators barbarity, the bystander can experience direct empathy or revulsion by imagining himself subjectively in the train of events that ensued. Conversely, objective violence is that perpetrated by abstract social forces on diffuse segments of a given population. !i"ek is particularly concerned with the violence perpetrated on the economically disadvantaged by the free market. He claims that capitalist socio-ideological violence is largely immune from popular outrage because it is no longer

21 22

BOOK OF JOB (Raymond P. Schiendlin, 1999) at 87. SLAVOJ ZIZEK, VIOLENCE (Picador 2008) at 11. 13

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 attributable to concrete individuals, but is purely objective, systemic, anonymous.23 There is no dramatic narrative available, for example, to those whos retirement funds were depleted by a crashing stock market, and as such, outrage is kept to a minimum. It is important to note, however, that these two categories are by no means exclusive. There are more instances of hybridized violence, than those that fall clearly in objective or subjective categories. Consider the occurrence of police brutality in Chicago mentioned above. Police torture of suspects and coerced confessions can be framed subjectively. There is a definable victim and perpetrator, and violent act. However, the story does not stop with the individual police officer and suspect. It is likely if not certain, that the suspects low economic status contributes to his vulnerability to coercion and torture, as the practice was never extended in Chicago to the middle class. Furthermore, from my own discussions with members of the Chicago Police, it has been made clear that there is tremendous pressure to rack up large numbers of arrests. The economic pressure on defectives to produce arrests or be fired, places sometimes-irresistible incentives for the abuse of power. Because the framing of violence or injustice as either subjective or objective depends on the interpretive scope given to a particular matter, we must consider what value the categories provide in understanding bystander reaction. Because individuals will react more strongly to subjective violence, it is likely that they will frame a situation as such, if they react to it all. Because the scope of the witness assessment is naturally limited by subjective dramatic presentation, it is likely that political reactions will be similarly limited. In the case of Chicago coerced confessions there was, in fact, popular outrage, and political reaction in the form of a bill presented by then State Senator Obama. The bill in question required the installation of video
23

Id. at 13. 14

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 cameras in all police interrogation rooms, which clearly limited the scope of the solution to the subjective dramatic encounter between the victim of torture, and individual police torturer, while ignoring systemic causes for the abuses occurrence. !i"ek is concerned that this glass ceiling on witnesses reactions to injustice will lead to a veritable whack-a-mole approach to public policy, because the root causes of violence and injustice remain shielded in objective anonymity. While it would be absurdly anachronistic to interpret the Book of Job as a dialecticalmaterialist critique of popular reactions to systemic violence, there are hints of this idea in the text. In Zophars first speech, he notes, Can you find out Gods depths, or find the outer limits of Shaddai?24 Similarly, in Gods own response to Job, there is an overarching emphasis on Gods utter transcendence above all things within the creation.25 There is a troubling irrationality to these statements in the flow of the discourse between Job and his comrades. Job levels particular claims to innocence that are never directly rebutted. The fact of Gods transcendent status in the text does not invalidate the fact of Job innocence. On the contrary, we know from the onset of the text that Jobs suffering was not warranted, but was merely the result of a wager between God and the Satan.26 With this information, how are we to understand Gods own emphasis on his transcendence in justifying Jobs suffering? It is possible that the author of the text aimed with this to draw our attention to a dynamic similar to that developed by !i"ek. Just as the public in the modern world feels unable to respond to objective violence with full emotional and motivational intensity, so too the characters of the Book of Job cannot feel outrage at Jobs misfortune, if its source is shrouded in Gods mysterious transcendence. Furthermore, the fact that God uses his transcendent, objective status as a subterfuge to distract from his all24 25

BOOK OF JOB (Raymond P. Schiendlin, 1999) at 77. Id. at 143-155. 26 Id. at 55-58. 15

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 too-human motivation for inflicting unjust suffering upon Job, indicates that the author may have been aware of the dangerous manipulative quality that abstract causes can have on our capacity to correctly assess a given situation. D. Spectacle and the Hegemony of Meaning The final approach we will consider in understanding otherwise empathetic witnesses lack of reaction to injustice is developed by Jean Baudrillard in his text In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities.27 Rather than focusing on the witness state of mind, or the nature of the injustice committed, he considers the manner in which the information is distributed to thirdparties in the age of mass media. He sees the self-appointed role of mass media, particularly televised news, as not simply relaying information to the masses, but attempting injecting that information with meaning. Events are not reported as dry data, but are framed and coded with meaning designed to support particular interpretations and moral imperatives. One need only consider the manner in which the recent British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was reported. This event was consistently reported in terms of larger social meaning, e.g. corporate greed, environmentalism, the plight of the underdog etc. Baudrillard contends that, despite the medias efforts in this regard, the masses consistently resist. As he puts it, the masses scandalously resist this imperative of rational communication. They are given meaning: they want spectacle,28 [the masses] social energy is believed to be released by means of information and messages [] Quite the contrary. Instead of transforming the mass into energy, information produces even more mass.29 Thus, beyond the problems of cognitive dissonance

27 28

JEAN BAUDRILLARD, IN THE SHADOW OF THE SILENT MAJORITIES (Semiotext(e) 2007) (1978). Id. at 40. 29 Id. at 51. 16

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 and !i"eks objective abstraction, witnesses may be prevented from empathetic and active responses to injustice, by the very nature of the spectacle of injustice itself. There is quite a bit to unpack in Baudrillards dense French prose. Central to understanding the medias failure to impart meaning to the masses is the concept of spectacle. For Baudrillard, spectacle is the one form of information that is readily absorbed by the public. It is inherently without meaning, simply bright flashing lights that entrance and amuse. It is easiest to understand what he intends by means of an example. Perhaps the most clich instance of spectacle is that of the car crash. Onlookers are almost irresistibly drawn to gawk at the wreckage in front of them. There is no analysis, or consideration at the moment of the spectacle. The onlooker does not think about the events implications for the traffic system, or even the plight of the victims of the crash, but is simply taken by the raw image before their eyes. On the contrary, when an individual starts to consider the injuries of the victims of a crash, they cannot maintain their gawking fascination, but are taken out of the moment, and into a state of internal reflection and empathy. With spectacle thus defined, we now must ask why the public is drawn by spectacle to the exclusion of meaningful interpretation. Baudrillard claims that this reaction is a last-ditch effort of the masses to resist what he calls the hegemony of meaning, Because the masses are powerless to articulate their own interpretations of events, and are constantly bombarded with the media-elites vision, their only means of resistance is the negation of the medias imposition of meaning, not the presentation of positive alternatives.30 Additionally, he sees the injection of meaning as inherently requiring greater effort on the part of the individual.31 One is naturally

30 31

Id.at 40-45. Id.at 51-54. 17

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 entranced by the gravitational force of spectacle, while analysis and signification require the individual to act against his own inertia. In Baudrillards opinion, resistance to the inertia of meaningless spectacle requires the underlying of a powerful sense of purpose and social destiny. He claims that while such social mission had existed in Western civilization, it has been eroded to the point of extinction at the time of his text publication: This can be seen in the shift in value from history to the humdrum, from the public sphere to the private sphere. Up till the 60s, history leads on the downbeat: the private, the ordinary is only the dark side of the political sphere [] Today there is a reversal of the downbeat and the upbeat: one begins to foresee that ordinary life, men in their banality, could well not be the insignificant side of history.32 Thus two factors conspire to prevent Baudrillards masses from reacting appropriately to injustice: their attempt to rebel against the hegemony of meaning in the public sphere, and the lack of social force to disturb spectacles inertial force. It should be noted, however, that Baudrillard initially published this text in the days before the onset of the Internet. One must ask if the masses remain without a voice in the public sphere, when commentary, news, and publication increasingly come from diffuse individuals who author blogs, and publish homemade video on video-sharing websites. While it may have been true in the past that the Walter Cronkites of the world dictated meaning to the public, the Internet has certainly eroded Baudrillards hegemony of meaning. Still, the diffusion of media through Internet has not yet reached the point where public meaning is totally democratized, and as such Baudrillards assessment of the mass medias hegemony remains accurate for the time being.

32

Id. at 60. 18

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 In a certain respect Baudrillards concept of spectacle can be seen as a challenge to !i"eks concept of subjective violence discussed above. In !i"eks view, individuals will react with greater motivation when presented with violence that allows for a dramatic subjective experience. For !i"ek, one can almost not help but be moved by spectacular suffering. Baudrillard counters, claiming that while individuals may gawk at subjective violence, their attention is limited to the meaningless spectacle of the event, but normally fails to cross the threshold of analysis and reaction. With this in mind it is possible to reinterpret Gods response to Job, which we framed as instances of !i"eks objective transcendence, as presenting the inertial force of Baudrillards spectacle. God intends with his poetic self-praise to awe Job into meaningless submission. In effect, God does not attempt to counter Jobs claims of innocence on a logical or meaningful level, but merely suggests that meaning, and perhaps justice itself becomes irrelevant when confronted with Gods awesomeness. This interpretation gives greater animation to Jobs final capitulation to God, With my ear I have heard you in the past, but now I see you with my eye. Therefore I relent and regret my actions, for I am nothing but dust and ashes.33 In standard Hebrew usage the sense of hearing is associated with logic, while vision is relegated to direct experience.34 Thus, the ultimate motivation for Jobs submission to God was not rooted in a logical understanding of his guilt, but in the inertial pull of the spectacle of Gods greatness.

33 34

Translation from Original Hebrew Text, Job 41:5-6 Famously the phrase Hear O Israel the Lord is your God, the Lord is One, (Deuteronomy 6:4) is interpreted as an expression of belief in monotheism, thus linking hearing with the concept of understanding. 19

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 III. Analysis and Application As was alluded to above, none of the perspectives presented provide a total theory for witnesses reactions to injustice. Within any given individual are a myriad of tendencies, biases, and presuppositions that shape their perception of reality, as well as the logic brought to bear on a given situation. If !i"eks claim that individuals react less intensely to objective violence were universally and absolutely true, he himself would be unable to break the veil of abstraction. Rather, it is evident that he views this problem as one that can, and should be overcome through thought and analysis. It is possible, and preferable for individuals to become aware of social forces that effectuate objective violence in a society, and to react accordingly. Similarly, the tendency of individuals to deny instances of injustice to preserve the belief that the world is just is not entirely predictive. In the article cited itself, it is noted that sympathy for Lisa was experienced even by people who believed strongly that the world is just, if they had a contradictory impulse for activism.35 Likewise, we have already noted that System Justification Theory merely claims to be one of many competing tendencies in the human psyche, and as such is often overridden by self or in-group biases. It is notable, however, that Baudrillards claim that the masses are inability to assimilate meaning appears to be absolute. He presents the idea without any indication of variation, and is unequivocal in our impotence to impart meaning and break the spell of spectacle. This position is somewhat perplexing, as one can fairly quickly conjure up recent examples of public information campaigns that have created social change.36 It is possible that Baudrillard simply chose a more rhetorically aggressive stance for the sake of strongly presenting his argument. However, there is
35 36

Lauren D. Appelbaum, et al., When Effort is Threatening at 391. The publics ever increasing concern for gay rights in America in the past decade immediately comes to mind. 20

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 a more convincing explanation as to why his position stands in its dogmatism. Baudrillards perspective is unique among the four presented in that it does not exclusively address the mental state of witnesses to injustice, but also considers concerned parties attempts to change the public en-masse. He can grant that individuals vary in the degree to which meaning is sapped from events through the seductive pull of spectacle, but nonetheless claims that attempts to reach the public at large with the goal of injecting meaning and motivation are bound to fail. With the understanding that our four perspectives merely present a piece of the puzzle of witness indifference, we can now consider if a coherent explanation can be formulated for the publics indifference to instances of torture by the Chicago Police Department. We will discuss each perspective in turn, and consider both, how convincing their explanations are, as well as limitations as to what aspect of the problem they most effectively address.

A. Belief in a Just World in Contemporary Chicago, and Related Ideologies First we will consider whether belief in just world prevents Chicago residents from reacting appropriately to police torture. While this approach can explain indifference in a number of social contexts, it seems somewhat inappropriate in a contemporary urban setting. Because of the erosion of religious sentiment in modern urban culture, it seems rather unlikely that strong belief that the world is just is widely held. Furthermore, even if one begins with such a belief, it is difficult to imagine its survival when confronted with frequent instances of injustice through increased education and the fluidity of information in the digital age. One might expect to see belief in a just world to retain some force among religious fundamentalist minorities within Chicago. It is apparent that within these communities wellestablished facts, such as the age of the universe, evolution, and even the heliocentric structure of

21

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 our solar system, are often denied to protect religious dogma. It seems reasonable to assume that such groups would be able to shield themselves from accounts of injustice to preserve their belief in divine intervention, and, in turn, that the world is just. However, this is not born out in reality. Growing up within Chicagos ultra-orthodox Jewish community, I often encountered astounding instances of ideology overriding individuals capacity to assess various issues. I found, however, that few, if any individuals believed in constant divine intervention when pressed. Interestingly, an eminent early 20th century Rabbi, the Chazon Ish, developed a theology of divine intervention that strongly opposed the notion that individuals suffering in this world can only result from sinful behavior. It should be noted, however, that while belief in a just world effectuated by divine intervention is in decline, secular versions of this belief might persist, though not in manner relevant to police torture in Chicago. A common example of such a belief is that the distribution of wealth in America is just due to the unquestionable wisdom of the free market economy. This belief is far from universal, but is readily found in libertarian circles throughout America. One can imagine that such individuals may be troubled by stories similar to that of Lisa, and choose to distort their perceptions to preserve free market ideology. Nonetheless, there is no reason to assume that belief in just economic distribution, would lead to indifference to police torture, as, to the contrary, such individuals tend to distrust governmental authority and intervention.

B. System Justification Theory and Implications of Guilt System Justification Theory provides a more convincing account for the publics indifference to police torture in Chicago. As was mentioned above, a central assertion of System Justification Theory is that individuals will defer to authority in order to prevent feelings of guilt

22

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 stemming from implicit acquiescence to systemic abuses. There is little question that middle and upper class residents of Chicagoland are somewhat implicated in police brutality. First, as little influence as an individual has on police conduct, the fact remains that they act as the agents of the citizenry, and their tax dollars fund police action. Similarly, in the 1990s there was a palpable fear among Chicagos privileged classes that gang violence would spread beyond the boundaries of the urban ghetto to their own neighborhoods. The public pressure brought to bear on the police to contain gang activity at all costs likely contributed to police abuses, and as such, strongly implicates middle and upper class residents in police abuses. As a result of these considerations, middle and upper class citizens of Chicago may defer to police judgment as a means of escaping feelings of guilt related to police abuse. Similarly, System Justification Theory can explain deference to policy authority among members of the low-income African American community on the Southside. As was noted above, not only are the victims of systemic violence able to overcome self and in-group biases in favor of the status quo, they are, in fact, more likely to do so. This approach can additionally explain individual officers indifference to or even participation in coercing confessions. New members of the police department will quickly be exposed to such incidents. With every abuse observed and ignored by a new officer, greater culpability is implied. Over time, it will become easier for said officer to rationalize torture, rather than accept partial responsibility for abuses perpetrated in his or her presence. Furthermore, System Justification Theory may provide an explanation as why the longstanding and widespread knowledge of police torture in Chicago did not motivate reaction. One would assume that with greater awareness would come greater reaction. System Justification Theory indicates that the opposite might be true. The greater an unjust practice is

23

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 rooted in the status quo, the more likely third-parties will feel unconsciously implicated in the abuses. As such, residents of Chicago are presented with the choice of admitting guilt, or denying the existence or injustice of police torture. System Justification Theory will claim that indifference or denial will be the more likely choice for many individuals.

C. Subjective Dramatic Narrative of Victims Perspectives !i"eks claim that individuals are less likely to react to objective violence has already been explored in relation to police torture in Chicago to some extent above. It was noted that, although police torture in its immediacy can be framed as subjective, there might be objective societal forces at play, which are not accounted for in the publics reaction. Thus limiting the efficacy of proposed solutions. An additional implication of !i"eks approach lies in the manner in which police abuses are reported to the public. He would claim that the public is more likely to respond with empathy for the victims of abuse, if instances are presented as individual dramatic narratives. In the aforementioned editorial from Cornelia Grumman,37 individual victims and perpetrators are named, however, her editorial contains little in the way of dramatic narrative. In order for the public to fully empathize with the victims of police brutality, it may be necessary to report instances in a manner in which the reader is forced into the first-person perspective of the victim. Because of this dynamic the print news media may be less effective than film, or even fictionalized accounts in eliciting public reaction.

D. The Dismantling of Media Hegemony

37

Cornelia Grumman, No More Excuses. Go to the Tape, Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2002. 24

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010 Both aspects of Baudrillards approach, i.e. spectacle and resistance to the hegemony of meaning, can be brought to bear on the situation of police torture in Chicago. As was mentioned above, Baudrillards perspective contradicts that of !i"ek in certain respects. While !i"ek would privilege dramatic narrative as a means of eliciting empathy from the public, Baudrillard might consider such attempts questionable, in that they may constitute a type of spectacle, and as such, refuse to allow for the infusion of meaning. For Baudrillard the very qualities that make dramatic narrative appealing to the public render it useless in affecting empathetic reaction. In attempting to determine which thinkers account is more accurate, it will be necessary to consider examples of dramatic narrative, and to test not only public interest in the medias consumption, but also whether the experience has a lasting effect on their perceptions and assessments of a given situation. Extensive research, beyond the scope of this paper is necessary for a full adjudication. However, my instinct is to favor !i"eks account. While public reaction to various injustices is far from ideal, one cannot help be notice increased public outrage towards events that include subjective narrative. There is little doubt in my mind that film, literature, and the arts in general have been invaluable in educating the public in a myriad of social issues. Because Baudrillard sees the mass medias hegemony of meaning as a barrier meaningful public reaction to information presented, it is possible that increased reporting by lay individuals through the Internet will enhance public empathy for the victims of police torture. By democratizing the interpretation of transpiring events, the public feels it has more of a hand in shaping matters, and as a result will react with increased empathy and outrage. In the likely event that police abuses continue in Chicago despite current efforts, it will be interesting to test this hypothesis, assuming that blogs and lay investigative journalism become increasingly common.

25

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar August 28, 2010

IV. Conclusion This paper has presented an interpretive approach to the Book of Job that places the locus of interest in the inability of Jobs friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, to interpret Jobs suffering in a manner that acknowledges his innocence. This perspective provided a basis to explain instances of bystander indifference to manifest injustice, even for victims they would normally be prone to empathize with. Four theoretical approaches to the problem were presented and analyzed. Each approach was considered in the interpretation of the Book of Job, and utilized to understand public indifference to the torture of suspects by the police force in contemporary Chicago. It was shown that, while one approach did not provide a comprehensive explanation of the situation, they each worked in tandem to explain various aspects of indifference to police abuses. This paper focused primarily on the explanation why indifference occurs, it is my hope that the theoretical approaches developed therein will be of use in the practical matter of affecting increased empathy in the publics encounters with injustice.

26