As both a teacher and someone interested in public affairs, I’m continually looking for ways in which the classroom can inform society at large. One idea central to my teaching philosophy—attunement– is particularly useful.
As I use the term, attunement simply means that much of what we learn, we don’t learn directly. Instead, subtle cues from those around us give us direction on how to think, feel and be. If you’ve ever noticed yourself mimicking the body language of a conversation partner, or caught the “vibe” of a room, you have an idea how powerful our attunement to each other can be.
Unfortunately, it seems that US law enforcement doesn’t take into account this very basic psychological principle. The recent spate of police shootings, and the police response to the subsequent protests, both demonstrate this point.
Regarding the latter, all over the country we see waves of police, dressed all in black, with helmets and riot shields, facing off against crowds of protestors. Think for a moment about the message such posturing carries. It is certainly not one of respect and dialogue. Instead, it signals to the protestors that the situation is volatile, dangerous, war-like. Facing off against these squads of anonymous Stormtroopers, it’s surprising that more Black Lives Matter protests haven’t turned violent. The police set the scene. And the scene they set is one of confrontation.
The everyday posturing of the police is equally troubling. Consider the amount of gear a cop hauls around: firearm, Taser, body armor, various gadgets. Police departments likely think that such a display “projects power” and helps “protect their officers.” I’d argue that this is completely wrong. When police dress like Robocop, it sets the stage for confrontation. Subconsciously, it tells members of the public that when they encounter a cop, they need to be ready to fight. This makes for bad decision making. Consider Phil Castillo reaching into his pocket while speaking of a gun….
I write this from China. In years spent here I’ve seen many, many interactions between Chinese police officers and the public. Compared to America, the difference couldn’t be more striking. Chinese beat cops are typically older men. They wear loose blue uniforms, not unlike US postal workers, and carry sticks instead of guns. In tense situations—confronting illegal street vendors, for example—they act utterly passive. They stand hands behind their backs, heads bowed, faces blank. If anything, they give off an air of being sleepy, even as the street vendor, say, yells and stomps about in anger. The end result is to diffuse tension, to “deescalate” in police jargon.
Of course, China and the US are very different places. The presence of guns in the latter does inevitably change the dynamic. My argument is though that through aggressive posturing, American cops increase their own level of risk. Through unconscious cues they make members of the public more likely to act in a violent manner. In short, no matter what they say, their very physical presence—the “militarization” so many have spoken of lately—directs the public how to be. And this way of being is one that no society should want to encourage.
MATTHEW OVERSTREET 