Entomophagy

Fried crickets in Cambodia

Insects as food

Having lived the majority of my life in the northern latitudes, I have rarely had to deal with the everyday aspects of life in a tropical climate. Despite this fact, on those occasions when I have visited countries to the south, I have been able to endure the usual tropical conditions, chiefly high heat and humidity, without too much difficulty. However, there is one aspect of tropical life I find particularly hard to handle: coming face to face with insects of gigantic proportions.

While there are insects I find annoying in my part of the world (such as mosquitoes and ants), their relatively small size makes them seem less threatening than their tropical cousins. I realize that many people are used to seeing such creatures every day and and therefore don’t find them unnerving. However, this knowledge didn’t help me much when I was Indonesia, and we found two enormous water bugs hiding out in the mosquito netting above our bed. After some comically desperate maneuvers, we finally succeeded in banishing the bugs from the room. Perhaps if we had known that water bugs make a tasty condiment (ground up with chilies to make a spicy Thai paste), we might have welcomed them instead.

A Plate of Locusts

Although in Western cultures there is a general aversion to being around insects, let alone eating them, in many parts of the world (and also increasingly in the West) the insect kingdom is seen as an important and coveted source of food. The practice of eating bugs as food is known as entomophagy, and has been part of the human experience throughout history.

There is evidence that ancient cultures in Mexico, Spain, China, and what is now the United States included insects in their diets. The biblical book of Leviticus mentions locusts, bald locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers as acceptable food for the Israelites, and in the book of Matthew, John the Baptist is said to have subsisted on locusts and wild honey. The ancient Romans also reputedly practiced entomophagy, consuming locusts, cicadas, and stag beetle larvae at their lavish feasts.

Today, insect-eating is popular in parts of Africa, Australia, Central and South America, and Asia, including Thailand, Indonesia, China, and Japan. In some places, such as among Aboriginal peoples in Australia, insects are part of the traditional diet, being a readily available source of protein. In other places, insects are considered delicacies, and are prepared in numerous ways meant to tempt the palate—including roasting, frying, and grilling. In Colombia, for example, Hormigas culonas, or fried giant ants, are a regional specialty. Hachi-no-ko, or boiled wasp larvae, can be found in some restaurants in Japan, along with fried cicadas (Semi), rice-field grasshoppers (Inago), and silk moth pupae (Sangi).

It’s now possible to obtain edible insects prepared in lots of ways from online vendors, including candied insects, savory canned insects, and even insect alcohol infusions. A quick search of “edible insects” on Amazon currently brings up nearly 400 results of products an aspiring entomophage could sink their teeth into.

How to Eat Fried Crickets

Despite Western societal taboos against human consumption of insects, a growing number of enthusiasts believe there are economic, environmental, and health benefits to the practice of entomophagy. They argue that it is cheaper and more efficient to raise insects as a protein source than it is to rely on other animal products, and that it is less damaging to the environment. In addition, they claim that insects provide more nutritive value, while being lower in fat than other types of protein.

These benefits make entomophagy seem like the answer to some pressing problems, but there are a few barriers to it becoming more socially acceptable. Besides the obvious reluctance to eat creatures that many people find repulsive, there is debate about what effect the large-scale practice of entomophagy might have on the environment, with some voicing concern that certain species could be eradicated entirely. Also, some people have adverse reactions to eating insects, whether from allergies or pesticide contamination, making it necessary to educate the public about these dangers.

Despite these issues, as a former vegetarian I understand and applaud people’s efforts to eat lower on the food chain, for both health and environmental reasons. However, I don’t think I’d ever be able to switch to a bug-eating lifestyle, no matter how tasty or nutritious they might be. I’ll leave that to those with more adventurous palates and stronger stomachs.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on February 21, 2007.

Image credit: Thomas Schoch [CC BY-SA 2.5], via Wikimedia Commons


Go to Source
Author: Morgen Jahnke

World Sleep Day

A sleeping cat

Hey, it’s World Sleep Day! And to think, I just wrote about dream groups yesterday. As I’ve mentioned from time to time, sleep is one of my very favorite activities, and yet one that (due to having two small children and one small business) I’m unable to indulge in as much as I’d like. If your life situation is conducive to getting extra sleep—and most of us need it, especially after setting our clocks forward a few days ago—make it happen today.

And you know what, it’s probably safest to spend today in bed anyway—it’s also the Ides of March!

Image credit: Image by Eugen Visan from Pixabay


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Determining when a parent retains children in another country

It is quite a common scenario that parents will agree that one of them may temporarily remove their children to another country. Obviously, the ‘removing’ parent may then decide not to return the children to the country from which they were removed. A critical question may then be: when did the removing parent make that decision? Did they have the intention not to return the children all along, or did they only form that intention late on? The ‘retention’ only occurs when the decision is made.

The reason why this can be critical is that it relates to the issue of the children’s habitual residence. If both countries are signatories to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction then obviously the ‘left behind’ parent may make an application for their summary return under the Convention. However, the Convention only applies where the removal or retention of the child is ‘wrongful’. It is only wrongful if “it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body either jointly or alone under the law of the state in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention”. Accordingly, if the child stays in the ‘new’ country for long enough, they will gain habitual residence there, and any ‘retention’ thereafter will not therefore be wrongful, so the court cannot order the return of the child.

When the mother retained the children was the essential question for the court in the recent Court of Appeal case G-E (Children : Hague Convention 1980: Repudiatory Retention and Habitual Residence).

The facts of the case were that the father was Australian and the mother British. They were not married but they had two children, born in 2012 and 2014. The family lived in Australia, but the mother and children came to England for holidays. Lord Justice Moylan then takes up the story:

“In January 2017 the mother applied online for, and in April 2017 obtained, a school place for the elder child in England from September 2017. In April she obtained a quotation both for the storage of her possessions in Australia and for their being shipped to England. The mother accepted that she did not inform the father about these matters but said that this reflected the manner in which they conducted their lives and were not “clandestine” acts as suggested by [the father’s counsel].”

In or about June 2017 the parents agreed that the mother and the children would travel to England, because the mother’s father was terminally ill. The mother and the children arrived in England on the 21st of July 2017, on tickets which provided for a return to Australia within 6 months. The mother’s father died on the 2nd of September 2017. The father agreed that the mother could extend her stay with the children in England, apparently putting no time limit upon when she should return. On the 27th of March 2018 the mother sent the father an email making clear that she did not intend to return to Australia.

The father commenced his application under the Convention on the 10th of August 2018. The application was dealt with by Her Honour Judge Hillier in the High Court in October. She found that the mother had not formed the intention to retain the children in this country until March 2018, and that by that date the children were habitually resident in England and Wales. Accordingly, the father’s application was dismissed. The father appealed.

Giving the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Moylan found that Judge Hillier had properly considered the evidence and was entitled to come to the conclusion that the mother had not formed the intention to retain the children in this country until March 2018. As to the issue of habitual residence, he found that Judge Hillier’s determination was one which was reasonably open to her. He said:

“She has undertaken a sufficiently broad assessment and explained why, in the context in particular of the children’s existing “real ties” with England, she concluded that their stability and integration “grew closer and faster as a result” and that the “centre” of their lives … had become England by late December 2017/January 2018.”

Lords Justices Flaux and Longmore gave consenting judgments. Accordingly, the father’s appeal was dismissed.

You can read the Court of Appeal judgment here, and the original judgment of Judge Hillier here.

The post Determining when a parent retains children in another country appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Dream Groups

Edwin Landseer - Scene from A Midsummer Night's Dream. Titania and Bottom

Intramural introspection

I’m going to let you in on a little secret. Unbeknownst to most of my friends and family, I’m really an action hero. Several times each month, I go on dangerous assignments to exotic locations, where I narrowly escape death, rescue the hostages, recover the stolen chip, round up the bad guys, and generally keep civilization safe from evil. Admirers call me “Indiana Joe.” Of course, it’s no big deal, thanks to my superpowers that enable me to dodge bullets, read minds, and fly off into the sunset. When I return from one of my adventures, I can almost hear the fanfare…no, wait, that’s my alarm clock. Sometimes I awake from one of my dreams uncertain of whether it really happened or not, and with a nagging sense that a vital piece of information has been lost—that the dream was trying to tell me something important. When I’ve needed to get to the bottom of a dream, I’ve often taken it to a dream group, a small circle of friends that meets monthly for a unique kind of dream analysis.

The Woman of My Dreams

I first became aware of dream groups a number of years ago, when someone made an announcement after a church service that such a group was going to form. At first, I wasn’t even sure what they meant by “dreams”—I thought it might have been dreams in the sense of aspirations, rather than the visions that occur while we sleep. Either way, I had plenty to work with, but I had no idea what I’d be getting myself into if I joined. A week later, the group’s leader asked all interested parties to gather for more information. I was still wavering when I saw a very attractive young woman join the group. At that point I immediately determined that I was interested. (I thought the group might be worthwhile too.)

The idea for this group and many others like it came from a book by Jeremy Taylor called Where People Fly and Water Runs Uphill. Taylor, a respected author and teacher who died in January 2018, worked with dreams and dream groups for decades. His central principle was that all dreams come in the service of health and wholeness. Whatever else you may believe about dreams, the assumption our group starts with is that they are a good and useful thing, that they exist in some respect to benefit the dreamer.

Perchance to Dream

It may be helpful to clarify what group dream work is not. First and foremost, it is not simply a matter of guessing or looking up things in dream dictionaries. At the other extreme, it’s also not formal psychoanalysis. Participants in dream groups are simply laypeople who have learned some basic skills—not professional therapists. Finally, it’s not a religious exercise. Someone may, of course, experience religious symbols in dreams, but dream work as such does not presuppose any religious framework for interpretation.

Members are encouraged to write down any dreams they remember as soon as they wake up, then bring them to share in the meetings. Dream work can be very intimate, so all members agree to treat each other’s dreams with respect and discretion—and never to share the content of a meeting outside the group. As a member recounts a dream, the others listen quietly; when the dream is finished, we ask questions only if needed for clarification. Then we begin sharing our thoughts. Although someone may have a strong opinion about what another person’s dream means, only the dreamer can ultimately determine its meaning. In addition, because dreams are abstract and richly suggestive, there’s a strong tendency to read one’s own issues into someone else’s dream. For these reasons, we avoid saying, “This is what your dream means.” If someone has an insight or observation, the language we use is, “If it were my dream…” That way each person can put him or herself in the shoes of the dreamer with impunity, and the person sharing the dream can look at it more objectively too.

Such Stuff As Dreams Are Made Of

Taylor’s book discusses numerous principles of dream work at length, but a couple of notions come up with great regularity. For one thing, we assume that a given dream may have many different meanings, which may or may not be deep and profound. My action-adventure dream could mean both that I really enjoyed that James Bond film I just saw, and that I feel some situation in my life needs rescuing. Another postulate is that many or all of the different characters in a dream may represent the dreamer. So if I save the damsel in distress from the evil prince, it could be that my dream is about situations in which I feel helpless, or conversely, cause pain to others—not necessarily my role as the hero.

These ideas, and many more, come into play as we discuss each other’s dreams. Often the person who shared the dream will have an “aha” moment—a sudden realization of the significance of a dream symbol that would not have occurred outside the group setting. Of course, it also sometimes happens that a dream remains entirely inscrutable even after an hour of intense discussion. Even so, the process of sharing and discussing dreams can have a very therapeutic effect.

I Have a Dream Today

Dream groups can have many different forms, and their structure can vary depending on how many people are involved, where the meetings take place, and how well the members know each other. Although I’m not currently in a dream group, I’ve been in several over the years. Typically the members of my groups were quite comfortable with each other, and chose to meet monthly, in a different person’s home each time. We’d begin with a potluck meal, and while we were eating we’d take turns talking about the significant events in our lives. This is quite important, as it gave us a context to evaluate the significance of dream images. We also usually spent a short time discussing “meta-dream” issues—things like methods for improving dream recall, the phenomenon of lucid dreaming, or insights from a book one of us had read.

Next we’d take a moment to center ourselves and mark the transition from ordinary discussion into dream work. Each person would then very briefly share a recent dream, and we’d determine who had a dream they’d like to examine in detail. Time permitting, we’d discuss two or three of these dreams using the principles from Taylor’s book and the “if it were my dream…” language. We’d finish with another simple centering exercise to mark the end of our dream discussion.

Don’t Dream It’s Over

Our meetings were not uniformly successful in revealing the inner workings of our minds, but more often than not, we all left feeling we’d learned a great deal more about ourselves and each other. During my first year in a dream group, I developed deep relationships with the other members—including that attractive young woman, whom I later married. And I acquired not only valuable introspective skills, but also some very good habits of deferential and attentive listening. But leaving aside all the touchy-feely stuff, the bottom line is that it is seriously fun. I loved being involved in dream groups, and hope to do so again someday.

Some scientists believe dreams are nothing more than residue from the brain’s “garbage collection” process as information is transferred into long-term memory. Others hold, somewhat more charitably, that dreams are the mechanism the brain uses to unconsciously work through issues that could not be dealt with in waking life. And then, of course, some people have a more mystical take on dreams, declaring that they are a direct communication channel to God, the collective unconscious, a “higher wisdom,” or whatever. Unlike my biblical namesake, I don’t pretend to any supernatural gifts when it comes to interpreting dreams, and I don’t have much of an opinion about either their neurological or metaphysical basis. All I can say is that after working on my dreams in groups, I feel I understand myself better. That dreams can accomplish this is enough for me.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on April 25, 2003, and again in a slightly revised form on June 6, 2004.

Image credit: Edwin Henry Landseer [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

National Pi Day

Pie for Pi Day

What could be more American than pie and puns based on the world’s only sane date-writing system? Put them together and you get today—Pi (π) day—which is to say, 3.14 (March 14). Most of the world doesn’t get our month-day format, just as most of the world doesn’t feature pies in their cuisine (at least, not proper pies). Which is fine, because that leaves more pie for us.

Image credit: mrwynd [CC BY 2.0], via Flickr


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Marriage of Martin

(California Court of Appeal) – Held that a spousal support obligation did not terminate upon an ex-spouse’s remarriage because the couple had agreed in writing that the relevant provision of the California Family Code would not apply. Recommended that a particular form on which the couple had left a box unchecked, leading to this result, be revised. Reversed a postjudgment order.


Go to Source
Author:

The thirtieth anniversary of the Children Act

Incredible how time flies. I remember as if it were yesterday when the Children Act was passed, attending various seminars to familiarise myself with its provisions (the main provisions of the Act did not come into force until 1991). In the following thirty years the Act has gained a familiarity, amongst not just family lawyers but also many non-lawyers, in a way that I don’t think many other statutes have. It has even spawned its own novel and film, the latter being reviewed here by Naheed Taj, Managing Partner of Stowe Family Law’s reading office, last September.

What was so special about the Act?

The Act might now be remembered, at least amongst those private law practitioners who are old enough, primarily for doing away with the outdated terminology of ‘custody’ and ‘access’, replacing them with ‘residence’ and ‘contact’ (and, later, with ‘child arrangements orders’). But the Act was about much more than that. As Professor Jo Delahunty QC (see below) explains:

“The Children Act 1989 embodied a change in philosophy by making the child’s welfare the courts ‘paramount’ concern, moving away from the concept of parental rights towards the right of the child. It embraced the idea of shared parental rights and responsibilities and that children are best cared for within their families but not at the expense of suffering avoidable significant harm.”

As that quote suggests, the Act brought together both private and public children law ‘under the same roof’ (the child must have been found to have suffered, or be likely to suffer, ‘significant harm’ before a care order can be made). Thus, whether the court is considering how to resolve a dispute between parents over arrangements for their child, or whether a child should be removed from the parents by the state, the same basic principles apply. By section 1 of the Act the welfare of the child is the court’s ‘paramount consideration’, to be determined by reference to the ‘welfare checklist’ set out in section 1(3).

Accordingly, the law is now ‘child centric’: when considering a question in relation to a child’s upbringing we no longer talk of a parent’s rights in relation to the child, but rather about what is best for the child. This is a lesson that, sadly, many parents have still not learned, despite the length of time that the Children Act has been with us – we still regularly come across parents seeking to enforce their ‘parental rights’.

Perhaps somewhat confusingly, as the above quote also suggests, the Act brought in the new concept of “parental responsibility”, which it defines as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.” But in this context “rights” really mean something else. They are not to do with what may benefit the parent (if I may put it that way), but rather about the parent looking after the interests of the child, for example by choosing which school the child should attend. In other words, hold on to the concept of “responsibility”, rather than “rights”.

So the Act really changed the landscape when it came to dealing with children issues, and that new landscape has now been with us for nearly thirty years. But what of the future?

Recently Professor Jo Delahunty QC, who is one of the UK’s leading barristers specialising in cases concerned with families and children, and who was appointed Gresham Professor of Law in the summer of 2016, asked the important question: is the Act still fit for purpose?

The question was asked at a lecture given by Professor Delahunty for Gresham College on the 31st of January. You can watch a recording of the lecture here, and if you have an interest in the subject then I strongly recommend that you do (a more detailed PDF transcript is also available). I won’t give the game away by telling you the Professor’s answer to the question, but I will say that the journey she takes us on is both enlightening (including going into a lot more detail about the provisions of the Act, and the rationale behind them) and thought-provoking.

Of course, the Act does not stand alone, as Professor Delahunty makes clear. In particular, there is the issue of the destruction of legal aid for private law cases, which has changed things so dramatically in recent years. No matter how good the legislation may be, if parents do not have access to proper legal advice (and, if necessary, representation), then the law is never likely to operate optimally and, for some parents who decide it is too much for them to go to court without a lawyer, it may not even operate at all.

The post The thirtieth anniversary of the Children Act appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Court of Appeal confirms that third party cannot be ordered to pay lump sum

It’s not an unusual scenario: a party to financial remedy proceedings does not have the means to pay a lump sum to the other party, but has the ‘benefit’ of funds belonging to a third party. In such circumstances, it can obviously be tempting to seek an order that the third party pay the lump sum. However, as we shall see, this is simply not possible, as the court has no power to order lump sum payments against third parties.

The situation arose in the recent case Wodehouse v Wodehouse. The facts of the case, very briefly, were that the parties were married in 1992, the marriage came to an end in 2011, and the parties were divorced in 2015.

When the financial remedies claim went before the Deputy District Judge the parties were, to use the words of Lady Justice King, “in a parlous state financially.” The wife had had two hip replacement operations and was unable to carry on her previous employment, and the husband had just been made bankrupt (for the second time) and was also unable to work. There were no assets of any significant value save for the husband’s police pension, and the wife was responsible for a £97,000 debt, being the negative equity on the former matrimonial home when it was repossessed by the mortgagee (the husband was not liable for his share of the mortgage shortfall because of his bankruptcy).

The husband, however, was a beneficiary under the terms of two family Trusts (he is one of four sons of the late John Wodehouse, the 4th Earl of Kimberley). Without going into the details (OK, simplifying things quite considerably!), the Deputy District Judge ordered the husband to pay to the wife a lump sum of £138,500, essentially representing debts that the husband had accrued during the marriage, in default of which he ordered that one of the Trusts should pay the lump sum (or the balance of it), from the husband’s interest in the Trust. The husband appealed against this order (it is not clear whether the Trust also appealed, but it was not represented before the Court of Appeal).

The Deputy District Judge also made a pension sharing order, dividing the husband’s pension equally between the husband and the wife (the husband also appealed against this order, but his appeal was dismissed).

The matter ended up in the Court of Appeal. However, the wife’s representative conceded that the lump sum order could not stand, as the court did not have jurisdiction to make such an order against a third party. The lump sum order was therefore discharged.

Which still left the wife with the £97,000 debt. She could have sought a rehearing, but she indicated that she could not face the prospect of further litigation. Accordingly, that was the end of the matter.

Giving a judgment concurring with the leading judgment of Lady Justice King, the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane made a noteworthy point:

“Unfortunately, for the reasons that my Lady has so clearly explained, this case did not receive an adjudication which met with the requirements of the law relating to financial relief. In short terms, the Deputy District Judge made an order which was simply not open for the court to make. I hope that this decision is evidence of the value of creating a Financial Remedies Court – which is currently being piloted – so that only judges who are recognised for their knowledge of, and experience in, financial remedies cases following divorce will, in the future, sit on cases of this type.”

This may not seem entirely fair to the Deputy District Judge (after all, what judge never makes a mistake?), but the President does have a point. It is, of course, one of the primary aims of the new Financial Remedies Courts that they be manned by specialist judges, rather than the present position whereby financial remedy claims may be deal with by judges who have never practised family law. Hopefully, therefore, the incidence of judicial error will be considerably reduced, once the new courts go country-wide.

You can read the full report of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Wodehouse here.

The post Court of Appeal confirms that third party cannot be ordered to pay lump sum appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Kitty Genovese Syndrome

Kitty Genovese

The problem of the guilty bystander

On March 13, 1964, a New York City woman named Catherine “Kitty” Genovese was raped and stabbed to death as she returned home from work late at night. According to a newspaper report published shortly thereafter, 38 people had witnessed some or all of the attack, which took place in two or three distinct episodes over a period of about a half hour—and yet no one did anything to stop it; no one even reported it to the police until the woman was already dead. Although the murder itself was horrific, the nation was even more outraged that so many people who could have helped seemingly displayed callous indifference. And so the failure of bystanders to intervene became known as “Kitty Genovese Syndrome”—or, sometimes, just “Genovese Syndrome” or “Genovese Effect.” Social psychologists sometimes call it the “bystander effect.”

Later analysis of the Genovese case would show that the media misrepresented the facts somewhat. It’s not as though 38 people stood calmly watching a brutal murder in broad daylight and simply went on about their business. This attack happened in the middle of the night when it was dark, most people were in bed, and no one had a clear view of the entire event. Some of the witnesses, for example, had merely heard yelling and thought it might have been nothing more than an argument. At least one person apparently did call the police immediately, but without realizing that the woman had actually been stabbed—so the police didn’t respond with any urgency. And perhaps, even if an ambulance had arrived five minutes after the initial attack, Kitty Genovese would still have died. Finally, there’s evidence to suggest that someone fabricated the number 38 and that the actual number of people who might have seen or heard part of the crime was somewhere between two and seven. So it’s plausible, at least, that this particular case was not an example of apathetic bystanders—and that Kitty Genovese Syndrome is a bit of a misnomer.

But it hardly matters what you call it or whether this single tragedy could have been mitigated. The bystander effect, by whatever name, is a very real and common occurrence.

The Victim and the Bystander

I’ve experienced it myself—both as a victim and as a bystander. In the late 1990s on my first trip to Costa Rica, I was walking alone in downtown San Jose. It was still light out, and I was in an area with plenty of pedestrian traffic. As I turned a corner, I noticed a group of young men gathered around an older man who was lying on the sidewalk. My first impression is that the old man was ill or injured and they were trying to help him. As I got closer, I saw that they were actually going through his pockets. My instincts said I should try to help the man, not run, so I kept walking toward them. But the next thing I knew, the young men jumped me. One squeezed his arm around my throat, making it impossible to breathe or call for help. The rest of them took my watch, wallet, passport, and anything else of value they could find. I felt pretty sure at the time that I was going to die. But then they threw me down in the gutter and ran away. When I finally staggered to my feet, dazed and bruised, I looked around and saw lots of people walking down the street—maybe glancing curiously at me, but otherwise seemingly indifferent. The muggers clearly had known they could count on the public not to get involved.

I managed to convince a couple of people to help me, and they pointed out some police standing about a block away. The police searched the area and found my passport, hotel key, and a couple of other items (though not, of course, my money). Then they drove me back to my hotel. I was extremely shaken up, and had to make several phone calls—to Morgen (my girlfriend at the time), to my mom, and to the bank to cancel my stolen credit cards. My room didn’t have a phone, so I called from the lobby. While I was on the phone, the desk clerk called out to me for help. “That woman just stole my leather jacket and ran out!” she said. So I put down the phone, ran out of the hotel and down the street, confronted the thief, and retrieved the stolen jacket. In retrospect, I can hardly believe I did that. Even having been through what I’d just experienced, I am not normally one to get involved. I think the reason I did was that the clerk asked me personally and specifically for help.

The Pot and the Kettle

In the years since, I’ve encountered a few other situations in which I might have been able to help someone in trouble, but didn’t. When I see or hear something happening—or possibly happening—I feel confused, afraid, frustrated. Maybe I don’t understand what’s really going on. Maybe the person isn’t in danger at all. Can I do anything about it if they are? What about my own safety? Surely one of these other bystanders is better qualified to help. Surely someone else has called the police. And then, having stood there doing nothing while everyone else was thinking the same thing, I feel tremendous guilt. By my inaction, I’ve just experienced the Kitty Genovese Syndrome.

As I’d discovered in that San Jose hotel lobby—and earlier, just after I was mugged—crowds of people are much less likely to intervene than individuals, especially if those individuals are asked directly for help. This is the crux of Kitty Genovese Syndrome: a kind of mutual buck-passing that occurs within a group when no one emerges automatically as the “right” person to help. Everyone assumes that someone else will be the one to help. Although fear for one’s safety often plays a part, that fear shouldn’t prevent someone from, say, making a phone call. No one, of course, wants the inconvenience of being dragged into someone else’s problem. But I think nearly all of us would be willing to endure some inconvenience to save a person’s life. What makes Kitty Genovese Syndrome so insidious is that the apparent strength in numbers is actually a weakness that discourages any individual from taking on personal responsibility to intervene.

International Bystanders

When I saw the film Hotel Rwanda, I left the theater very upset. The genocide in the early 1990s that left 800,000 Rwandans dead occurred with very little intervention from either those within Rwanda or the international community—a profound example, as several commentators have pointed out, of Kitty Genovese Syndrome. I simply couldn’t fathom that anyone could know what was going on and do nothing. And yet, paradoxically, I can imagine no other response—with so many other people in the world, surely this must be someone else’s problem. Someone wiser, more powerful, or closer to the situation. What could I have done anyway? I have my own problems. But then, so does everyone else.

There’s no cure for this problem. Even knowing about this effect as I do, chances are, I’ll someday be an unhelpful bystander once again. But just maybe I’ll have the presence of mind to realize that the person best qualified to help is the one willing to take action in the face of confusion and doubt.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on March 29, 2005.


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell