Looking for Answers Amidst the Din

There has been a great deal of talk in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  I’ve been reluctant to chime in sooner because I think people have been too quick to do so and in the process, some pretty illogical utterances have been broadcast over the airwaves.  Worse are those who are taking the tragedy to advance a political cause which is as specious as it is manipulative and opportunistic.  I am speaking of guns and the laws which seek to limit the same.  As a teacher, my friends have asked me my thoughts on how to stop further school shootings.  I’m quick to admit that my current profession provides no insights.  While I have some thoughts on the issue, I’m at a loss to explain the unexplainable or to propose a strategy of defense against the indefensible.     

One of the first and most often attacked targets is, of course, guns.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a gun owner and therefore, what I say on the subject should be understood in that light.  New gun laws and gun restrictions would not have prevented the events in Sandy Hook Elementary (the shooter stole the weapons he used) and so should not be considered as some special elixir for gun violence in schools.  The only thing such measures do is prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and making it a one-sided fight.  Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and the cities with equally strong anti-gun measures are some of the most violent.   

However, there is one proposed suggestion about which I’m not sure – arming teachers.  I would feel comfortable carrying or using a gun should I be unfortunate enough to need to do so.  Yet, I’ve been teaching for eighteen years and there are a great many former colleagues that I would not want anywhere near a gun.  Moreover, one or two teachers or a principal with a gun cannot possibly cover the size and scale of many public schools today.  One would have to arm a certain percentage of the staff relevant to where their classes are to make it effective.  Additionally, it is not practical or economically viable for school districts to initiate such a program and the pre-requisite training and screening that would almost certainly go along with such a policy.   

Others have pointed to a culture of violence and that is certainly something that should be examined; however, it is beyond the scope of government – or should be.  Comedian George Carlin once said that he would rather his kids watch two people make love than kill each other but the way our culture has developed is to put greater restrictions on sexual content in programs and video games than that of violence.  Rabid anti-gun advocates are quick to move away from this conversation because it has the potential of derailing their attempts to take advantage of this situation.  However, the cultural elements must be considered.  To that end, consider this.  In a country with a long and uninterrupted history of gun ownership, such incidents are new – in the last 15 years.  Therefore, guns cannot be a major cause of this but something that has changed over the same time period.  To answer this concern, one must turn towards our culture and the traits that have altered and changed over this period. 

I do not profess to have all the answers though I am aware enough to know, based on past experiences and experiments, what will not work.  The anti-gun crowd is hoping that a wave of emotionalism will do where logic and evidence failed in the past.  Meanwhile, a handful of people are looking at what types of entertainment we are viewing and enjoying.  In the end, twenty-six people are dead and nothing we do will change that.  How we respond could prevent the next occasion but that is not guaranteed.  The level of anguish stems partly from our inability to answer questions.  Our answers lie within a disturbed young man who decided to end it all after his rampage.  Perhaps, our future lies in psychology and a better treatment and understanding of those in need.  It is a good place to start.

The Legitimacy of the Tabula Rasa Theory

The other day, I was visiting a friend who recently had a baby, and she showed me some pictures.  First of all, as one without children, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to get from looking at baby pictures but I’m old enough to know the acceptable response.  Yet, as I looked at the pictures, my thoughts went to the theory of tabula rasa – the idea that babies are born as a clean slate, with nothing inherent programmed in their brains.  Aristotle suggested this idea, providing the name.  Today, we call this the nurture theory.  As I looked at the baby, I wondered. 

 

There are several other philosophers in line with Aristotle on this concept.  English philosopher John Locke suggested the idea of a "blank slate" brain was in conjunction with the person's ability with free will, with no other notion impeding on the mind.  Therefore, with nothing previously engrained, a person is free to choose based on his own volition and experiences without any inherent tendencies.  Locke said there were no “innate ideas.”  Thomas Aquinas held to the idea as well, suggesting that tabula rasa was a state of the mind upon which nothing has been impressed. 

Some parents disagree and point to their children with different personalities in the same environment as evidence that something exists prior to the child being born.  First of all, parents raise their children differently, accounting for learning experiences and trial and error with the first one.  It could account for the differences.  Secondly, what is personality?  Does that require an impression or an innate mental capacity or is personality the sum of how we respond to things and nothing more?  If it is true that we have free will, as the theologians suggest, then could not a baby choose one reaction over another without any mental functions but simply as a reflex?     

Others who disagree with the notion point to talent, be it athletic or mental, as evidence of ingrained or inherent abilities.  To be athletically talented is a product of training and not something with which one is born.  The mental talents of a person are a bit trickier to explain from the tabula rasa point of view.  However, if mental talents such as ability in foreign language or mathematics are the product of mental training combined with aptitude, can the brain really possess such ability prior to training?  If not, then what exists in the brain?

Despite my musings above, I believe that we are the product of something within and we often achieve happiness or success despite our surroundings and environment.  There are plenty of stories that suggest a strictly nurture point of view.  I think of Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers.  His thesis is that while nature plays a role, it is the environment and the nurturing that makes or breaks a potential or inherent talent.  I believe that for every Steve Jobs that benefited from the perfect storm of emerging industries, magnificent teachers and the perfect set of parents and friends, there are another ten students who had the potential for the same and had similar support but did not become what they could have.  The difference is what lay within Steve Jobs.  When I look at my students, some have risen from horrible circumstances – risen above.  Others are wallowing in luxury and privilege.  Both are capable but both are not equally driven.  It speaks to something intrinsic. 

And so, I look at the baby again and I wonder.  It is said that the great thing about considering babies is that one is considering a multitude of possibilities.  Perhaps, that is not the case.  Either I’m looking at a child whose internal drive will be the determining factor of their happiness or not.  It is interesting to ponder.