What a waste of sight.
** TRIGGER WARNING, Sexual Violence **
When we’re bystanders, and we choose to ignore what we see I think we’re wasting our ability to see things at all. I know there are various biological explanations for why we can see (literally), in the way of self-protection and self-survival, but what about ensuring the protection and survival of those around us? I mean if we can’t use the information gifted to us by our vision to help those around us as well as ourselves then what is the real point? Where we also live to engage with and rely on the relationships with those around us to give life meaning then surely, we blanket this vital aspect of life in the comfort of our respect and protection. I think this is the least we can do. (A duty)
So we have to wonder then why people feel so comfortable violating other people in the public eye. If there was some kind of collectively recognised moral obligation to look out for the people around us then surely people wouldn’t feel so bold in this way. Naturally there are always going to be people who commit violent crimes irrespective of surveillance, and most offenders have their own twisted motivations that supersede the fear of getting caught or getting in trouble. But It’s definitely a problem if people can rely on our inclination to look the other way; and it’s definitely a problem if a man can (in broad daylight) rape a woman on the busy morning London underground in front of witnesses and face no immediate consequence. Admittedly, Ryan Johnston (the man in question) has since been jailed for his sexual violence crimes. But this incident happened years ago, and yet he’s only facing the consequences now.
If the man reported sitting opposite had intervened at the time then perhaps we wouldn’t be here. If prior to notifying the police he had intervened then perhaps we wouldn’t be here. But this is what happens when we fail. (We have failed) and do so routinely.
What can an incident that happened years ago tell us now?
The Bystander effect.
In 1968, social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley popularised the term ‘The Bystander Effect’, following their observations of the murder of Kitty Genovese a few years prior. Their research highlights the impact of situations on individuals’ perceptions, decisions and behaviour, specifically in the context of intervening in scenario’s where the safety or wellbeing of others is compromised. The 1964 murder epitomised the bystander effect, where almost 40 witnesses failed to intervene during a prolonged attack. As a result, Latané and Darley proposed various solutions to this after identifying the bystander effect as a problem, which included both a five-step decision making process for bystanders, as well as an additional model suggesting that bystanders weigh the costs and rewards of helping; rationalizing their decision based on personal outcomes.
It's all too easy to excuse the lack of action by witnesses when we focus on the aspect of ‘personal outcomes’. This seems to me like a cop-out kind of justification as well it also being explicatory. In all fairness it isn’t entirely fair to criticise just one witness for their failure to act, even if we could still find justified reasons to do so. But in reality it is rarely just one witness, and in the case of Kitty Genovese in the 60’s or in the case of Johnston’s crimes a few years ago we’re discussing scenario’s where more than one person or groups of people decided that advocating for someone vulnerable wasn’t worth the potentiality of a bad personal outcome.
Unfortunately, the research shows that as the number of bystanders increases, personal responsibility decreases, with people waiting for others to intervene. Ultimately bystanders might diffuse responsibility to others in their minds, especially when they deem others as being more capable of helping.
So why didn’t YOU help?
Latané and Darley propose a few other reasons for this, such as social influence, (our sheepish propensities) and normative social influence (excuses handed to us by our environment). But none of these explanations are really sticking with me to be honest, and I’m still stuck wondering why. This might be a case of ‘it’s easier said than done’, and we are in many ways guided by psychological tendencies that control us more than our consciousnesses do, but there is evidence to suggest otherwise, and Gaby Hinsliff in her Guardian article about the recent underground assault noted that the bystander effect has been shown up a few times before.
WWYD- What Would YOU do?
(The TV show)…
One of my favourite shows growing up answered questions I didn’t know I’d be asking until now. The 2000’s reality television show featured hidden camera scenarios to observe how people react to various ethical and social dilemmas, and without explicitly aiming to, toyed with the applicability of the bystander effect to real life. John Quiñones set up staged situations in public places to capture real spontaneous reactions of ordinary people to a wide range of scenarios that displayed some form of discrimination, harassment or bullying. And because as we know the personal is political, these issues typically related to social justice, human rights and ethical decision making. I’ll link an episode below because the show is an incredibly entertaining, satisfying watch, but an example of a title might be “Black customer Racially profiled in High End Store | What Would You Do?” or “Potential predator Approaches Teen Girl’ | What Would You Do?”, and so the show is seen to replicate scenario’s that occur far too often in our societies every day.
Here, Aristotle’s 3rd Century philosophical question of moral responsibility was seen playing in the minds of bystanders in the 21st century, and Quiñones’s proceeding commentary served to either commend those that did step forward or questioned those that didn’t. Still, where the safety of others was shown compromised, there was a good majority willing and able to intervene.
As I’m writing this now I’m wondering about the possible consequences that watching this show had on my naïve perception of humanity growing up, or whether this perception is the right one, where we should all expect and demand the best of each other. The former is entirely possible, and we’re also aware that ‘reality’ television is usually staged. But staged or not staged, I think there is an educational element here. Here we’re shown the truth about what we’re supposed to be doing. We’re being shown what our eyes are for.
What Did HE Do?
(The girl on the train)…
In this sceanario’s real life ‘What Would You Do?
’, the main witness failed the test of intervention. The incident has been described as one of the most disturbing cases by the lead detective and aside from the obvious reasons as to why, I find cases like these particularly disturbing because of the fact that they simply don’t have to happen. The witness, a French national travelling on the underground also happened to be with his 11 year old son, who was given a lesson by his father in the art of bystanding. A son raised to be yet another non-functioning member of society in this example is surely just one of many, where our parents raise us to by bystanders and we’ll raise our children to do the same. This connotes the normalisation of public violence, and rape culture is seen particularly pervasive in this instance. What does it say about a society that teaches it’s youth that to sit idly by as women are brutalised is just fine?
It’s reported that he returned to provide evidence to the police which I suppose suggests he cares, and there is definitely more moral complexity for a parent with a child than there would be for a man travelling alone for instance.
But where a lack of intervention has been shown to help aid violent sexual crime; the real consequences of his non-action far outweigh the possibility for counteraction. The psychological study on the Bystander effect signifies that should he have intervened, that others may have too as is our susceptibility to social influence, and so still there is no excuse.
Where too many of us tend to mimic the Frenchman, our consciousnesses might be allowed to rest after a while if we could know for a fact that the incidents happening before us were isolated and that those like Johnston weren’t repeat offenders but we’d know deep down that this could never be the case.
Before the attack on the tube, he was also charged with attempted rape, two counts of sexual assault, and outraging public decency. Johnston had chased two women to their home after they observed him masturbating outside a house near an underground station. Following on, Johnston banged on their door and put his hand through the letterbox, but luckily the women escaped.
Now it’s three hours later and the scene takes place on a Piccadilly Line train. What seems to be a sporadic display of violence to the man observing was in reality the continuation of terror inflicted upon innocent women, leading him to assault and rape a woman in her sleep. These events could just of easily happened in the reverse, and there is the possibility that preventing this assault as it took place on the train might have stopped Johnston in his tracks. I’m willing to bet these aren’t his only offences, judging by his confidence in committing them, and the fact that it took until last Friday (over 3 years after this attack) for law enforcement to arrest him.
May we be excused?
I guess we can argue that the extent to which we’re obligated to intervene might be determined by our power in society. For example, a grown man might have more of an obligation to help than a young girl would in this scenario, and so there’s a way in which we’re not all as equally accountable as each other (depending on the violence taking place). We could also argue that the extent to which we’re obligated might be impeded by our positioning in society. For example, a black man might be hesitant to intervene because of the chance that law enforcement might identify him as an aggressor, and so there is another way in which we’re not all as equally accountable as each other (depending on the situation). These sorts of justifications in addition to others I haven’t mentioned are actually valid. But even still, the consequences of standing by ultimately condemn those already fearful for their safety, whilst providing increased liberties to those with the social allowance to commit these crimes in the first place. Whilst she probably spent years coming to terms with this blatant disregard for her sense autonomy, Johnston spent years enjoying the freedoms provided by the other man on the train. He got to look up at the sky each day and say thank you to God (or the Frenchman) for his allowance to continue experiencing life, despite having likely ruined an aspect of hers.
The Frenchman on the other hand, reflecting on his own life will, as he should theoretically face the penalty that is everlasting guilt.
At the end of the article I mentioned earlier, Hinsliff contemplates this possibility,
“When did he realise exactly what he was seeing, the Frenchman on the Piccadilly line? At what point did he understand he had a choice to make? And how often since, for all we know, might he have tortured himself by wondering what would have happened if he’d chosen differently?”
Let the story featuring the Frenchman serve as a cautionary tale that holds up a mirror to the ways in which we fail others every day. His place in this is very much replaceable with ours and most of us can’t really criticise him without criticising ourselves, because we have all at some point seen and not acted, failed to intervene, (stood by)…
What a waste of sight.
Asisa
Sources
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/15/raped-broad-daylight-train-crime-illusions Gaby Hinsliff – Tough Questions article
https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-raped-woman-in-front-of-other-passengers-on-london-underground-jailed-13028524 Info on Ryan Johnston case
https://www.britannica.com/topic/bystander-effect/Diffusion-of-responsibility The Bystander Effect