As the sun erupted on the horizon with the peripheries in the Kew Gardens basking in morning light, Catherine Genovese on her way back home in the United States on 13th March 1974 was intercepted by an assassin and stabbed cold-bloodedly. A distinctive press of residents witnessing the incident remained nonchalant and offered no signs of resistance to the assailant. The gory episode of the Kew Gardens which culminated in the death of Genovese cultivated an enabling environment for the debate over the role of societal influence on the personal decisions of an individual. The presence of residents at the spot of incidence and their inaction in response to the screams of Genovese raised the crinkles of many a thinkers over the dysfunctional role of the American society as an institution. Yet in the heat of the emotional rhetoric and impetuous reactions from the readers lost is the equally cogent narrative of the residents who did not rescue Genovese. We tend to sweep the rationales proffered by them under the carpet and find them an equal partner to the crime. Thus, the overriding theme that permeates the entire discourse of this
event is the relationship of an individual with the society. Should an individual perform an act totally in line with the directives of the society, which are clothed in its norms and values, or should he interpret all the happenings and events through the prism of his own inference, wisdom and knowledge and design a response accordingly? This pressing question is the trigger to the debate that surrounds the moral standing of an action taken by a particular person under a specific set of circumstances. John Stuart Mill, in his proverbial text Liberty Chapter IV, contends that a human being should be punished for an act that intends to harm the interest of any other person. He progresses further and states that since human beings do not act in isolation, even harm to himself will have an effect on others. Therefore, the action of an individual that inhibits him in the fulfillment of his duty must be discouraged by penalizing him. In other words, if an action which causes harm to him but does not inhibit him in his duty must not be condemned. He
believes that such an act should be tolerated by the society for the greater good of the personal freedom. Mill contends that society has had absolute power over them( individuals) during all should be borne by society for its failure to desist them from such tendencies in the first place. Deciphering the underlying theme of Mill, one can distill a conclusion that he does not, per se, declare an act to be morally wrong. Even the consumption of alcoholism and smoking should not be condemned by the legislature or punishment if they do not dissuade an individual from fulfilling his duties. In opposition to this line of thinking, Mozi( a Chinese philosopher) proposed the theory of consequentialism that prohibits an act that does not contribute anything substantial for the better being of the society. The history of the mankind has revealed before us the uselessness of alcoholism and smoking and their obnoxious effects upon the society. Not only do they rob an individual from the ability to maintain high productivity, they set themselves as a precedent for others to emulate. Why shouldn’t an act that offers nothing to society be outlawed? The society that offered an individual an avenue to sharpen his abilities, socialize himself and earn his livelihood expects a particular mode of action from him. If every individual resorts to commit mutiny by running counter to the expectations of the society, the menace of anarchy will raise its head and will rule the roost for good. A sole witness of a murder by not showing up in the court for the testimony steps back from his moral responsibility to live up to the expectations of the society. The residents of Kew Gardens were expected to help Genovese. They failed to respond to their moral responsibility through their collective inaction. Immanent Kant, a German Philosopher, introduced “categorical imperative” in his essay Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Moral to define a moral law that demands an individual to espouse a behavior in line with the universalized maxims. In the language of Kant, what if every member of the society sticks to his personal choice and does not bear the moral responsibility to act? Will the society forge ahead if the self-interest of an individual takes precedence over the societal well being? Will there be even a slightest of difference between a society packed with humans and a jungle teeming with animals which act, by instincts, and are not chained in the shackles of moral responsibility? Functionalists analyzed the sociology of human mind and explicated that upon offering a stimulus the reaction of an individual can be objectively and predictably measured. Contrary to the idea of instituting a compact government in a bid to govern the masses by Thomas Hobbes, Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, expounded the theory that society is a moral code that injects its norms and values into individuals through the process of socialization. Media, education, religion and marriage are the agents of socialization that shape up the collective consciousness of the individuals. An advocate of functionalism, Emile Durkheim shed light on the aspect of aborted socialization of an individual. He elucidated that a wide range of reasons can contribute to a situation in which individual does not fully socialize and strays into the state of anomie. It is a state in which the traditions, customs, values and rituals remain either alien to an individual or he simply fails to internalize them. It appears that the residents of the Kew Gardens were caught in a state of anomie in which the expected attitude or reaction from them_ to be prompted by the ingrained norms of the society, did not translate into practical manifestation. Had they been infused perfectly with the set of codes, ethics and norms enmeshed in the fabric of the society, they would have budged forward in an attempt to help a dying lady. The collective conscience of society mandated them to act, but their under-socialization (referred as the state of anomie by Durkheim) held them back. For example, parents are expected by the society to feed, raise and educate their children. If they fail to do their duty assigned by the society, their children will be under-socialized and the institution of parentage will lose its credibility. Durkheim would demand an individual to fully absorb into the cultural stream of the society in order to respond to its directives and his under-socialization will invite only the curse of anarchy which will
enfeeble the institutions. Perhaps the well-being of the society, encapsulated in the conformity of the societal norms, outweighs the personal interest or risk of an individual and stands as the only common goal to be achieved by its socialized members. – Eurasia Review About the author: Eurasia Review : Eurasia Review is an independent Journal and Think Tank that provides a venue for analysts and experts to disseminate content on a wide-range of subjects that are often overlooked or under-represented by Western dominated media. Despite the combined Eurasia and Afro-Asia areas containing over 70% of the world’s population, analysis and news continues to be dominated by a U.S. slant, and that is where Eurasia Review enters the picture by providing alternative, in-depth perspectives on current events.By Rehan Khan
