Attorney Dana Goldblatt’s recent letter on April 11 urged us to call things by their true names.
I agree with the value of accurate naming. However, as William James, an American philosopher and psychologist, said: “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
It appears that Ms. Goldblatt’s prejudices are such that in her certainty and righteousness, she deceives herself about what is “true.” Though her desire for citizens to be active thinkers is admirable, the term “violence workers” is not logically a defensible “true name” for Northampton’s police.
The word “police” shares the same root as the word “polity,” which Ms. Goldblatt uses to describe the community of which she is a part. It also shares the same root and historical meaning as the word “policy.” When humans organize into a society (a polity), we create a structure of norms, standards, patterns and agreements that define that society … we have policies.
We codify many of these policies into laws, and we certainly debate and argue about them, but these policies define the responsibilities of membership in our society. Membership in the society requires reasonable adherence to these policies. If, for example, the societal policy involves the recognition of the concept of private property, then I cannot just say “Gee, I want that … I’ll take it.” Most of the time we all comply voluntarily with these policies. Only rarely is it necessary to compel compliance.
When humans create a government, one of the central roles of that government is to articulate and, when necessary, enforce, these policies. Policing is a straightforward and accurate name for the work of this policy-focused role. The work involved has many dimensions — education, community engagement, public space monitoring, evidence gathering, protecting and so on.
We add to this policing function the societally valuable roles of first responder, emergency management, safety monitoring, and more. A small, even tiny, percentage of this total policing role involves the responsibility to compel. Compelling adherence to the responsibilities of societal membership can include force, if all else fails, and, yes, such force can on rare occasions be to the point of violence.
But characterizing such “last resort” measures as definitive of the whole role is like describing teachers and school administrators as expulsion workers because they have, and sometimes apply, the authority to expel a student. Or characterizing managers as “those who fire people” when, properly done, the managerial role is to hire, support, coach, train, motivate etc. Police, teachers and managers all can go weeks, months or years without spending a minute using the force that their role authorizes.
Fear of expulsion is a poor model for education. Fear of firing is a poor model of management. Fear of physical force is a poor model of policing.
There are jerks and bullies and poorly trained people in managerial roles, in schools and in police forces, and their behavior can constitute failures and betrayals of important societal roles. Vigilance, criticism and repair are needed; it is our responsibility as members of society to point out such failures and betrayals when they happen.
However, pretending that such examples characterize the entire category is both inaccurate and worse than unhelpful: It invites divisiveness when community is needed.
Yes, let’s call things by their true names. Violence workers may be a catchy slogan, but it is not a true name.
Kevin Lake has been a Northampton since the mid-1970s. Now retired, he is active in a variety of volunteer activities.