Empire State of Mind

I think i might know one reason people like New York City.  In New York City you are important, its like you're witnessing 500 tv show narratives at the same time as you are writing/acting/directing your own.  I learned today that Charles Addams (of Addams' Family and New Yorker fame) would often draw up his little cartoons for the New Yorker from stories and scenes witnessed and overheard on the streets, in the buildings, and in the parks of the city.  While walking around after I began thinking about this because I just could NOT concentrate on praying nor reading.  Anyway, i witnessed my own little hilarious scene in which 2 young sisters walking home from school were having a difference of opinion over speed of travel.

... "this is the speed in which I am going to walk at!"  declared the younger, pronouncing the syllables as slow as she took her steps, her knapsack rolling behind her.

         .... The older sister slows down to wait for the younger so that it would be impossible to avoid noticing the frustration painted across her face ...

I laughed to myself.  That's funny.  Because its life.  We have all had those moments.  The thing with New York is everything is played out for everyone else.  First of all, there is so many people everywhere.  Second, the scenes are set perfectly - 1/2 the films out there try to reproduce these backgrounds.  Third, everyone looks great and is dressed perfectly (I mean just browse through a few pages of The Sartorialist), or they are dressed authentically and with purpose, and lastly everyone is LOUD.  Walking in New York you witness little snippets of everyone else's life narrative - their anger, their love, their best and their worst.  So this is the first reason people like New York - because lets be honest, who doesn't want to be able to glimpse so many other people's lives; absorb, compare, laugh and judge.

But more importantly,  one (or is it just me?) feels as though his narrative for his time in New York is also being observed and judged.  It is as though, the setting creates importance, which gives our actions and decisions, even just our appearance - value?  Take for example, this morning after a long time eating breakfast in bed watching soccer I strolled out to get a coffee and read for a bit at M. Rohrs: a great little cafe right near my brother's apartment.  One of those New York cafe's that is a quaint little thing sunken down from the sidewalk with tables, pastries, and *things* everywhere.  While reading my book, and drinking my fantastically smooth latte, I find myself looking up when people walk in the door to judge whether they belong in my scene - and to observe whether they take notice of my importance in the headline role.  Really?  yes really.  I'm not saying its healthy or correct.  But it is what it is.

It makes me think of value.  And our search for it.  It makes me think with a bit of sadness about humility.  The thing is, at the risk of sounding cheesy, I already a live a pretty damn important narrative.  It's not important because I'm in New York.  It's important because God is there - loving me to a fault - loving me in action - with care, kindness, responsibility, respect, trust, knowledge - to an infinite degree.  Mind you - its almost easier just to travel to New York to try and feel that way.  Because understanding this value is. hard. work.  Often it requires situations much the opposite of the streets of NYC - unless of course - the depths of your soul are organized in a grid pattern with a great big park in the middle!

Paralyzed

"A short time ago I was told by a very learned man that souls without prayer are like people whose bodies or limbs are paralysed [sic]: they possess feet and hands but they cannot control them." - St. Teresa of Avila

On Violence, Shame and Love

Introduction

‘After these tearings with the pincers, Damiens, who cried out profusely, though without swearing, raised his head and looked at himself; the same executioner dipped an iron spoon in the pot containing the boiling potion, which he poured liberally over each wound’ Quoted in Foucault (1995, p. 4)

Violence can be gut-wrenching. Violence is always devastating and can be highly emotional. Violence is not always a tragedy in the works of Shakespeare, but his tragedies employ violence without fail. In the consideration of the most violent act committed towards oneself or loved ones an individual begins to understand her own definition of what violence is. Does this exercise bring memories of the abuse of power? Most likely; violence is inextricably related to power. In the situation considered was violence used as a ‘last resort’? How many creative alternatives to the use of violence in the situation can be imagined? Did the violent offender achieve the desired end? What was it that was desired? Is there respect now for the offender because of what they did?

There are countless questions that are raised during and after an experience of violence. Attempting to answer these questions, not just from the victim’s point of view, but also from that of the offender is crucial to understanding violence. Understanding what people desire from violence and why it is undertaken is fundamental to determining appropriate and effective ways of preventing and dealing with it. But what is it that most people want? Respect? Love? Theories of violence attempt to establish this psychological, even spiritual, connection between individuals and their violent actions. With the motivational understanding provided primarily by the Germ Theory of Violence, it can be seen that the Restorative Justice framework of practices is exceptionally valuable for providing a process where the causes behind violence are addressed and included in the attempt to make the situation as right as possible. It is this effort that could also lead to a reduction in future violence.

What is Violence?

Hannah Arendt (1999) claimed that “there exists a consensus among political theorists from Left to Right to the effect that violence is nothing more than the most flagrant manifestation of power” (p. 3). This power is used for abusive and one-sided ends. Voltaire noted that “Power consists in making others act as I choose” (as cited in Arendt, 1999, p. 3), and Arendt (1999) quotes Max Weber as saying that this power is present “wherever I have the chance ‘to assert my own will against the resistance’ of others” (p. 3). Violence exists in the space created by the unequal distribution of power, for if one is able to assert his will ‘against the resistance of others’ then usually one possesses greater power.

Arendt (1999) goes on, however, to strictly differentiate violence from power by noting that it is instrumental; it is not the “essence of anything,” because “it always stands in need of guidance and justification through the end it pursues” (p. 9). Robert Paul Wolff (1999) qualifies the above discussion by saying, “violence is the illegitimate or unauthorized use of force to effect decisions against the will or desire of others” (p. 15). He uses this definition to contrast murder with capital punishment; one is an act of violence where the other, by “a legitimate state,” is not (Wolff, 1999, p. 15). However, the question of whether a legitimate authority making use of violent acts is different from that of a renegade should bear no influence on the discussion within this paper. That is because an effective theory of violence should address the use by any and all individuals and groups. As such, we will limit the definition of violence to the instrumentation through which power is leveraged in order to assert the will of one party against and through the resistance of another.

Finally, Social Work practice has discovered that violence by its nature does not exist in isolated incidents. It is noted by Gilbert et al. (2009) that the experience of maltreatment and violence (especially in childhood) often leads to the perpetration of violence later in life (p. 173). This is often referred to as ‘cycles of violence.’ Understanding these cycles, and how they can be broken, is a crucial element of understanding violence and the appropriate responses to it.

The Germ Theory of Violence

“I never got so much respect before in my life as I did when I first pointed a gun at somebody.” Quoted in Gilligan (1996, p. 109)

We return now to the question of why individuals commit acts of violence. The theory of violence on which much of the American and Canadian Justice Systems are built is that of the rational self-interest theory. This theory says that people engage in violence because it is rational or ‘common-sense’ for them to do so in their situation. Furthermore, they, like others, do not desire any physical harm, prison terms or death. As such, the state needs only to provide punishments for violence in exactly these forms in order to prevent it (Gilligan, 1996, p. 94). One can note, however, that the focus on punishment as prevention of violence has not succeeded. The murder rate in the United States in 1996 was almost 10 times as high as in 1900 and grows continually (Gilligan, 1996, p. 95). Furthermore, anyone who has experienced a serious act of violence understands the offense of referring to it as rational. Others, such as Meadows (2010), believe that there are “[identifiable] biological and personal traits that increase the likelihood of becoming a perpetrator of violence.” (p.16) James Gilligan (1996) spent years in prisons interviewing and talking with male offenders who had committed violent crime in order to determine why it would happen and began to draw some conclusions:

“I am convinced that violent behavior, even at its most apparently senseless, incomprehensible, and psychotic, is an understandable response to an identifiable, specifiable set of conditions; and that even when it seems motivated by “rational” self-interest, it is the end product of a series of irrational, self-destructive, and unconscious motives that can be studied, identified, and understood.” (p. 102)

He identifies the “pathogens” which carry “the most lethal form of pathology of our time” (Gilligan, 1996, p.104). These germs begin with shame. In a situation in which an individual is experiencing great shame and a lack of respect, violence is seen as the only alternative through which respect from others (for oneself) can be restored. He developed this hypothesis as a response to the answers he received from individuals asked bluntly why they had murdered. Initially believing the thought was original, he began to discover it everywhere he looked. Gilligan (2001) notes that Hegel identified “the desire for recognition as the central motive force behind all human history,” and that recognition is a synonym for respect; literally meaning to be re-spectare or re-cognized (p. 31). Other clues can be found in language itself, for Gilligan (2001) says “People become indignant (and may become violent) when they suffer an indignity” (p. 30). Gilligan (2001) notes that psychological studies have shown that the “most potent stimulus of aggression … [the] most reliable in eliciting this response is not frustration per se …, but rather, insult and humiliation” (p. 32). It is not only Gilligan who supports this theory of violence. Terry Aladjem (2008) discusses similar themes in saying:

“That dubious enterprise – to be restored in the esteem of an enemy – then, must seem to register in the fellow’s eyes, and is best achieved if he perceives or appears to perceive that one has been the cause of his own loss of esteem or destruction.” (p.113)

Aladjem is demonstrating the same thought from the perspective of what is gained by an individual in committing violence: pride, or relief from shame. He says, “My pride swells in proportion to my enemy’s humiliation” (2008, p. 133).

But what is the source of this shame? Gilligan (2001) feels that it is shame “over being valued so little by the other person, and for being too weak to make him treat one fairly” (p. 33). It is the “Violence towards others, such as homicide, [that] is an attempt to replace shame with pride” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 111). This prevents the offending individual from being overwhelmed with the shame (Gilligan, 1996, p. 111). Gilligan (1996) identifies three pre-conditions which need to be met in order for those individuals who feel intense shame to act out violently. The pre-conditions are as follows (1996):

1. The matters over which they feel shame are in fact so trivial that it is of greater shame to them that these are the cause of their shame. This is why many murders are in response to a trivial slight – the individual involved is “fighting to save himself, his own self” from being overwhelmed with shame (p. 112).
2. Potential violent offenders must see themselves as having no other non-violent means available to them in order to reduce the amount of shame they feel (p. 112).
3. Finally “the person [must lack] the emotional capacities or the feelings that normally inhibit the violent impulses that are stimulated by shame” (p. 113). The most important of these being love, guilt towards others, and fear for the self (p. 113).

With regard to cycles of violence, this theory continues to hold water. For, as Gilligan (1996) is clear to point out, most violent men (for it is men on whom his research is based) experience shame as a bottomless pit because of the intense and horrible experiences of abuse they have been subjected to (p. 105). He says “the pathogen is psychological, not biological, and it is spread primarily by means of social, economic, and cultural vectors, not biological ones” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 105). Namely, the conditions under which individuals are raised and the experiences of their life contribute to the bacterial infection which creates violence. This continues even after the acts of violence are perpetrated as, the “more violent people are, the more harshly the prison authorities punish them; and, the more harshly they are punished, the more violent they become” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 106). It should be noted that this is just a summary of Gilligan’s theory which is important for conclusions drawn in this report.

Finally, it should be noted that the above theory originated in a context of studying “behavioural” violence and not “structural” violence. Gilligan (1996) defines “structural violence” as “the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society” (p. 192). This contrast is made in order to recognize that the violence of poverty and systemic abuse results in 14 to 18 million deaths per year whereas armed conflict results in 100,000 deaths per year (Gilligan, 1996, p. 196). Gilligan (1996) claims the determination of which form of violence is more important or dangerous is moot given that they are “inextricably related to each other as cause and effect” (p. 196). This paper’s discussion will focus primarily on “behavioural” violence with the hope that progress made in preventing and resolving this form of violence will lead to reductions in “structural” violence as well.
Two Mutations to the Germ Theory

“Perhaps love (is anything more dangerous?) is the mother of tragedy, love in an unloving world of pain, loneliness and confusion.” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 2)

There are two further points I would like to make in discussing a theory of violence. The first is an explicit recognition of the role that culture plays in establishing violence as the only alternative of last resort. One of the reasons for the establishment of violence as the only viable alternative when faced with the experience of intense shame is our own culture’s glorification of violence as a solution. Bushman et al. (2001) note that in 2000, six major professional societies within the United States signed a joint statement “on the hazards of exposing children to media violence” (p. 480). That is to say that the old intuition that repeated exposure to media violence is harmful holds true. When it is continually demonstrated to an individual in their community, family, and entertainment that violence is the primary means of maintaining power and creating respect, then it is of little surprise that individuals believe that there are no other non-violent means available to them. This media effect in conjunction with the violent offender’s own experience of violence and dis-empowerment in other cultural interactions limits creativity. Furthermore, aside from limiting alternative recourses, society does a poor job at providing struggling individuals with respect. Henri Nouwen (1992) notes that the message one most often seems to receive from society is: “Prove that you are worth something; do something relevant, spectacular, or powerful, and then you will earn the love you so desire” (p. 34).

Robert Meadows (2010) discusses a model of the influences on violent behaviour as “the interplay between individual, familial, and community influences experienced by a person” (p. 14). It should be noted here that individual influences may include pre-existing debilitating mental or other conditions which facilitate Gilligan’s third pre-condition, namely an inability to generate guilt towards others or fear for self.

The other mutation to germ theory I would like to discuss began, for me, as a thought I was dwelling upon after digesting Gilligan’s theory. It seemed to me that to claim shame as the driving cause of violence was a misnomer. To me, shame is nothing more than a way of expressing how one feels when he is unable to understand his worth or value, or in other words: lacks self-love. I protested the use of shame as a descriptor because it seemed to imply that a solution to violence would involve getting people to feel less shame. This feels to me like applying a band-aid to a severed leg. It is a syntactic difference, but I believe that it would be more accurate to identify the fundamental motivating cause of violence as an inability to understand one’s innate worth and value. This statement is built upon my own conclusion that individuals are of infinite and unique value, which will be discussed more fully later. Unfortunately, we most often gain an understanding of our own value through the mirror of our relationships: the people with whom we interact and the love and respect they demonstrate to us (and we are able to process). As individuals, the conclusion of this love and respect of others builds our own self-love, and when we feel as though we are not loved and respected, we begin to feel the shame Gilligan’s theory hinges on. However, in using the language of love, respect, and meaning we situate the theory in a place where a deeper understanding of the causes of violence can be seen. As a small example, for the child who is repeatedly sexually or physically abused, the parent who needs to be the earliest and most fundamental source of love is instead deeply wounding the individual by ascribing to them no worth or value. Furthermore, the language of possible solutions sits naturally within the context of a discussion of an understanding of love. Effective preventions of violence or strategies to break the cycles must include the introduction of a new understanding of love on the part of the individual perpetrating the violence (which in turn reduces their shame).

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to realize that Gilligan, in fact, shared much the same views as those expressed above. After all, he notes at the beginning of his description of the theory that “The word I use in this book to refer to the absence or deficiency of self-love is shame” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 47). The following summarizes his conclusions with relation to the above mutation of his germ theory (Gilligan, 1996):

“violence … is the ultimate means of communicating the absence of love by the person inflicting the violence… The self starved of love dies… The two possible sources of love for the self are love from others and one’s own love for oneself. Children who fail to receive sufficient love from others fail to build those reserves of self-love, and the capacity for self-love, which enable them to survive the inevitable rejections and humiliations which even the most fortunate of people cannot avoid. Without feelings of love, the self feels numb, empty, and dead.” (p. 47)

This, for me, generates the question of why Gilligan chose to express the theory in terms of shame and not the inability for self-love. Due to limited space, I can only speculate that he believed it would be more easily understood?

A Personal Note

“And I so long … to cry! I feel as if I am going to burst, and I know that it would get better with crying; but I can’t, I’m restless, I go from room to room, breathe through the crack of a closed window, feel my heart beating, as if it is saying, “can’t you satisfy my longing at last?” Anne Frank Quoted in (Rolheiser, 2004, p.1)

I would like to make one final comment regarding the theory of violence now that we have expressed the causation as a lack of understanding of love or value. I believe that all people are longing for a true understanding of love and value. It is my faith that causes me to believe that fundamentally we will be unable to fully understand true love and meaning until we experience the source and strength of all love: God. In fact, I believe that each and every individual has innate value strictly because of the way in which they are loved by God, their creator. Nouwen (1992) expresses the idea of fundamental longing in this way, “Aren’t you, like me, hoping that some person, thing, or event will come along to give you that final feeling of inner well-being you desire?” (p.35) I mention this belief not because I feel that it gives credence to Gilligan’s Germ Theory of Violence. Rather, I mention it firstly because it is the reason I made a personal connection with the above theory. Secondly, I mention it because I believe this is the idea that gives a spiritual basis from which one can set the idea behind the theory; in my opinion, all individuals are attempting to learn to understand their own value through the love found in relationships with others, and ultimately from God, and it is because of our difficulty with understanding and claiming this value that we act out in violence (not the least of which in cases of religious violence).

The Goals of Restorative Justice

“…putting right requires that we address harms [and] address causes” (Zehr, 2002, p. 30)

The purpose of this paper is to address the above theory of violence from the perspective of Restorative Justice. It is valuable here to take time to review the goals of Restorative Justice as they relate to violence in terms of prevention and response. When relevant, I will contrast the goals, principles and practices of Restorative Justice with those of the traditional Criminal Justice Systems and other approaches to dealing with and preventing violence. This discussion is similar to one contrasting the Criminal Justice System and Restorative Justice approaches to crime, but will focus specifically on incidents of violent crime.

Susan Sharpe summarizes the goals as follows (cited in Zehr, 2002, p.37):

• put key decisions into the hands of those most affected by crime,
• make justice more healing and, ideally, more transformative, and
• reduce the likelihood of future offenses

The goals outlined above are accomplished in a variety of tasks and programs which attempt to put right a situation of crime (or violence) as best as possible. As noted in the opening quote, Howard Zehr (2002), the grandfather of Restorative Justice, claims that in doing so both the actual harm and the cause behind it need to be addressed. One can already see how the goals of Restorative Justice can speak volumes to how the practices are able to prevent violence according to the above theory. The violent harm must be acknowledged and the underlying cause must be addressed in order to prevent re-offense or a continuation of the cycle of violence in future generations. Zehr (2002) notes that rather than specifically a violation of the law (against the state), crime (and violence) “is a violation of people and relationships” (p.21). According to him, these violations create obligations and a process of justice needs to “[involve] victims, offenders, and community members in an effort to put things right” as opposed to the state determining guilt and imposing punishment (Zehr, 2002, p. 21).

It is clear that the founders of Restorative Justice believe that in an incident of behavioural violence, as with a crime, there are offenders and victims, as well as other parties involved. Any approach to dealing with or preventing violence must be sensitive and aware of the needs of these groups. Restorative Justice was originally motivated as an approach that took into account the needs of all the individuals involved in the crime and one of its goals is to address both victim and offender needs. In fact it is a key pillar of Restorative Justice to focus on engagement of all parties involved (Zehr, 2002, p. 24). We will see later how crucial this is in terms of preventing and dealing with violence considering the theory presented in this paper.

With respect to the victim’s involvement, Zehr (2002) claims “Victims often feel ignored, neglected, or even abused by the justice process” (p. 14). Given that the violent incident itself already causes abuse and demonstrates a lack of love for the victim, it is undesirable for this abuse to continue in the process that deals with the violence. As such it is a goal in Restorative Justice that victims are given information, a voice, an aspect of control, an opportunity to be heard in a safe space, and as best a feeling of restitution as possible (Zehr, 2002, pp. 14-15). Zehr (2002) outlines offender needs as accountability, encouragement to experience personal transformation, encouragement and support for integration into the community, and at least temporary restraint (p. 17). We will see how it is exactly the goal to meet these needs of the offender that is crucial for limiting the effects of violence as well as preventing it.

Breaking Cycles of Violence with Restorative Justice

“If I had to put restorative justice into one word, I would choose respect: respect for all, even those who are different from us, even those who seem to be our enemies… Respect insists that we balance concern for all parties.” (Zehr, 2002, p. 36)

We can see in the above quote that Restorative Justice seeks to restore respect in all individuals involved in crime. We know that Restorative Justice is diametrically opposed to promoting shame, opting instead to provide as much respect to all individuals involved as possible. Given the theory of violence developed above we can see the kind of impact RJ practice has on situations of violence. If respect is attributed to the violent offender, then even after the act she may begin to regain a sense of self-respect, to feel less overwhelmed, and ultimately be able to move towards a state where violence does not seem necessary. If respect is attributed to the victim than she may be less affected by the horrific loss of respect and value felt through the experience of violence. Hopefully, this new respect will be able to foster development of empathy, or prevent a de-valuing of self such that she will not end up feeling as though she too has the need to perpetrate violence in order to regain respect. As such, if respect is the focus of Restorative Justice practice it could have a profound effect on situations of violence. To see more evidence of this we can look closely at some of the needs that Restorative Justice tries to meet, specifically those of the offender. Howard Zehr (2002) describes the accountability and transformation needs as follows (p.17):

• Accountability that:

o Addresses the resulting harms,

o Encourages empathy and responsibility

o And transforms shame

• Encouragement to experience personal transformation, including

o Healing for the harms that contributed to their offending behaviour,

o Opportunities for treatment for addictions and/or other problems,

o Enhancement of personal competencies

Barb Toews (2006), in her own handbook about Restorative Justice for people in prison describes accountability which includes “Understanding how the crime hurt others and owning up to one’s responsibility for those damages; [and] Taking steps to repair those harms” (p. 46). If the above forms of accountability and accommodation for transformation can actually be achieved by Restorative Justice practices then offenders will definitely be in a position to break the cycle of violence in their own lives. This has large ramifications for offenders released from prison back into society. In order to prevent further violence, they must have developed some forms of empathy, transformed their shame, and created other alternatives according to Gilligan’s theory of violence.

But how do the practices of Restorative Justice achieve the goals of meeting the above needs and providing that transformation? The one element that all of the core practices of Restorative Justice share is an encounter. Victim offender conferences, family group conferences, and circle approaches all can and do involve opportunities for violent offenders to come face to face with their victims (Zehr, 2002, p. 44). It is most often these encounters which, through the desires and guidance of the participants themselves, lead to the attempt at ‘resolution’ of the violent wrongdoing. This may simply be a form of making things as right as is possible. Ron Claassen notes that to resolve wrongdoing (cited in Zehr, 2002, p.45):

1. The wrong or injustice must be acknowledged.
2. Equity needs to be restored.
3. Future intentions need to be addressed.

The most effective acknowledgement of wrongdoing is an encounter in which the offender has the opportunity to sincerely express their regret and apology. It is the engagement with each other and understanding of pain and suffering (which comes from the opportunity for expression) which allows both parties to possibly choose to develop the empathy desired in transformation. We know from behavioural studies, such as that conducted by McCollough (2008) that “when you feel empathic toward someone, our willingness to retaliate goes way down” (p 148). Clearly this is a concrete step towards a reduction of violence.

Toews (2006) discusses that when offending individuals choose to experience growth through the preparation for and participation in these Restorative Justice (and other) practices they can meet certain key needs. These include dealing with their own victimization experiences, creating healthy values and living by them, and acquiring the “skills and education necessary to lead a full life in the community” (Toews, 2006, p. 49). The importance here, she notes, is that fulfilling these needs results in “personal meaning. Meaning places the individual back into the web of relationships” (p. 49). This again has profound implications on the individual’s propensity to commit violence according to the Germ Theory of Violence. Understanding it in terms of an individual recognizing his own value – Toews claims that it is meeting these needs which reconnects him with his meaning and value. Furthermore, being within the web of relationships again allows the offender to continue growing in feelings of empathy and guilt toward others. That is exactly the place where the offender is able to transform shame!

The effects of the practices and encounters are not limited just to the offender. Pyschiatrist Sandra Bloom makes the point that “If it is not adequately dealt with, trauma is reenacted in the lives of those who experience the trauma, in their families, even in future generations” (cited in Zehr, 20002, p. 31). Victims of violence choose incredibly unique ways in which to deal with the trauma they have experienced, and all need to be respected and valued. If a victim does choose to be involved in Restorative Justice practices (including preparation and encounters) I believe they are provided with extended and empowering opportunities to deal with the trauma they have experienced. With the chance to express the harm that has been done to them and the recurring difficulties and problems it has caused they receive recognition and respect for what they have experienced. Hearing the offender’s admission of guilt and apology may reinforce or make clear to them that they did not act wrongly, but instead were abused and attacked. Finally, being provided with information of what is happening in the process, as well as control over how it unfolds, reinforces their legitimacy and power. It is possible that this leveling of power may in fact make it more difficult for violence to occur at all, as the abuse of power often requires an imbalance. All of the above may aid in restoring their own sense of pride and value, not as something to be used, but as something to be valued.

Finally, we can note that the Criminal Justice System often reinforces the notion that both the offender and the victim in the violent situation did not deserve respect and that they may have no other alternatives available to them to save themselves from shame than violence. This is because the offender may have experienced pride in the reaction solicited from the violent act itself, but is not given the opportunity to reduce shame by sharing his stories of victimization in the ensuing court process. He also is not truly given the opportunity to take responsibility for the action because of the understanding that he is to plead not guilty and work with the attorney to demonstrate innocence. Likewise, the victim certainly does not discover any alternatives to violence within the criminal justice proceedings as he may have experienced as much trauma from the court process as from the original incident! In contrast, Restorative Justice demonstrates through the discussion and consensus based practices that alternatives to violence are possible. Understanding cultural influence as a large reason why offenders believe violence is the only option, we can again see how Restorative Justice, by taking time to recognize the negative impact violence has on all parties, slowly works to educate against its idolization.

We have seen how the practice of Restorative Justice works to transform shame through meaningful interaction, develops feelings of empathy and understanding of guilt towards others and provides clear examples of alternative practices to violence. As such it addresses all of the pre-conditions for violence raised by Gilligan’s germ theory for each of the parties involved. What has not been demonstrated is how Restorative Justice aims to prevent and respond to structural violence such as poverty. This discussion is beyond the scope of this paper, but it suffices to say that even though the focus of the Restorative Justice practices studied is on behavioural violence, this does not rule out the principles being applied in large scale.

Conclusion

Violence is not rational or to be expected. People act out using violence due to a combination of factors revolving around their experience of shame or understanding of their own intrinsic value (expressed as self-love). Furthermore, violence usually requires a set of preconditions which include the ‘overwhelmingness’ of shame, the inability to feel fear and guilt towards others, and the lack of possible alternatives. It has been shown that the principles and practices of Restorative Justice are fundamentally opposed to these conditions which create and facilitate violence in relationships and communities. It is because of multiple reasons that Restorative Justice practices can break down the conditions of violence. First, they are based in the idea that all parties need to be respected, which transforms the experience of shame for all individuals. Second, they are encounter-based and can provide opportunities, through meaningful interaction, that allow involved parties to develop empathy and understanding towards each other. Third, the practices themselves demonstrate that there are alternatives to gain respect and value other than violence.

We have also seen how Restorative Justice practices are able to break cycles of violence given the possible transformation in the lives of the participants, including preventing future violence from offenders, and preventing the victim from continuing the pattern of violence. Finally, it is important to note that the limitations of the Restorative Justice practice are two-fold: they are limited in scope and thus in their ability to combat structural violence, and also they are limited by the choices and desires of the individuals involved, who only experience transformation if they choose to.

References

Aladjem, T. K. (2008). The culture of vengeance and the fate of american justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Arendt, M. (1999). Excerpt from On violence. In Steger M.B. & Lind, N.S. (Ed.) Violence and its alternatives. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bushman, B.J. & Anderson, C.A. (2001, June/July) Media Violence and the American Public. American Pyschologist, 477-489.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. (Alan Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.

Gilbert, R., Kemp, A., Thoburn, J., Sidebotham, P., Radford, L., Glaser, D. & MacMillan, H. L. (2009) Recognising and responding to child maltreatment. Lancet, 373, 167-180.

Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: Our deadly epidemic and its causes. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Gilligan, J. (2001). Preventing violence. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Meadows R. J. (2010). Understanding violence and victimization. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

McCullough, M. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nouwen, H. J. M. (1992). Life of the beloved: Spiritual living in a secular world. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company.

Rolheiser, R. (2004). The restless heart: Finding our spiritual home in times of loneliness. New York: Doubleday.

Toews, B. (2006) The little book of restorative justice for people in prison. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Wolff, R. P. (1999). On violence. In Steger M.B. & Lind, N.S. (Ed.) Violence and its alternatives. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.