Photo by Denise Jans on Unsplash

Understanding Gun Culture: A Personal Perspective

Last night in a regular Zoom meeting I participate in each fortnight, I referred to an article in the ABC news that impacted me: ’24 hours, seven mass shootings’ in the US. I had read something earlier in the week how the right to carry guns is integral to the identity of many Americans. It seems odd from where I sit here in Australia and wanted to understand it better.

Childhood Experiences with Guns

I grew up on a farm where guns were kept in the house in an unlocked cupboard, this was the 1960’s. My dad had a double barrel shotgun that had been his father’s, a bolt action shotgun of his own, an ex-army 303, a 22 and his favourite, a wildcat .25-303. The latter was a version of the 303, modified to take a smaller bullet using a modified 303 cartridge. It producer higher muzzle velocity and a flatter trajectory for the bullet.

It was used to ‘control’ kangaroos on the wheat shoots after sewing, and for a time dad would go to the Pittsworth shooters club for competitive events. Two events resulted in that being short lived. Each Saturday the club met, shooters would retire to the pub for a few beers afterwards. Dad was a teetotaller. So the club didn’t offer the kind of male companionship he was looking for. It seemed strange to me at the time that he would go to the gun club in Pittsworth anyway, because it wasn’t part of the church community, it was an outlier. But he spend many nights with his reloading kit, putting new caps in used cartridges, filling them with powder then pressing in a new bullet. The whole business felt dangerous and scared me. I had a fear as a four or five year old that while getting changed for bed at night a shooter out the window in the dark had gun-sights trained on me. Going with dad to shoot kangaroos and to skin them for hides and butcher them for dog food unsettled me to the point of anxiety.

One day at gun club, the last time dad went, he was taking a shot when the cartridge failed at the cap end of the cartridge case. A jet of burning gasses ejected from the breach and into his eye. There was concern for his sight for some time. His vision eventually returned to normal, but his interest in gun club never did. The sheep skin padded jackets and coats that mum had painstakingly fashioned on her treadle Singer hung in the lowboy in the spare room for many years. Eventually they were given away or thrown out.

Comparing Gun Cultures: Australia and the USA

Attitudes to guns remained fairly lay back throughout Australia until 1996 and the shock of Port Arthur. My parents had taken a holiday to Tasmania and had visited Port Arthur the week before the massacre.

I read up on gun laws in Florida last week and was shocked at these particular provisions: ‘open carry’ is permitted in restricted circumstances, a ’stand your ground’ allows the use of deadly force in self-defence without a duty to retreat, ‘Castle Doctrine’ allows the use of deadly force to defend oneselves, your home, vehicle or other legally occupied space without a duty to retreat.

The image of John Wayne in the many frontier confrontations, the common fare of afternoon TV at the time, came immediately. The ‘hordes at the gate’ motif or ‘David and Goliath’ being repeated over and over.

A constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms is a cornerstone of identity for many Americans, and while the opportunity for gun control was embraced in Australia, the context was quite different for Americans.

Given that gun regulation would be near to impossible in the USA, I wondered how much the attitude to guns set the scene for mass shootings and could it be that there is some truth in the gun lobby who emphasise the shooter rather than the gun, a siege mentality writ large, defend or perish.

Which brought me back to Australian frontier wars. The fact that Europeans were rarely willing to negotiate with First Nations Australians. That for many, the ‘defend or perish’ doctrine still applies. Where after all has there been good faith negotiations on land ownership in Australia. The country was claimed for the crown from the outset. Where treaties were attempted, for example the Batman treaty in Victoria, it was rejected by the government. The officially sponsored and condoned massacres, and the ‘Protectorate’ system was clearly designed to protect European interests. Native Title is a legal instrument for European interests to access resources on Aboriginal lands. The defeat of the ‘Voice to Parliament’ referendum suggests that ‘hordes at the gate’ mentality is still a poison running in the veins of this country.

Reflections on the Art of Listening

During my writers group this month, someone made a comment about the art of listening; how in listening we could adopt the position of listening silently and only speaking in a way that supports the trajectory of the speaker, whether we agree or not. Naturally there is no obligation to say anything. When your turn to speak comes, you are afforded the same courtesy and support. The process takes longer but finds agreement through consensus rather than victory (or defeat) through conflict.

Challenges in International Negotiations

This morning I awoke at 4:30 with these things on my mind. So outraged by the laxity of US gun laws it occurred to me that I might have fallen prey to misinformation. I reached for my phone to check. I went recall that Australian gun law had been premised on the perspective of the invader. An attitude that is still prevalent within our society, and while I would cite Howard’s greatest achievement was gun control, his worst legacy was Tampa, an absolute lie that many Australians still cling to, which Baxter, Nauru and numerous other detentions centres attest to.

Regardless of its merits or otherwise, AUKUS nuclear submarines follows those same waggon ruts. Is the reason that we find so much difficulty in trusting international negotiations that we are frightened they might be too much like us collectively?

The beacon that shines through all of this is the earlier reference to the art and craft of listening. I caught myself recently, following a curious reflex. A friend on FB posted about the three types of awareness. My mind immediately went to ‘3’, why this number, surely there are more, why, I don’t know, just seems like it. As I read the post, I was double thinking numbers and descriptions. Is there a hierarchy in the types, are their subsections that should be promoted and are there categories that are omitted. A fight for hemispherical dominance ensued reducing the post to alphabet spaghetti until I recognised the futility of it all and called time. It was clear that the writer of the post recognised a trinity of types in the nature of awareness. It could be a vagary of the English language that these form a constellation anyway.

Consider how there are, some say, 50 Inuit words for snow. On deeper investigation we find that there are numerous Inuit languages not just one. But then there are many more, perhaps descriptions of snow. Defining an actual number will always be context specific.

Promoting Neurological States in Conversations: A Quest for Reciprocal Wisdom

To actually listen in the way described above, I will needs to have an kind of executive awareness of my thinking style in the moment, maybe in time it will become muscle memory and I will experience extended periods of peacefulness in my mind and body. Why body? Because conflicted thinking promoted the production of cortisol, if you’r going to have a fight you have to prepare for it whereas peacefulness is more likely to promote oxytocin, perhaps even dopamine.

Finally I’d like your thoughts or advice; if we are able to these desired neurological states in ourselves, it must be possible to conduct conversations in a way that promote those same states in others. Some people do it naturally, conversations that make us feel better, not only that, but promote a little high as well. How do they do that. And before we go to ‘love bombing’ and cult like behaviours that definitely happen under the ‘hordes at the gate’ warrior archetype, I’m thinking more reciprocal wisdom tradition. Any thoughts?

Tags: #PersonalEvolution, DecoloniseThinking

The Emptiness Within and Its Tremendous Potential

Over the last couple of days I’ve been listening to podcasts of Nora Bateson and Esther Perel And I’ve listened in relation to the questions I’ve been pondering personally and collectively to see what leans it can bring to bear on the emptiness that follows the referendum, because we cannot help asking the question, If not ‘Yes’ does that mean more of the same. If not here then where does the shift in Australian consciousness begin and if not out there in society does it mean that it must begin within? One of my favourite jokes comes to mind, ”What’s the difference between a jokn and a rhetorical question? … What’s the difference between a joke and a rhetorical question?…”

Ahh, there’s that empiness again.

Relationship Building: Beyond Policies and Politics

But within that empy space there’s an enormous buzzing of something trying to happen. The aftermath of the ‘No’ vote has left the ‘Yes’ campaigner and voters in collective trauma. A small part of us that had invested so much energy in generating new life, for some a large part, is in shock, arrested by shock. For some it will be to much and they will drift away and look for ways to survive the break identity visited upon them, others will come out of the shockened quickened, looking for th eplace to begin whatever comes next. What is felt most deeply by both is the need for self care and self development to go beyond and if possible live a larger life than the one before the referendum defeat. That self care and self development is about building and rebuilding relationationships. For the things we thought a “Yes” vote would instigate in fact do not happen by a government policy, or even a n article in the constitution, but by the quality of the relationship between those moved to vote “yes“ and those moved to vote “no”. We know that referendums in Australia only succeed if they have bipartisan support. In this context, we should see bipartisanship not so much as a temporary political alliance but as an identity relationship. It requires the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to be together in this undertaking. Rather than relationship building we saw more than a whiff of cancel culture that has such a grip on Australia’s throat.

Embracing Change and Vulnerability

So where do we begin? While there is the temptation to jump quickly to action first there must be self care, and honestly and with integrity allow ourselves to be changed by what has just happened. What terror has the shock of failing in the referendum unearthed? Allowing ourselves to touch that terror will bring us to a sense of our powerlessness, and with the sense of powerlessness the vulnerability of our collective masculinity will be exposed. ’No’ voters will become ever more defensive and resistant to change. It is not the proposition that is being put forward that is so threatening, but the change itself and how that alone threatens the current power equilibrium. The show of conservative force has to be absorbed, perhaps redirected not resisted. Resisting it head on will only make it grow stronger. It must be redirected through another route, and the only other route is through building relationships.

So what does this look like in terms of where we begin and where we go from here? Well, we know what not to do, we know not to try to convince “no” voters they were wrong. In fact they will for a time enjoy an increase in their power and influence for a time as we see now a move against acknowledging country. That trend is still heating up. The only way out of this situation is to grow out of it. So we need to develop those relationships and systems tht help us grow, and grow together. It means to grow our experience of being storng and manly in society for noth men and women. The polarity enforced especially on men but also on women on how men can be needs to grow.

Growing Together: Reimagining Masculinity and Power Dynamics

Trump America and those political players that would emulate his methods in Australia demonstrate the bleakness of the polarity of masculine identity. His is a extreme example, in both power and fragility. But its polar opposite is equally untenable, a kind of meek, power relinquishing, empathy, that still leaves all the heavy lifting to women.

In the subjugation of First Nations People by colonial invaders, them men are suppressed first, disrupting their power is central to the success of their enterprise. Women are seen to have their usefulness, whether powerful or not. If women’s power gets out of hand it can always be dealt with by violence until it is suppressed. Masculine power cannot be suppressed by violence, violence only increases it until it is extinguished, though it capacity for springing up from the ashes has to be continually guarded against. We may have though that the frontier wars were over. It turns out that they have merely moved to another level. It turns out that the australian electorate does not trust the pathway from voice to makarrata to treaty. At some deeper level they feel too vulnerable.

Unveiling Vulnerability: First Nations People and Their Struggles

And it is this sense of vulnerability that we need to counter. Only a small minority would not like to see quality of life improved for first nations people. But that vulnerability is an issue altogether on another level and will continue to be a stumbling block. There is a double bind here. Australians want first nations people to have a better quality of life and to become more empowered to determine their own future. But in giving them more power, they are concerned that that power may be used to disrupt our current way of life because they desire changes that are incompatible with the status quo, that unresolved questions of dispossession and dislocation, and accountability for the atrocities in the frontier wars may need to be accounted for.

If makarrata comes first, is then followed by treaty, the question of voice will become a administrative one. In the question of constitutional recognition, had a treaty been in place, the 1967 referendum would not have been necessary. The fact that human right had to be suspended for the NT Intervention to take place really tells the story. On a personal level to build capacity for connection and relationship, perhaps the same sequence applies, story telling, empowered empathetic communication, creativity.

The question of where shall we begin is really, here, within, together.

Tags: #IndigenousRights, #MasculinityAndPower, #RelationshipDynamics