Wilberne Persaud, Financial Gleaner Columnist

Persaud

How is it people raised in the same way, even in the same family can view an incident or identical facts, yet hold totally different positions on the fairness or morality of the case?

Supervising three very young children years ago, I encountered a quandary. There were eight sweets. Unthinkingly, I gave them to share.

One ended up with two, the others three sweets each. Immediately the cry was: 'not fair'.

My quick, Solomonic solution: reclaim the two offending sweets as wrongly offered. They were meant for two later visitors. Not liked, but palatable; it worked.

Notion of fairness

That incident baffled me. Where do these youngsters, babies really, barely able to talk, get this notion of fairness? Then on British Airways to London occurs a memorable incident. A Jamaican woman, first-time migrant traveller became outraged at a flight attendant and adjacent passenger who both allowed another Jamaican migrant to sleep through the food service. She raised the alarm arguing it was a terrible act and the flight was so long.

Her Jamaican language was strikingly alive. Although I've forgotten her actual words, I still remember their meaning and impact. She insisted the adjacent passenger was 'wicked' and unconscionable, selfish indeed, just like the stewardess - they were called that in those days.

Her response was nothing short of moral outrage. How could she be so concerned about a total stranger? Why did she think the stewardess' inaction so wrong?

Where do moral rules originate? Philosophers say from reason. Others say from God. But another source, strange as it may seem say some biologists researching the issue, is evolution.

Elements of morality

Five elements of morality identified from study of various cultures break down into two types: those centred on protecting the individual and those protecting elements that keep the group together.

For the individual there are two elements.

One is preventing harm and reciprocity, literally 'do unto others'; the other works to ensure equity or fairness. The other three elements include loyalty to the in-group, respect for authority and hierarchy, and a sense of purity or sanctity.

The impact of these elements is thought to be apparent in differences between western societies where individualism tends to prevail and those of say, India, in which the community's integration and maintenance take on greater significance.

An entirely different kind of investigation provides further support for the notion of fairness as having 'evolved': research with primates, Capuchin monkeys native to South America, at Emory University in Atlanta.

The monkeys actually hurled food rewards for good performance back at their human 'testers' when they perceived the exchange to be unfair.

The issue is not settled. We still cannot say whether morality is evolved or derives from institutional impact such as religion and schools, but we seem to have a better understanding of its development.

So, back to our Jamaican migrant flying to London. Was she from rural Clarendon or Manchester? Had she just weeks before participated in 'day-for-day' - sharing toil on the plot as a practical means of sustaining the group's capacity to survive?

Was she deeply religious? If so which element arose first?

Make a big leap, where is this indigenous morality as we think of the crime wave plaguing the country? The influence of rural-urban migration, breakdown in the education system, the media 'bigging-up' individual display of consumptive wealth and power, politics of scarce benefits - where do all of these fit into the frame from which criminals emerge?

Jamaican flavour

To this, add a pinch of garrison for uniquely Jamaican flavour. To vote exercising one's democratic right fingerprinting the citizen is mandated. Law abiding citizens submit to this admittedly sensible intrusion. But in the garrison open community voting was not apparently, considered fundamentally wrong. Graffiti proclaims 'PNP, JLP zone!'

This is part of ordinary life. Yet the parties cannot sustain their own campaigns much less the ongoing requirements of these communities. As a result, ordinary life for quite sometime requires economic largesse of dons.

Today many see ordinary life in the garrison environment as a germination node for crime. It is associated with gun running, hard drugs trafficking, rule of dons or area leaders' patronage among the poor and unemployed.

Disappearing opportunity for work continues as real work loses its value. An apparent contradiction takes hold: material things and money lose their value too, in a strange way.

Easy come, easy go. An entirely different kind of morality - in this context read life principles - emerges.

But this is not our beautiful Swallowtail butterfly breaking out of its chrysalis in splendour. This is a metastasising demon.

Reference to 'day-for-day' is no nostalgia or melancholy for the past. Such is futile as means of action. But knowing and understanding its inner meaning can bring enhanced perception.

The days of ads such as 'Young Christian girl from country required as live-in-maid' or 'to be trained as housekeeper' are no more. Today's ad more likely reads: '18-year-old girls from country required to work in go-go club, pay dependent on willingness to work long hours'.

Transportation possibilities

As transportation possibilities improve and smaller townships grow, the assault on those old elements of morality multiplies.

Do second and third generation urban dwellers lose all connection to this past?

If this is the scenario playing out, can harsh policing methods or extended detention without charge stand any chance of positive long-term impact on crime? Much as these ideas are conjecture, the logic seems to suggest some possibilities for our psychologists, anthropologists and criminologists to look into. Might it all then come back to the centrality of family, education and the ability to sustain life beyond the poverty line?

How can our politics catch up to these realities? If disarmed and devoid of the transient stabilising force of the area leader, shall garrisons implode? Should we consider devolution with more power and resources to the parishes, closer to the community? Should we, even as we implement essential emergency measures, be looking into these possibilities with greater urgency?

wilbe65@yahoo.com