TO BE OR NOT TO BE…
THE Ukraine Crisis brings up a cogent human issue that is always lurking just beneath consciousness but always there, like an itch that can’t be reached: Which is worse, being victimized or watching someone else be victimized and not doing anything? There’s no question that being victimized is a horrible experience that reverberates throughout one’s life, affecting a unique point-of-view not only on the victim but quite possibly on future generations. However, while victimization and its effects are slowly but in increasingly acknowledged, the effects of watching victimization occur without taking action (or being able to take action) are not so well recognized or acknowledged. I think that the current Ukraine Crisis is a “Perfect Storm” of “passive victimization.”
Does “Passive” make something less damaging? Think “passive smoking,” where the physical as well as mental health effects on the person being unwantingly exposed to smoking can be sometimes be significantly worse than on the smoker. In fact, “passive victimization” isn’t new with the Ukraine Crisis, or war in general for that matter. But it does create an “in your face” experience of watching abuse and being or at least feeling powerless about doing something about it.
I believe there’s two parts to “passive victimization” being experienced by millions watching the unfolding Ukraine Crisis “on site,” or distantly on television or internet news. First, the watcher simply by watching becomes a secondary victim. In fact, we humans experience this constantly and unrelentingly when viewing violent non-fictional as well as fictional movies. It’s the same process, but experienced repetitively, some suggest makes the extent of the damage broader (e.g. more “triggers”) and worse. It’s in learning that one is powerless in such situations, unless one takes on the role of the victimizer by intervening with equal or stronger force. Second, I think the fact that one experiences and learns that the best way to protect oneself is to be powerlessness and inactive, which makes it “doubly” damaging.
In fact, there are a lot of things one can do when witnessing violence. If it’s fictional, turn off the television or walk out of the movie and stop watching. Then publicly rate the presentation. If it’s non-fictional, call it what it is, and, if it can’t be “turned off,” scream or call for help. Pushing violence “into the light” often is enough to stop it, as many countries are attempting to do with the Ukraine Crisis. Light and truth are powerful, non-violent actions. Uniting in the acknowledgement that violence has been perpetrated, and that no prior act or reasoning justify it is another. Individually, I believe it’s in the act of responding, rather than continuing to watch hopelessly that much of the damage from “passive victimization” can be lessened or even quashed. It may not stop or prevent the victimization itself, but it can attenuate the effects of passive violence, which, in my opinion, can not only be extensive, but otherwise perpetuate the cycle of violence.
There’s, of course, a lot more to this than can be addressed in a short blog post, but conscious vigilance and taking non-violent action is a good first step. This can be a particularly challenging issue for artists, including authors, editors, screenwriters, book and television/movie producers as well as actors and crew. Should one have individual moral limits regarding a story including secondary violence whether direct or indirect? Violence is, as many would point out, a timeless part and parcel of human culture. However, agreement only this brings up the additional issue of whether violence, in being acknowledged, reported, described or written about, should be described in all its disgustingly gory detail or smoothed over, denying the disgustingly gory details altogether? Is one “worse” than the other? I don’t know, but I do know issues such as these deserve public consideration, especially as we continue to be confronted by the blatant violence surrounding the Ukraine Crisis. Maybe it’s yet another “shot across the bow” that we humans need to step and assume responsibility for our and other humans’ actions.
Does “Passive” make something less damaging? Think “passive smoking,” where the physical as well as mental health effects on the person being unwantingly exposed to smoking can be sometimes be significantly worse than on the smoker. In fact, “passive victimization” isn’t new with the Ukraine Crisis, or war in general for that matter. But it does create an “in your face” experience of watching abuse and being or at least feeling powerless about doing something about it.
I believe there’s two parts to “passive victimization” being experienced by millions watching the unfolding Ukraine Crisis “on site,” or distantly on television or internet news. First, the watcher simply by watching becomes a secondary victim. In fact, we humans experience this constantly and unrelentingly when viewing violent non-fictional as well as fictional movies. It’s the same process, but experienced repetitively, some suggest makes the extent of the damage broader (e.g. more “triggers”) and worse. It’s in learning that one is powerless in such situations, unless one takes on the role of the victimizer by intervening with equal or stronger force. Second, I think the fact that one experiences and learns that the best way to protect oneself is to be powerlessness and inactive, which makes it “doubly” damaging.
In fact, there are a lot of things one can do when witnessing violence. If it’s fictional, turn off the television or walk out of the movie and stop watching. Then publicly rate the presentation. If it’s non-fictional, call it what it is, and, if it can’t be “turned off,” scream or call for help. Pushing violence “into the light” often is enough to stop it, as many countries are attempting to do with the Ukraine Crisis. Light and truth are powerful, non-violent actions. Uniting in the acknowledgement that violence has been perpetrated, and that no prior act or reasoning justify it is another. Individually, I believe it’s in the act of responding, rather than continuing to watch hopelessly that much of the damage from “passive victimization” can be lessened or even quashed. It may not stop or prevent the victimization itself, but it can attenuate the effects of passive violence, which, in my opinion, can not only be extensive, but otherwise perpetuate the cycle of violence.
There’s, of course, a lot more to this than can be addressed in a short blog post, but conscious vigilance and taking non-violent action is a good first step. This can be a particularly challenging issue for artists, including authors, editors, screenwriters, book and television/movie producers as well as actors and crew. Should one have individual moral limits regarding a story including secondary violence whether direct or indirect? Violence is, as many would point out, a timeless part and parcel of human culture. However, agreement only this brings up the additional issue of whether violence, in being acknowledged, reported, described or written about, should be described in all its disgustingly gory detail or smoothed over, denying the disgustingly gory details altogether? Is one “worse” than the other? I don’t know, but I do know issues such as these deserve public consideration, especially as we continue to be confronted by the blatant violence surrounding the Ukraine Crisis. Maybe it’s yet another “shot across the bow” that we humans need to step and assume responsibility for our and other humans’ actions.
No comments have been added yet.
