Violence In New Zealand by Jane & James Ritchie

Luke Jacobs 0121644

After completing the text a feeling of exhaustion overwhelmed me. Facts, figures and case studies were presented in rapid-fire fashion and one after the other constantly demanding the attention and questions of the reader.

The book mainly concerns the issue of violence in New Zealand and takes most of the substance from local studies and overseas examples. It covers many difficult issues such as defining violence in all its contexts and situations. It probes issues of causation and solutions to violence in New Zealand ranging from violence in the home to institutional violence. The book investigates the effects of government and social policy and offers suggestions and recommendations, which may alleviate or eliminate tensions or problems within society.

The main purpose of the book was not just to inform but rather provide the evidence to substantiate and formulate a case for change in New Zealand. This means that although the book is researched and claims based on evidence it contains a fair amount of author sway. This makes it hard to determine its target audience, one could stipulate it is meant to inform the common person on why violence exists in New Zealand or just as easily provide an argumentative case for a campaigner for non-violence in New Zealand society.

The book overall was well founded and sound however I felt there were sections, which through closer examination, was found to be relatively weak. A pertinent example is the chapter entitled Becoming Less Violent. The entire book was built up

to support the case that New Zealand can and must change to become less violent. However the tools given are inadequate. To begin such a program we need clear definitions on what our targets are. I generally accepted the definitions on violent behaviours but the targets were much less defined. The goal to clean up the media (Ritchie & Ritchie, 1993, p.150) is a fine and well meaning action however it loses its merit because of its ambiguity. In previous chapters the ills of violence on television are stated but a definition of what is acceptable is not given. Therefore how are we to clean up the media with no way of measuring how effective this would be? This ambiguity results in the inability to make a strong case, which the reader is expected to accept. Without a standardized set of meaningful criteria it is hard to create a meaningful argument. While the goal of limiting the negative output of media is as I have mentioned noble what social controls will need to be implemented to create such an environment. This chapter outlines that in order for A secular non-violent ethic (Ritchie & Ritchie, p. 157 is to be created then a forced modification of some currently held rights will have to occur. Clearly then a group of representatives will have to decide what rights will be given up and to what extent. Will this group of representatives come from the government? The same group who has so far (according to the authors) failed us miserably with policy? How will they decide what is reasonable for us and what is toxic in the media? This will be a burden which this chapter asks us to give them without clear boundaries or an indication on what exactly is harmful or toxic.

In this chapter a goal is stated to alleviate or remove the tensions that are derived from the social and economic basis of inequity, poverty, unemployment and poor housing. And the means to accomplish this end is to reallocate resources

collectivise all kinds of care(p.151) . Very lofty ideals which are commendable and charitable but are they possible? Certainly anything is possible with the right tools. While the authors are not economists, or policy analysts or strategic planners some consideration must have gone into the creation of these goals. Are these solutions so obvious that we have simply ignored them or disregarded them? Perhaps politicians, economists and sceptics such as myself over complicated matters, but this case I feel the authors have vastly oversimplified their solutions. Who would support this utopian welfare state in our consumerist and capitalist society? How would this transformation take place? Clearly if this is to happen a change in government is needed, one which supports the financial turn around which governments in New Zealand over the last 15 years have tried to institute.

Thus my principal critique is this, that while the authors emphasise that while it has been the government that has failed us in the past, now in the future they will save us from a more violent society. That somehow this or future governments through state control and social engineering will steer us in the right direction. I could not agree less with this sentiment. If government policy has failed us once and has no brought about the changes that we wish to occur then what will happen which will make that sudden change in the hearts and minds of the elected officials? This makes the book less effective for me, even though I found the book easy to read and comprehensive, at times in the areas where there needed to be more substance I found it lacking and disappointing. Perhaps a second book based solely on solutions and clearly defined goals needs to be written as a companion text to Violence in New Zealand.

My main interpretation of this book is that we need change. If change does not happen

then New Zealand society will constantly suffer from the problem of violence in our homes, places of leisure and work. The book emphasizes that this change must be intrinsically linked to the government and the potential solutions to our problems lie in re-structuring society. My assessment of this is that while the book defines violence well and its history in New Zealand it fails at its key point. It fails not because the ideas are unsound but rather that I feel that they are impractical and overly simplistic. I also disagree with the emphasis on government control as a method of change, because I am dubious of the effects that government policy will really have the ability to change attitude.