In the previous section on educational institutions, the mother and the family was considered to be the first institution of learning for the newly born child. The mother with the family is also the first institution responsible for policing the behavior of that newly arrived individual. Policing within the family is relegated to the parents or guardians and may be delegated to babysitters or elder siblings who have come of age to take over babysitting chores. The parents, however, are also policed by the general judicial and policing institutions of the society at large. Any concerns of possible child abuse would be reported to the authorities to pursue the matter to its appropriate end.
The function of judicial and policing institutions is only a part of the governance of a group of cooperating individuals or societies. Another function of governance is the lawmaking function. Within the family, the lawmaking function also resides in the hands of the parents or guardians. I believe that it is self-evident in the experience of each reader as it is self-evident in my experience that governance within the family is vastly diverse across the families that populate Earth. Governance of the family formed with my first wife and the governance of the family with my current wife is quite different. The family initiated by my son and his wife is governed differently from how my brothers and I were governed by my parents. This diversity in governance issues reaches a level that almost feels chaotic when projected onto the global population of humans. On January 13, 2020 at 4:33 pm, I searched the internet for a world clock counting the current global population. It read 7,575,311,525, for a very brief moment, but advanced quickly as I recorded that number in my notes. Curious, I searched to find the same type of accounting for the current population of the United States of America. On that same day at 4:36 pm, the U.S. population was 329,177,216. How is it possible to contend with such vast numbers and the corresponding diversity that those numbers indicate?
Start small. Attempt to perceive some principles that lend themselves to a structure that can be functionally projected to larger and larger realities. I propose a family structure of a wife, a husband, a fourteen-year old-adolescent and a newborn infant. To maintain consistency and build upon what has already been discussed, I assert again that the function of human life is the development and expansion of consciousness. Within this hypothetical but probable family structure, it is probably true that each individual in this family has a unique, nuanced, or significantly different consciousness. Certainly it would be expected that the level of consciousness of the newborn would be significantly different from the rest of the family. Likewise it would be understandable that the parents possessed a higher level of consciousness than the fourteen-year-old, although I have witnessed a middle school student who appeared to have a higher level of consciousness than the parents albeit in select areas only. The consciousness of the husband and wife being of different upbringing and backgrounds would also be unique from each other. Four different individuals with four different consciousnesses. As this is true for this group of four individuals, it is also true for every inhabitant of Earth and is therefore true for all individuals residing in the United States of America. We can now assert the following statements as being true:
- The consciousness of one individual is not exactly the same consciousness of any other individual.
- Learning is essential to the development and expansion of the consciousness.
- Learning by doing is the most effective learning model.
- Learning by doing certainly involves a high probability of individuals making mistakes that others will have to endure.
- As the importance of the decision to be made increases so too does the need to increase a more robust and deeper engagement of the individual’s consciousness.
Parents guiding their offspring down the path of their developing consciousness through instructive conversation, the facilitation of learning by doing, and empathetic limit-setting demonstrate the basic fundamentals of governance needed for the functioning of societies. Policing and the judicial institutions are analogous to parents and their children processing through their limit-setting behaviors.
Police making an arrest is analogous to parents catching their child’s misbehavior. The family rule broken is analogous to breaking the law of the land that rules social behavior. The child’s defense and plea to the parent or parents is analogous to trial before a judge without a jury. There is a sentencing phase handed down by the parent(s) after all has been said. This whole process, whether in the family setting or in the society at large, is an organic, human process, all of which is intimately impacted by the various consciousnesses of each individual involved.
To this construct add the concept of sliding scales of opposing issues. Sliding scales of opposing sides resemble the number line with its negatives(-) on one side and the positives(+) on the other with the neutral point of origin, zero (0), in between the two. Sliding scales are degrees or levels of position along the scale moving from the far left to the far right of the point of neutrality. Examples of such sliding scales would be:
anti-gun ownership vs pro-gun ownership
anti-segregation vs pro-segregation
anti-LGBTQ rights vs pro-LGBTQ rights
narcissism vs altruism
pro-life vs pro-choice
This last entry, pro-life vs pro-choice, does not appear to be the same as anti-whatever vs pro-whatever. If we read this line literally we do not perceive any negativity on either side of the scale because each is described with the prefix of “pro.” It appears to defy the construct of two sides of an issue as being the opposite to each other. This is a perfect example of spinning language to avoid negativity in the hopes of making one’s position less offensive because, in general, people like to avoid negativity, especially if individuals seek to persuade others to come over to their side of the dispute. Spinning language, however, reduces the clarity of the issue to be resolved. Stark language requires stronger fortitude in dealing with difficult issues and extremely uncomfortable truths that may be present on either side of the issue of conflict. This last issue is more clearly stated when described as anti-abortion vs pro-abortion. Narcissism vs altruism could be expressed as pro-self vs pro-other or perhaps more accurately as pro-self-over-others vs pro-others-over-self. Having put this in writing and reflecting about the choices regarding my last entry in the above listing, I believe that anti-abortion vs pro-abortion is the most clear expression about the real issue with conflicting points of view. I rewrite the list according to what I think is the most clear accounting of these sliding scales of opposing positions:
anti-gun ownership vs pro-gun ownership
anti-segregation vs pro-segregation
anti-LGBTQ rights vs pro-LGBTQ rights
narcissism vs altruism
anti-abortion vs pro-abortion
This is not the time nor the place in which to resolve any of these issues. This is about the concept and construction of sliding scales. We could use percentages to mark the level of anti-gun ownership and pro-gun ownership such that 100% anti-gun ownership would be to the extreme left of zero (0) and 100% pro-gun ownership would be to the extreme right of zero. Any given individual may be anywhere along the sliding scale from 100% anti-gun to 100% pro-gun.
There are many such issues in contemporary American society. Individuals differ with each other both on which side of the issue they gravitate toward as well as how far to the extreme of that position they take. Any one issue therefore has the possibility of 201 possible positions upon which an individual could plot his or her stance on that issue. If we want to chart such individual positions on 25 different issues we would have 5,025 possible positions that an individual could choose. Each array of such plotted positions by each individual would represent the consciousness of that individual. Each individual may or may not clearly articulate the reasons for each placement recorded for each issue. These articulated or unarticulated reasons may be different from individual to individual. The articulated reasons would also contribute to profiling the consciousness of the given individual articulating his or her reasons. Any unarticulated reason also would indicate a significantly different aspect of that consciousness. As the number of issues with opposing points of view increases so does the possible diversity of individuals with differing consciousness.
Consciousness (the aggregate of the individual’s intellect, emotions, intuition, and all elements of the nonlinear type) is what moves the decision-making of that individual especially if the issue is of significant importance. While consciousness improves and expands with learning, that learning by doing inherently means that individuals will make mistakes regarding at least some of their decisions. The combination of the significance of the given issue, and the degree toward either extremes of said issue, enhances the magnitude of any possible mistaken behavior which breaks the law of authority that this individual lives under as a member of that society. The significance of the issue at hand and the degree toward the extreme of the polarized issue determines the magnitude of the behavior taken by the individual who overtly behaves to assert his or her position on that issue.
As an example, an individual who is 95% anti-abortion due to his or her religious beliefs about what determines entrance into heaven may decide that it is justifiable to kill doctors who perform abortions in spite of the law of the land against murder. Consider another hypothetical example regarding the pro-gun ownership and the anti-gun ownership issue. A political movement organizes to pass a law that makes ownership of certain guns already legally purchased to now become illegal. Perhaps, a hundred thousand or more citizens have already purchased these weapons at significant costs and now the police are responsible for taking these weapons away from their rightful owners. Many, perhaps most are 95% pro-gun ownership and believe that such a law is unconstitutional. Some of these individuals may decide that such a policy amounts to abuse of power and are prepared to fight to keep possession of their legally purchased firearms. Are the police or the military going to be charged with the task of confiscating those newly outlawed firearms? The owners of those firearms were legally allowed to purchase and own those weapons but are now determined to be criminals.
I am not going to offer a resolution to either of these two highly emotionally laden issues. I offer these examples only to illustrate: 1) the nature of polarized issues, 2) the differences of consciousness pertaining to opposite sides of polarized issues, and 3) the magnitude of human behavior that can be justified by the consciousness on both sides of the opposing issue. Since the discussion at the present is about policing the citizenship, it is very important to highlight that the human beings who have sworn to perform the duties of police officers will be the human beings who must stand on the point of origin, the neutral point of zero (0), between the two opposing forces of any given issue who decide to ignore voluntary compliance of the law.
Considering the U.S. population of 329,177,216 on January 13, 2020 at 4:36 pm, the people that our police officers are required to engage have a large diverse array of consciousnesses which stimulate their behavior to obey or break the law of the land as well as those individuals who legislate those laws and those who vote for those legislators. Our police officers are required to enforce the laws of the land. Enforcing the law places the human beings so sworn to confront every person who appears to be a possible law breaker. Each and every police officer is the first responder to assess the possibility of a person being engaged in legally defined offensive behavior. What I believe is of the utmost importance to understand is that each police officer and each potential offender is moved to act according to his or her unique consciousness.
What distinguishes police officers from parents or any other citizen is the mandated training that each police officer must undergo to demonstrate, at the very least, an acceptable degree of proficiency of that training. Training of police officers is critically required because every human being possesses a unique consciousness and, unlike the potential offender who may be moved to act unlawfully because of his or her unique consciousness, the police officer is trained to override any impulse toward illegal behavior especially in extremely stressful situations of high tension between the officer and those engaged in the highly charged, stressful situation. Added to this potentially explosive situation is the real possibility that the potential offender may be armed to inflect lethal force to any who opposes him or her. Most citizens do not have the expectation in their consciousness that when they go to work they will be faced with an individual intent upon killing them. Most individuals have the flight response to gunfire. Police officers are trained to confront gunfire, not run from it. Police officers face the possibility of being killed every day they go to work. Police officers have been ambushed while sitting in their cars.
Many, if not all, are aware that they are viewed as targets by those individuals with extreme consciousnesses who reside in the highest percentages on either side of the sliding scales of opposing issues. As an example for demonstration, some white supremacist may target police as might black extremists. Agápē reality in policing, especially when incorporating the high possibility of being in situations with a high probability of possible death as an outcome, must take into account the police officer and the alleged offender. Since the use of lethal force from either the potential offender or the police officer is quite possible, safety issues are paramount. Safety precautions require economic resources to be allocated such that the probability of death is diminished while guaranteeing that accountability is never compromised. Protocols such as: 1) having officers patrol in pairs and 2) assuring that enough officers on duty for each shift to assure the most safety for individual officers are only two issues that apply agápē reality in policing the population. Safety equipment for those officers is another issue to be satisfied. These are only a few issues of many more that may need to be considered about the relationship between agápē reality and the required provision for the safety of the officer.
While my son is a police officer, I have no direct experience in policing the general citizenship. I have had friends who were police officers and I read the news regularly. While I have respect for the police in general, my personal experience has taught me that the clothes do not make the man. The uniform is a symbol especially if it is used as a symbol. No individual can wear the uniform of a police officer unless that individual is sworn into the police department designated by that given uniform. The uniform is a symbol to the citizenship that the individual wearing that uniform conducts him or herself according to a specific set of standards upon which all individuals can rightfully depend. This is why it is illegal to impersonate a police officer. I have had a traumatic experience that has taught me not to depend upon the integrity of individuals wearing symbolic clothing. It is the consciousness of the individual that makes that individual and not the clothes nor the symbols worn. I believe that the bible or my religion class taught me, “beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.”