We find it normal to raise our children in a small cell made out of mom, dad, and the kid sister. Sadly, this goes against the dictates of our species. We are social and intelligent animals. We need in our formative years the influence of many other adults besides our parents.

We often hear that it takes a village to raise a child. However, most of us do not have a clue as to what that means.

The first humans lived in clans (a small group of people), this was followed by tribes (a larger group of people), and finally in agricultural settlements (villages). Under these arrangements, children were a shared responsibility. To put in different terms, they were exposed to many views and, therefore, viewed the world very differently than modern children.

In many parts of the world, children are raised by a group of people (I will refer to it as the clan upbringing). Unfortunately, because these parts of the world are beset by many problems, the benefits brought on by the clan upbringing are obscured. I will, however, later on, talk of how I have benefited from the clan upbringing.

How are children, and later adults, affected by being raised by their parents only?

It opens the way for intense relationships. We expect our parents to provide us with everything we need, be it physical, emotional, or mental. That’s impossible! They are just two human beings laboring under many constraints (personal, work-related, financial, etc.). They do their best, but they are destined to fail as parents! They will do well in some areas, be average in others, and generally perform poorly in most areas. (Abuse, which is inexcusable under any circumstances, is not addressed here.) Remember, they are trying to do the most difficult job we will ever be called upon to do: raise children from infancy to adulthood all by themselves.

We have in our society many individuals who need therapy. This can range from counselling to resolve a particular issue, to psychiatric sessions which can last for many years. I am all for providing this kind of help when it is needed. Where I take issue, is the fact that parents are often discussed and their relationship with the patient dissected. Don’t misunderstand me, I am neither blaming the therapist nor the patient. What I am trying to do is go back to my starting point and raise the following questions: Is the fact that parents today are raising their children in a way that is incompatible with the needs of our species ever discussed? Is the field of psychology even aware of the problem?

Intense relationships, and the accompanying problems, do not develop between parents and children only, but they start there. Let me provide two more examples.

We expect our spouses to provide everything for us. Not unlike what we expected from our parents. We therefore, sooner or later, are going to hit a brick wall. We can recover and face reality, and in this case our marriage will recover and may be even stronger; or abandon ship and have, what is politely referred to in our society, a failed marriage. The high percentage of failed marriages and its ramification is probably the biggest social problem we have in our society right now.

Relationships with our friends can be intense; this is especially true for teen relationships. Friendship should never be intense, rather, it should be more diffuse. For example, an adolescent with a problem should not accept the opinion of her best friend only. She should get a second and third opinion, preferably from adults rather than other teens. We all have a horror story to tell; something that happened to a niece, a grandson, or even our own children. It can range from substance abuse, an unwanted pregnancy, and on to criminal activities.

Identifying a problem is one thing, suggesting solutions is another matter. I will discuss one solution to address the above issue. However, before doing so, I will describe my own experience with the clan upbringing.

I was born, and spent the first 20 years of my life, in Cairo, Egypt. My family was originally from Italy. I am myself a third generation Italian born in Egypt. While French is my mother tongue, I spoke both French and Arabic fluently. For the “true” Egyptians, we were considered as Afrang (foreigners). Foreigners or not, we benefited from the special atmosphere that existed in this wonderful country without suffering from the poverty that plagued most of the Egyptian people.

I had the misfortune to come into the world when people believed that holding a crying baby would spoil him. Actually, in our household, my mother was the only person that subscribed to that erroneous theory. The household in question included my father, my maternal grandmother, an aunt, and the maid. I was told that when my mother left, I was grabbed and cuddled by the other members. Even when my mother was home, her objections were often ignored. Oh, I left out the neighbors who came unannounced and without further ado grabbed me and consoled me. There my mother was helpless. It would have been rude to tell them anything.

We know today how critical it is to hold and cuddle a baby at every opportunity. This is the time when the brain forms critical connections. Therefore, thanks to the other members of the clan, the damage was limited.

The aforementioned grandmother lived with my parents in the winter; in the summer, she went back to her son in Alexandria. When I was 3 years old, my parents decided to try an experiment. They sent me to Alexandria with my grandmother to escape the implacable heat of Cairo. It was agreed that somebody would bring me back if I missed my parents. That never happened! I stayed in Alexandria for 3 months and got exposed to a brand new clan: aunts, uncles, cousins, neighbors, and many other people. And it was no different than Cairo. Everybody had his say as to how to deal with my mischiefs. (Apparently, I was a real hellion!)

Do not assume for a moment that I didn’t love my parents, I loved them (and still cherish their memories for they are both departed now) dearly. I also knew exactly who my parents were; there were never confused with other members of the clan.

After the war, we moved into an apartment building that had 10 units. In other words, 9 other families to be added to the clan. There was very little turnover. Therefore, I had many years to know these people and interact with them. I can say that not only did I learn a lot from them, I actually took something from their varied personalities that is still part of who I am today.

Merchants in our area were also part of the equation. I still remember being berated by the grocery store owner on our street. What was my sin? I didn’t haggle over the prices! In Egypt, you’re expected to negotiate until you’re sure you got the best price. The fact that I was only 9 was not a valid excuse. You’re never too young to learn.

Modern parents monitor their children’s activities by arming them with cell phones at a young age. They are expected to report regularly on their activities or privileges can be suspended. Parents may use GPS to keep track of their teens when they borrow the family car. The clan solution was low tech: other human beings. If I was tempted to break the rules, I had to be mindful of the fact that a person who knew my parents (or an uncle, cousin, neighbor, etc.) could see me and report the misdemeanor to them. I would then be lectured not only by them, but by other family members, neighbors, the maid, etc. Believe me, it was far simpler to walk on the straight and narrow than to hear all the time: “Don’t you know how much your parents are doing for you? Do you want to break their hearts?”

How did the clan upbringing impact on my life as an adult?

My life has not been easy. I suppose you can pick at random any adult on the planet and quickly be apprised of the fact that his or her life has not been easy. Therefore, I am not singling myself out. These were my circumstances.

I left Egypt when I was 20 and went to Italy. I had to adapt to a new country and learn a new language. It didn’t work out in Italy and I immigrated to Israel. Again I had to adapt to a new country and learn a new language. After a number of years in Israel, I immigrated to Canada. I had to adapt to a new country but mercifully this time I didn’t have to learn a new language. I already knew French and English.

Canada in many ways proved to be a wonderful country for me. I married, had two wonderful children, completed my education, and secured a good government job. But there was a black cloud which hovered over our (my family and myself) heads for many years.

In 1976, my wife fell into a deep depression. On and off, she suffered from this terrible illness through the ’70s, the ’80s, and part of the ’90s. In 1979, it was my turn to have a nervous breakdown. Thereafter, depression plagued me for some 14 years. Under those difficult conditions, I had to hold a demanding job, look after my sick wife, and care for my two children. I went to hell and back. And if all of this wasn’t bad enough, my marriage broke down in 1992. In 1993, I fell into a deep depression and was hospitalized. I was put on one of the new (SSRI) antidepressant. It did wonders for me and I have been well ever since.

When I came out of the hospital, the doctors insisted that I start therapy. However, I felt so well, I didn’t see the need for it. I consulted with my wife and my doctor and they both agreed that if I didn’t need it, I shouldn’t have it.

Presently, I am a happy and secure individual. I am deeply spiritual and love my Creator with all my might. Today, I look back at my life, and what a colorful tapestry it is. So many countries, so many languages, so much knowledge, and above all, so many people. I can honestly say that any person who crossed my path enriched my life in some ways.

The clan upbringing has been good to me. But how do we extend it to the Western world?

In some kibbutzim* the children live in a Children’s House (Bet Hayeladim) rather than with their own families. They are organized into social units of 5 or 6 children of the same age under the supervision of a caregiver (Metapelet). Each unit has its own bedroom, bathroom, dining room, playroom, and yard.

In the case of infants, mothers spend time with them and the metapelet in the Infant’s House (Bet Hatinokim). However, after the first year, they usually see their parents and siblings only for two hours in the late afternoon. These visits with the parents are purely social. The metapelet care for the children on the physical, emotional and developmental levels.

* I understand that the above system is becoming less and less prevalent in kibbutzim across Israel. No matter. I am interested in the idea itself rather than the extent to which it is still being used.

The effect of the kibbutz way of child rearing have been studied in Israel by comparing the development of kibbutz children with children raised in traditional families. These studies show no differences in mental development or mental health, but there are some differences in the qualities of the children’s relationships with families and friends. Kibbutz children do form strong and positive relationships with their families and friends, just as children in traditional families do, but their feelings – both positive and negative – in the relationships are more moderate and not so focused on single individuals. They diffuse their affection across a large number of people, and their relations with any of them are less intense.

Can we duplicate the kibbutz experience first on a small scale, and later on, on a large scale? We can have full-time child care centers where small children (from 0 to 6) live full-time and where caregivers provide for their physical, emotional, and developmental needs. The parents can visit their children, take them out, have them for the weekend and on weekdays. The choice is theirs. In other words the kibbutz system is emulated but the approach is changed as the circumstances warrant.

Without a doubt there will be many objections to what I am proposing. Such a system is not for everybody. Parents should be able to choose between a full-time child care center or a traditional day care center.

One of the major drawbacks of full-time care centers is that they will prove costly. Another one is the need to espouse a completely different philosophy in the way we raise our children.

Is this generation ready for such a major change? Only time will tell.

Source: Clarke-Stewart, Alison. Daycare. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Imagine being able to send your kid away for 3 months and get a chance to renew your romance. Imagine being helped by many people to carry out your duties as parents. Imagine not being blamed for everything that went wrong in the life of your children. Gratitude is in short supply in North America and, in many cases, a blaming game takes place. This is sad and it needs to be changed if we are ever going to have a sane and balanced society.

I would not want to leave my readers under the mistaken impression that the clan can always compensate for very poor parenting, or outright abuse. From my experience it can’t. There were toxic parents in Egypt just as there are toxic parents here in North America.

I have had opportunities to compare notes – regarding our respective childhood – with other Canadians of my generation. I also discussed it with my wife who was born and grew up in the U.S. The point was made by these people that their childhood was in many ways similar to mine. After listening to them, I conclude that it was not. The clan upbringing as it existed in Egypt, did not exist in North America. Yes, the society of the ’40s and ’50s was more caring. However, a real sharing of the responsibility of raising the next generation did not exist.

When discussing the children of the kibbutz, I had to leave out a lot of details. My book provides more details, but still come out short regarding the numerous aspects of my proposal. Much more research and thinking is required before we can determine if this is a viable proposition. A book, or indeed books, can be written by suitable experts.

But why am I calling this normal process a miracle?

First of all, we are all very different from each other. Not so long ago, I was watching a television program on identical twins. The point was repeatedly made that identical twins are different from each other. Twins or not, the fact is, we rarely agree with each other; even when we do, there is never complete agreement. Try this experiment when you’re with a group of friends. Bring up a contentious topic for discussion, then listen to the different views. You’ll be amazed at the different opinions you’ll hear. I think it is safe to say that there are no two people on the face of the earth who think exactly alike.

Second, we need to remember that in order to exercise the free choice granted to us by the Creator, and ultimately be accountable to Him, we need to have our own personality, a personality unlike any other. It follows from this that we all walk alone in life. There is only so much we can share with another human being. A few years ago, my wife lost her father. My first instinct was to do my best to console her, and of course I did just that. I also wanted to share in her grief; it is then that I realized that you can never really share anybody’s grief. My wife walked alone down that road. I could not walk by her side. As a unique personality, she came equipped with the power to choose. And that power meant that she alone could make the choices which would ultimately allow her to come to terms with her loss.

Finally, we need to remember that humans are intelligent animals. Intelligent animals are calculating animals. They deceive, lie, cheat, are greedy, and by and large try to better themselves at the expense of other humans. It is not always a pretty picture, but it is part of our human make-up.

If we are so different from each other, and if each one of us pursues his/her own interest, then how do we manage to live together? There is obviously no simple answers. There are many considerations here. Let’s look at three of them:

1. The need to unite

   The members of a family need to work together in order to meet their needs. Even something as simple as preparing supper requires, if both mom and dad work, that everybody pitches in. If they don’t, well, supper will be delayed. If one or more members continually shirks his/her responsibilities, this will create dissension in the family.

   This is also true for nations. Israel is comprised of people who came from the four corners of the world. No party had ever had a majority in parliament. There has never been the necessary agreement to adopt a constitution, a flag, and a national anthem (the existing flag and national anthem are unofficial). Yet, if there is the least danger, the people unite and work together like a well-oiled machine. They have to, for the survival of the nation is often at stake.

2. Distribution of skills

   Skills are distributed throughout our society. You need, at one time or another, so many other people. It could be an electrician because there is a problem with the electric circuit. It could be your banker because you need to increase your line of credit. Then again, you may need urgent surgery. In this case, the whole machinery of an amazing institution, a hospital, will work together to get you better.

3. Social species

   Humans are born with an intrinsic need to interact with other people. A 4-year-old instinctively look for children of her own age to play with. Mom, dad, and the older sister are no longer enough. She needs to widen her circle.

We also need to share our thoughts and feelings with our family and friends. This is not a concrete need like asking mom for an advance on your next allowance, or a paying chore, for you urgently need the money. It’s more subtle than that. Let me give you an example.

Kira is 17. She has a 15-year-old brother, Simon. She also has a 16-year-old friend, Nadia. Simon sees Nadia and goes nuts! He asks her for a date, but she gently turns him down; he is too young for her. Simon goes to his sister and asks her to plead his case. She succeeds in getting Nadia to go out with Simon. After their first date, Simon is bursting at the seams. He can’t wait to tell his sister that Nadia is the most amazing girl he has ever met. Now compare and contrast the two needs. First Kira sweet-talked her friend into going out with her brother. A service was rendered. Next, Simon needed to share his feelings with a person that knew Nadia. No service was rendered. Both, nevertheless, are human needs. And Kira has met both needs.

The last question left is how can we improve our interactions with other people? This will differ according to the circumstances of each one of us. Therefore, each individual armed with the insights provided in this writing, should answer this question. I can, however, provide some examples:

1. In your family and at work, do your own share. Don’t sit back and expect other people to do your work.
2. Select the appropriate person for the job. Don’t ask a colleague at work who has no organizational ability, and no interest in sports, to organize a softball team!
3. Respect the wishes of other people. What you love, another person abhors. Therefore, stop insisting that your girlfriend joins you for a weekend in Las Vegas. She hates gambling.
4. Praise, praise, and praise some more. Forget about the fact that people get paid for their work. Individuals providing their services are helping you out. Show your appreciation at all times.

These are some examples. There are obviously many more. Ultimately, good human relations makes for a happy and balanced society.

The time came when they became adolescents; my wife and I fell from our pedestal with a thud!  To their credit, there wasn’t much blame during those years.  We remained a loving and tight-knit family.  They would freely talk with us about their friends.  From them I learned that other teens could be a handful.  Thanks to them I discarded the idyllic picture of my own teen years, back in Egypt, back in the 1950s.  This was a different time and a very different place.  Most important I learned from them that a blaming game took place in numerous other families.  “I am not accepted by my friends because you’re not buying me the proper clothing.”  “My boyfriend broke up with me because you didn’t make him feel welcome when he came to visit.”  Never mind that the boyfriend in question looked like an escaped convict!

Now to a basic question:  Are we wired for blame, is it learned behavior, or is it both?  I believe it is both.  My arguments follow.

With many unfortunate exceptions, our childhood is the best time of our lives.  Two adults, our parents, are in charge.  They take care of everything.  They earn a living; pay the bills; plan and prepare the meals; and best of all, at a young age, entertain us, play with us, and simply love us.  When was the last time you saw a 7-year-old shopping for a better mortgage, or planning a vacation?!

For the rest of our lives we will seek that sheltered environment.  But, alas, it is gone for good.  Nevertheless, we continue to assume that other parties are responsible for our welfare.  We are right to a certain extent.  For example, when a dangerous disease (example the birdflu) affect other nations, we expect our government to plan properly in case it reaches our shores.  If we are in a crisis, we expect our parents, siblings, and friends to help out.  Any of these parties can be blamed if they do not deliver.  These are cases when blame is a healthy reaction provided we learn to blame and move on.
 
The above is the nurture part of the equation.  What about the nature part?  A child is completely pliant and is willing to accept authority.  This is absolutely necessary, for the parents can be goat-herders on the plains of Africa, or two Cambridge professors.  No matter, the child will adapt, but the parents have an important role to play.  In the first instance, the child should be taught what to do if attacked by a dangerous animal.  He should also be provided with the proper weapons and reliable dogs.  In the second instance, the child should be prepared for the complex intellectual world awaiting him.  Perhaps a more onerous task than the one the first parents have.

If the parents discharge their responsibilities properly, all is well.  If not, and if harm results, the child will blame his parents.  If the situation persists, he will gradually lose his trust in them and indeed in all adults.  Together with the power to adapt and accept authority, nature has equipped us with the power to react when expectations are not met.  We begin by blaming and in time we may realize we have placed our safety and welfare in the wrong hands.  We are no longer willing to accept authority blindly.  In other words, blame is a defense mechanism.  It should be triggered for a good reason.  Unfortunately, as I will discuss in my subsequent sections, it doesn’t work this way at all.

When a heinous crime is committed in a community, there is
an expectation that the perpetrator will be found quickly and
made to pay for his crime.  But the police rarely arrives at the
scene of a crime and find a person with a smoking gun standing
over a body.  It takes time to solve a crime.  The prosecutor
needs solid evidence before she can go to trial.  Sometimes a
crime is never solved.  But people need justice done, or put in a
more candid way they need to blame.  Under these conditions, the
system (police, prosecutors, and legislators) looks for a
shortcut.  I am aware of two ways to do so.

If a disturbing crime is committed by a minor, i.e. a child,
by common agreement, we can decide to play a game of pretend.  We
can pretend he is an adult and punish him accordingly.  What that
means is that he will be tried as an adult, receive a long
sentence, and perhaps be jailed with adult criminals.

Neurobiologists tell us that in adolescence, the brain is
still developing.  Many connections are still being made in the
brain.  It’s a carryover from childhood, but the work is going on
in a big way.  Remember the body is exploding and that includes
the brain.  One is tempted to write on the forehead of every
adolescent:  “Brain Under Construction!”  An adolescent doesn’t
think like an adult, he is still a child.  However, when the
process is completed, he will have a fully developed cerebral
cortex with the proper controls, the ability to exercise sound
judgment, and the capacity to evaluate the consequences of his
actions.We understand all that of course, but sometimes we look the
other way.  Perhaps the system have no choice.  The lynching mob
is out there.  Ignoring it may impact our career or cost us the
next election.  So what do we do?  We jail a child!  We
substitute one crime for another and in the process satisfy our
appetite for blame.

This in an advanced society!  This in the 21st century!

The other shortcut involve an adult suspect.  Again we are
faced with a revolting act.  People are aghast.  How can anybody
commit such a crime?  Payment has to be exacted.  Blame should be
allocated.  The players involved have to, by hook or crook, find
the perpetrator.  But they cannot.  There is a silent question
out there.  Does it have to be a perfect fit?  Perhaps a neighbor
has committed the crime.  More commonly it’s a person that has a
criminal record; it could be for petty crimes committed a long
time ago.  No matter, a case can be made; it need not be a
perfect fit!

I want to provide you with an actual example.  My problem
is that, sadly, I have many cases to choose from.  Ultimately, I
picked the case of Guy Paul Morin since it profoundly disturbs my
sense of justice.

On October 3, 1984, in Queensville Ontario, the parents of
9-year-old, Christine Jessop, arrived home and found the backpack
of their daughter on the kitchen counter.  The mail and flyers
had been brought into the house; in other words, Christine had
arrived home safely, however, there was no sign of her. 

A search was undertaken, but Christine was never found.
Christine’s body was eventually found on December 31, 1984.

The Morins were the next door neighbor.  Guy Paul Morin was
a suspect early in the investigation; this despite the fact that
there was never any solid evidence against him.  Essentially, it
was found that his behavior was suspicious.

Guy was 23 at the time.  He worked for a furniture
manufacturer, lived with his parents, and played the clarinet and
the saxophone.  He was generally happy and looked forward to a
bright future.  Alas, it was not to be.    

Guy was arrested and charged on April 22, 1985.  On January
7, 1986, he was acquitted.  The Crown appealed (there is no
double jeopardy rule in Canada), and on his retrial, on July 23,
1992, he was found guilty.

Throughout this whole process, Morin maintained his
innocence.  Indeed, many believed he was innocent.  Unlike others
convicted of murdering children after sexually abusing them,
during his incarceration, he was kept in the general prison
population without being a victim of violence.

Improvements in DNA testing led to a test in 1995 which
excluded Morin as the murderer.  A hell that has lasted for 11
years had finally come to an end.

A subsequent inquiry revealed that there was evidence of
police and prosecutorial misconduct, and of misrepresentation of
forensic evidence by the Ontario Centre of Forensic Sciences.

The matter becomes more involved when I bring blame into the
picture.  An individual can be held responsible, but may or may
not be blamed for her actions.  How so?  Let’s look at an
example.  Tamara (a fictitious person) starts a technology
company in 1996.  In 1998, she goes public and the price of her
shares is climbing steadily.  Investors do well until 2000 when
the technology sector goes down the drain.  As a result, the
company goes out of business and the investors lose substantial
amounts of money.  When the books of the company are audited, it
turns out that Tamara has always been honest in her business
dealings.  There was no revenue pulled out of nowhere.  This is a
case where Tamara can be held accountable (since she managed the
business) for the losses incurred but cannot be blamed.  She
could not control what happened and she never inflated her
revenue artificially to jack-up the shares’ price.

Compare and contrast the above fictional example with
existing companies who engaged in doubtful accounting practices,
and in the process ruined the lives of many of their employees
and shareholders.  Not only do we blame the managers who run
these companies, but we consider their actions criminal.  Indeed,
some of them are now in jail.

Often, it is not that simple to separate accountability from
blame.  They tend to go together.

Some 60 years ago, President Harry Truman took the most
difficult decision a president has taken before or since.  He
dropped the atom bomb on two cities in Japan.  President Truman
had a sign on his desk:  “The Buck Stops Here.”  In other words,
the final decision was his to make.  But he was certainly not
alone.  Rest assured that he consulted with his cabinet, members
of Congress, staff, military men, and above all the scientists
who developed this frightful weapon.  Japan was told what to
expect and was given a chance to sign a peace accord.  The offer
was reiterated before the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki; to
no avail.

Today the U.S. and Japan are good friends, and standing at a
distance of 60 years, we can ask our questions:  Was President
Truman accountable (responsible) for this horror?  Could he be
blamed?  I will say with absolute certainty that he was neither
accountable nor could he be blamed.  The war in the Pacific was
costing many lives, both American and Japanese.  The world was
exhausted after a long war; and the U.S. had a weapon that could
end the conflict.  It should have never come to that.  The
military in Japan should have understood that the game was up.
When they didn’t, the Americans had no other choice left.  The
decision was a common decision taken not by one man only, but
many other people both in the U.S. and Japan.

Only God can say:  “The Buck Stops Here.”  Humans can use it
if they wish.  But it is meaningless.  So many things are not
under their control.

In the early ’70s, the U.S. was rocked by the Watergate
scandal.  Put simply, President Richard Nixon and many members of
his staff has engineered a plot to ensure he will be reelected
for a second term.  For some 3 years, government, Congress, the
media, and the judiciary were busy sorting out this sordid
affair.  When the President resigned and was replaced by
President Ford, it was time to take a tally.  Many brilliant
people around Nixon were jailed.  The business of government came
to a standstill.  President Nixon was pardoned by President Ford,
probably more out of respect for the institution of the
presidency than for the man himself.  For many years thereafter,
the stench of the scandal pervaded Washington.

President Nixon earned the nickname of “Tricky Dick.”  For
example, he used to say that he was serving the silent majority.
He was serving the majority of Americans who went about their
business quietly.  Any protest therefore was the work of
hooligans, not hard-working people.  How convenient!  Since they
were silent, Nixon’s administration could make them say what they
want.  Since they were silent, we don’t know their numbers and
they can be misrepresented as the majority.  Put another way, he
equated the American people to puppets.  What they say or do is
under the control of the puppeteer.  But it didn’t work this way
at all, the American people caught up with him and his career
ended up in disgrace.

I think we have an easy verdict here.  Nixon was accountable
because it was proved that from the beginning he knew what was
going on.  He was to blame for the pain he has caused,
specifically to the people around him, and in general to the
American people.

That’s when it gets really ugly.  I have met some (mercifully, not many) of these predators in the course of my working life.  At least one of them was downright incompetent and could not discharge his present duties, let alone occupy a higher position.  But he did reach his goal!  How does such a person do it?  He uses what I call malicious ambition.  He creates dissension between superiors, subordinates, and everybody  in between.  He uses blame very intelligently blaming other
people for his own errors.  The blame does not stop there; when
the opportunity presents itself, he plays one colleague against
the other.  He tells Peter “you’re in this predicament because of
Paul.  However, Paul is getting better at what he is doing.  All
in all he is a good chap.”  It’s a bad cop, good cop tactic
except that he plays both roles.

There has always been people who have been endowed with this
low trait.  Not a gift from nature, but rather a curse.

Malicious ambition in our modern democracies is routinely
used.  A government in power will blame its predecessors for the
problems the nation is encountering.  But not to worry, we will
save the day.  Even better, if you elect us again, we will work
hard and our country will be the envy of the whole world.
Another scenario:  our province is in its present predicament
because the federal government is not giving us our fair share of
taxation.

You get the idea; one party blames the other, the province
blames the federal government, and the municipality blames the
federal and provincial governments.  It’s a blaming game.  The
game of politics.  It’s a form of malicious ambition that, while
not benign, is accepted until we find a better way to govern
ourselves.

 The Jones live on a quiet street.  Their 6-year-old boy, Jonah, often goes bicycling near the house.  The parents keep an eye on him and there have never been any incidents.  On that unfortunate day, a car goes down the street just as Jonah is turning a corner.  The parents hear the terrifying sound of a collision and the squeal of brakes.  Jonah is killed instantly. What happens in this case is fairly typical.  The parents will be devastated.  They will grieve for a long time; really forever for you never get over the death of a child.  Then a process that shouldn’t be part of human nature, but unfortunately is, begins. They begin blaming each other:  “Had we gone to visit my parents like we planned…”  “If you didn’t teach Jonah to be so daring, really reckless…”

None of them is really responsible for what happened. Nothing will ever bring their little boy back.  Blame, if it continues, will wreck their marriage.  Yet, this is the time to come together, not to split!

 Emily gets pregnant at 19.  Her boyfriend, Amos, is willing to assume responsibility.  He marries her a year after the baby is born.  A marriage at such a young age will not survive?  Not necessarily.  If they love each other, and if they get the necessary support from their parents, it can thrive.  There is a major advantage here.  They are so very young and are capable of doing things they will no longer be able to do even 10 years from now.  Never again will they have an inexhaustible store of energy like now.  Never again will passion bring them together so powerfully.  They have an edge over a couple that, say, married in their thirties.  So what can possibly break such a strong bond?  Blame.

 Amos:  “I was going to study to be a meteorologist.  Look at me now, I am spoonfeeding the little brat and changing his diapers.”

 Emily:  “When you got me pregnant, I was in my first year of college studying to be a chef.  I love cooking.  But for all of last year I cooked for a man who considers hamburger, pizza, and fried chicken as gourmet food.  What a waste of my talent.

” “I got you pregnant?  Wasn’t it…”

 ”It didn’t happen by itself you know, and…”

On and on the blame goes on.  Slowly but surely they are destroying their marriage.  It need not be this way.  Today, there is a lot of support in our society.  If they really want, they can conceivably complete their studies and achieve their dreams.  But first they have to be positive and work together. Blame can be defined in this case as two people working against each other.

 Destructive blame exists in society as a whole.  Divorce, the right to die, gay marriage, abortion, and countless other contentious issues pit one segment of society against the other. The media whips the crowd into a frenzy.  It spurs us into meddling into other people’s business.

 The media when I was growing up was a 10 to 15 pages newspaper that occasionally offered commentaries, some of them provocative.  Today it is the radio, television with 24-hours news channels, newspapers, and of course the internet.  Let’s not forget the call-in shows where every Joe and Jill offer their views.  Everybody is a pop psychologist; we all know what our politicians ought to do.

 In an advanced society, we don’t meddle into the business of a family who has to decide whether to pull the plug on a very sick relative.  We don’t tell a woman we don’t even know to keep her baby.  In an advanced society we …  Well, never mind.  We are not an advanced society.  We still enjoy meddling into other people business and blaming them for a situation we are not even acquainted with!