Dr Bob's Blog

Muriel Newman’s article in the Timaru Herald on Tuesday 29 January 2008 deals with the distressing problem of child abuse. To make her point she focuses on the case of Cheyenne Petersen’s death at the hands of her mother Natasha. Natasha abandoned her child in the bush and the child apparently drowned in a small stream after falling while wandering aimlessly around in the bush. Natasha was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for manslaughter.

This attempt to explain this incident and many other cases of child abuse, and the conclusions drawn by Muriel Newman from her explanation are astounding. I can hardly believe that someone who has been an MP could have such a shallow and misguided understanding of the issues involved.

She makes the assertion that the radical feminists were allowed to take control of social policy with the objective of empowering women and marginalizing men. She then goes on to argue that the introduction of the DPB which replaced aspects of the Destitute Persons Act undermined traditional marriage that then created the conditions for child abuse to flourish. Chaotic households where drugs, alcohol and violence became common place and children were not regarded as the number one priority were the conditions that accompanied child abuse.

 

What I find objectionable is Muriel Newman’s argument that the introduction of the DPB has been the cause of the social disorder and chaos. In case she doesn’t understand these issues I’ll offer an alternative explanation that I think might help us understand the issues better, and also provides the basis for some policies that might, just might, make a difference.

It seems implicit in what Muriel Newman says that with the introduction of the DPB New Zealand has somehow descended from an idyllic state to one of social disorder and chaos.  I do concede that the scale of the problem is now much greater than it was until a few years ago

Why has the level of social disruption ballooned out in the last twenty years or so?

New Zealand society underwent major changes following the second world war after 1945. Wages increased dramatically and the standard of living rose so that by about the mid 1950’s New Zealand became a consumer society. This altered relationships between the established and emerging generations. Rising affluence and an easing in inter-generational relationships led to a much more fluid society and to four income tiers and four different life styles.

The first tier were the respectable working class battlers, the second tier were the group in the middle and third tier were those who could engage in a more lavish lifestyle and they set the social and cultural tone for the rest of society. I’ll talk about the fourth group shortly.

Accompanying these changes was a major urbanization process that increased the level of anonymity, which fractured many of the informal networks that were formally able to regulate social relations in the period prior to the second world war. These informal networks were extremely powerful, and they managed to keep New Zealand society more or less stable during the privations of the depression of the 1930’s.

The difference between the 1920’s and the 1930’s and now is that today we have a much more fluid society where the informal means of social control cannot enforce a moral order on a burgeoning social underclass. This is the fourth tier I referred to earlier.

Much of the child abuse that occurs is drawn from the social underclass but not entirely. The social underclass is excluded from the mainstream of the workforce but they have the values of conspicuous consumption without the means. Life in the social underclass is nasty, mean and brutish.

Let’s try and reconstruct the life experience in the underclass of someone like Natasha Petersen. Natasha was obviously very disturbed emotionally. Her drug habit suggests this. Drug taking probably dimmed and masked an inner hell that she was living and limited her capacity to take responsibility for herself and her child. If she considered the realm of work she would have recognised that this was a world that was closed to her. I have no knowledge of her work history but someone with a serious drug habit would find it hard to seek work, and employers would be reluctant to hire someone like Natasha.

I also have no knowledge of Natasha’s level of awareness, but it seems reasonable to describe her as someone at the impulsive/egocentric stage of development. This is a comparatively early level of development, but it is a stage that is common among people in the social underclass. People at this stage of development are unable to operate within the norms of the wider society. They act impulsively and don’t have the capacity to think things through. Unless they can grow as a person and accept the dominant values of our society they will continue to present a major challenge to social agencies and their own well being.

It is likely that social circle in which Natasha moved shared her way of life. If this is the case then it is likely that widespread drug taking took place. Its is likely that as with Natasha her associates were also impulsive by nature, and acting in an irresponsible way. Within this circle there would be no restraining moral influences. It’s likely however, that feelings of guilt and remorse would arise and further drug use would be sought to ease the pain and burden of living. It’s not hard to imagine what led to Natasha abandoning her child in the way she did. Please don’t think I am excusing Natasha and people like her. I am trying to understand why they act in the way they do, so that some sensible policies might be introduced.

From this analysis we can see that broad social changes have created the space for the emergence of a social underclass. The presence of a social underclass is not peculiar to New Zealand, but is a feature of all modern industrial societies. I’ll suggest some ways that someone like Natasha might be helped and in later articles I’ll consider some ways that we might set up social programmes addressing these issues on a much broader scale.

What is needed at the individual level to help someone like Natasha? First, Natasha probably needs some form of medication to ease the burden of her mental state. Her inner life is probably a hell on earth. She also probably needs some help to obtain the skills needed to find decent work in the workforce. She needs the opportunity to advance her level of awareness so that she can recognise that living by the values and norms of mainstream society actually pays off. This involves a major leap for her and if she is to make this leap she will need a great deal of support and help. Above all else she needs help to relocate her life among people who can act as role models around which she can build a new sense of self and identity. This is critical if she is to accept and live the values of mainstream society.

There are no doubt good programmes providing help, but I know of none that provides the broad integrated approach such as I am suggesting. Setting up programmes that have this integrated approach will not come cheaply. On the other hand the cost of dealing with the fall out from the social underclass is likely to be extremely high.