Essay 2 - States of Denial PDF

Preview

Summary

States of Denial...

Description

ESSAY 2 Name: Natasha Banga UID: 3035552404 Essay 2: States of Denial States of Denial: As Viewed by Stanley Cohen Denial, initially a psychological phenomenon refers to the refusal of acknowledgement of a fact. With roots in the psychoanalytic field of psychology, denial is said to be the result of avoiding disturbing thoughts, feelings or experiences that may be anxiety provoking to the individual. In his book, States of Denial, Stanley Cohen breaks down denial as a social phenomenon, specifically in terms of social problems and it’s constituents; cognition(not accepting the truth), emotion(not being affected by the truth), morality(not acknowledging the immoral nature and shunning moral responsibility) and action (not contributing to change with regards to the problem). He also distinguishes between the various forms of denial; literal denial (not accepting the fact), interpreative denial (accepting the fact but perceiving it differently from the truth) and implicatory denial (the denial of one’s responsibility towards the cause and holding other parties responsible). Moreover, Cohen analyses the various ‘agents of denial;’ the parties involved in the denial of a social issue and derives additional forms of denial. He raises the question of whether denial is personal, official or cultural (collective). Personal denial pertains to an individual who may be the victim, the perpetrator or the bystander. Oficial denial refers to when a nation’s goverment erases or rewrites the occurence of historical events. Cultural or collective denial is denial that is deep rooted in society, influenced by cultural beliefs and carried out by a large

section of society. Cohen is especially concerned with atrocities that violate human rights. According to him, denial is “a statement about the world or the self (or about your knowledge of the world or your self) which is neither literally true nor a lie intended to deceive others but allows for the strange possibility of simultaneously knowing and not-knowing. The existence of what is denied must be ‘somehow’ known, and statements expressing this denial must be ‘somehow’ believed in.” He emphasises the paradoxical nature of denial. He states that denial is manifested through one’s congition, emotion, morals and action regarding an issue. Hence, possessing knowledge, although neccesary, does not solely ensure acknowledgement. He offers acknowledgement as a solution to personal or individual denial, a way to resist cultural or collective denial. Although he emphasises the importance of collective denial, he does n ot offer a solution for it. Individual denial is not additive. Collective denial is denial that has turned into a social reality, denial that exists beyond the individual’s beliefs. He accepts that though one has a right to be in denial when it involves themselves, everyone as social and moral responsiblity to resist denial as a member of society, when it affects other individuals. He moves to address the gap between acknowledgement and action; to solve the problem where one acknowledges the atrocities and sufferings but lacks the resources to do anything about it. He suggests donating money to NGOs that work for a social cause. However, he ignores that the acknowledgement of a particular social issue may lead to purposeful denial of others. In addition, it may prevent them from taking further action against the issue if needed. For instance, one may pride themselves in donating a heavy amount of money to an NGO like Save the Children and view it as immense contribution to society. Hence, they may be in denial about other issues such as human trafficking. Moreover, if they believe that they have fulfilled their responbility towards the social issue of child labour

by donating to this NGO, they may not be inclined to intervene if they witness their neighbour employing underage domestic help. His suggestion of Bystander Intervention Programmes, however, is something that be able to combat denial but may go only as far as individual denial. This is due to the deep rooted social and cultural nature of collective or societal denial. Though Cohen struggles to pose a concrete solution to denial as a whole, his aim to define and analyse denial as a social phenomenon and complex social problem is fulfilled. He provides a detailed explanation of how denial orginates, the different ways in which it manifests and how it is used as a conceptual tool by various agents that are involved in perpetuating denial. His analysis provides a theoretical and investigative framework for assesing social problems, it’s victims and the contributing factors. It also establishes a link between personal denial and collective denial and emphasises the importance of each individual in society. Denial At Work: Child Labour in India Child labour is defined as, “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and dignity and that is harmful to physical and mental development” (ILO, 1999). is a global human rights issue that affects several countries across the globe. Approximately 168 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 are engaged in child labour all over the world (UNICEF, 2017). According to the 2011 Census, 10.1 million Indian children are affected (GOI, 2011). Child labourers can be found across industries:, carpet weaving, garment making, domestic service, food and restaurant industry, agriculture, mining, manufacturing factories and many more. This paper will be addressing the various forms of denial as well as the agents of denial prevalent in the problem of child labour in India. Cultural (Collective) Denial

Cultural and collective beliefs of large parts of society are one of the pillars upholding this atrocity. A developing country like India constitues of many parts of society that remain underdeveloped in the socioeconomic sphere. Poverty affects two-thirds of the Indian population, leading to illiteracy, lack of education and lack of resources. Hence, communities still remain backward, solely relying on their traditional values and norms, backed with the need for survival. Traditional, rural families view working as something that makes one a useful member of society as well as their family and helps fufil one’s needs. Often, their purpose of reproduction is so they have an additional income in the family. Hence, they put their children to work at an early age. Instead of education, working a job is considered to be essential for the child’s skill development (Invernizzi, 2016). Due to the patriarchal nature of Indian society, the conservative belief that girls don’t need an education and their ultimate goal is to marry and reproduce. As a result, even if certain parents educate their sons, they push their daughters into working as domestic help, especially because it will teach them the skills they need to know in the future. Failure to to treat child labour as a critical human rights issue that affects a large part of the society and provide adequate resources and infrastructure to help eradicate and prevent the problem, indicates collective denial by the government and judicial system. Violation of child labour in “non-hazardous” environments is not considered a cognizable offence by the goverment.In addition, there is no punishment for first offender parents and they are imposed with a fine therafter (GOI, 2016). Interpretative Denial Collective denial by the parents of the victims leads us to the role of interpretative denail; the parents accept the existence of child labour and risks but perceive or interpret it as doing more

good than harm. They view it as a constructive activity and welcome the extra income (Bajapai, 2003). Interpretative denial is also recognised amongst employers who encourage child labour, who may believe that they are doing a favour to society and the parents by giving these children employment opportunities through which they can acquire skills and help support their families financially (Singh, 2013). Implicatory Denial and Denial of Knowledge Legislation and Law Enforcement Although several measures have been adopted for the prohibition of child labour in India, the system consists of gaps through which offenders easily slip by and accounts are written off due to lack of clarity in terms of law or lack of evidence. In addition, The legislation and law enforcement often deny the knowledge of such activities altogether. The Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act is a social legislation, one that is tied to the complex nature of society and must tackle the issue at it’s roots to ensure proper ensurement. Enforcement agents may not understand the weight of the issue if they themselves are in denial about it; personal or collective. In addition, they may shift responsibility to the lack of proper records and loopholes in the legislation. As a result, they are in denial about their capacity to take action and engage in implicatory denial by holding other parties responsible. The judiciary also indiciates denial of the seriousness of the issue as they usually pass light sentences in child labour matters or simply impose a fine on the employer, not ivestigating and eradicating the problem. In very few cases, courts convict the employer just by imposing a fine,

but in very rare cases convict the employer by imprisonment. Thus, courts tend to pass lighter sentences in child labour matters (Singh, 2013). Moreover, the central authorities of the country take to implicatory denial by holding the local authorites or the designated department solely responsible for tackling the problem and being unable to produce proper records of the potential victims or evidence against the employers. Employers Since child labour is widely present in the unorganised economic sector, it is even more difficult for enforcement to investigate and gather concrete evidence. Employers tend to not maintain liscences or registrations and nor do they keep any records of their child employees. On being questioned, employers often deny the knowledge of the child’s actual age and blame the lack of records and loopholes in the system, feigning unawareness. Since proving the child’s age through records in court is crucial for the case to be further investigated, often employers go scot free (Singh, 2013). The Bystanders Unfortunately, we are all external bystanders; we see and hear about atrocities through the news and media but we are in denial about our capacity to contribute. Even if we feel sympathy, for child labourers in this case, or we are disturbed, we tend to make peace with it through rationalisation. In the case of child labour, the general public in India blames the goverment for an ineffective system and if they aren’t able to nail the perpetrators, there is no way for an ordinary citizen to do anything to tackle the problem. In addition, they believe that it as inevtiable as a result of extreme poverty in the country. They view it as beyond their capacity to

intervene. They also belive that it is impossible for an individual to bring about significant change and even if they are ready to take action, they will not be successful without support, denying the responsibility once again. Hence, denial successfully resolves the cognitive dissonance. References Asha Bajapai, Child Rights in India - Law, Policy and Practice, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003, p.173. Cohen, S. (2013). States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hkuhk/detail.action?docID=1221196. C182—Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999. (2005). Public Health Reports, 120(6), 591-593. Invernizzi, A. (2016). The human rights of children: From visions to implementation. Routledge. Singh, R. (2013). Child Labour in India. Anusandhanika, 5(1/2), 44-49. Working children, Census 2001 & 2011. (2011). Ministry of Labour and Employment, Goverment of India. Retrieved from https://labour.gov.in/childlabour/census-data-child-labour The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016. (2016). Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. Retrieved from https://labour.gov.in/childlabour/child-labour-acts-and-rules...