The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.
To the editor:
There is either a degree of irony or a puckish sense of humor at work when somebody lectures about acceptance and civility while in the next breath saying that those who don’t meet the lecturer’s standard of conformity should literally move out of town.
Ms. Kooney says (The Gazette, week of Oct. 1/9): “I also teach my children acceptance and kindness. Some people in our community may want to consider going back to school for a refresher. If that doesn’t work and one still doesn’t appreciate and respect our community and all its wonderful differences… you always have the option to move.”
Such an intolerant view is not unheard of either in the United States or in Croton. It is why we have Monrovia, The Castro, and a local parkway named after Anne Hutchinson. I am old enough to remember the bumper sticker from the 1970s: “America. Love it or Leave it.” More recently, our Governor said that those holding dissenting viewpoints on abortion or gun control “have no place in the State of New York.” Our President says that naturalized citizens who disagree with him should “go back” to their birthplace.
I disagreed with the 70s bumper sticker, I disagreed with Mr. Cuomo, I disagreed with Mr. Trump, and I disagree with Ms. Kooney.
I have heard variants of Ms. Kooney’s neo-ostracism philosophy since I arrived in Croton. I recall one irate politician some years back who snapped at a constituent and said that if he did not like the way Croton was run, then he was free to move out. Readers of this newspaper may recall that I wrote in defense of Mr. Levitt when he was attacked while running for office on the basis of the belief that he had not lived in Croton long enough. My position was and remains that each of us has a right to participate in our Croton community, and indeed an obligation to do so.
Ms. Kooney quotes Bambi for the proposition “If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.” Of course, a threshold question is what constitutes “somethin’ nice.” This is particularly problematic given the trend (as seen in the Climate Strike and the Parkland walk-out) to see our children as oracles of public policy.
Bambi is based on a 1928 book (translated by Whittaker Chambers, of all people). When the movie was released in 1942 eight months after Pearl Harbor, the story of a child (Bambi) being raised by his mother while his father (The Great Prince) is absent—off protecting the herd against an evil force (“MAN”, always in all caps)—resonated with viewers.
As a child, Bambi is shielded from much of the horror of the world. Bambi’s mother is killed, his father imparts wisdom to his growing son, and when the father dies the now-adult Bambi takes his place guarding the forest: think “Circle of Life” premiering while fathers were being shot down over the Pacific and Jews were being sent to Dachau. Kids were made of sturdier stuff back in our grandparents’ day.
Bambi is a sophisticated presentation of mature themes for a young audience, and Walt Disney was criticized both for the dark themes and for the depiction of hunting. When I was growing up, mothers didn’t let you go to Bambi till they thought you were old enough and even then Mom went with you. Disney walked a fine line between telling the truth and respecting the fact that there were children watching.
Today we have the Church of Sweden declaring that Jesus Christ has appointed Greta Thunberg as a successor (really, they said that). From Davos to the United Nations, 16 year-old Ms. Thunberg is the icon of the youth-as-oracle movement.
Ms. Kooney says she has never written a negative letter to The Gazette (apparently telling people who don’t conform to Ms. Kooney’s viewpoint to move out of Croton is a positive letter). But as Ms. Thunberg says: “I often talk to people who say ‘No we have to be hopeful and to inspire each other, and we can’t tell [people] too many negative things’… but no, we have to tell it like it is.”
There is nothing wrong with Ms. Kooney buying citrus to support the trip to Disneyworld, and nothing wrong with serving ice cream to guests watching Bambi. It only becomes an issue when the youth are the guiding light of a movement which criticizes, inter alia, airplane travel and meat/dairy production but then those youth embark on a plane trip to an amusement park and plan their protests at an ice cream shop.
As our Congressperson Nita Lowey said last month in praising Ms. Thunberg: “Fighting climate change is about putting your money where your mouth is, not banal platitudes and hollow empty gestures.” With due civility to Ms. Kooney, I think that quoting what was said to a cartoon rabbit and shouting outside an ice cream shop in the Upper Village is the very definition of a banal platitude and empty gesture.
Personally I think that we have gone down a bad road. Watching David Hogg and Greta Thunberg brings me flashbacks of Bill Mumy in It’s A Good Life. Given that the soaring rates of mental disorder among our youth are now percolating down to elementary schoolchildren, the data is flashing a danger sign.
If our youth are mature enough to impart wisdom beyond that of their elders, then they should do as Ms. Lowey suggests and make a small personal sacrifice, such as a foregone ice cream cone. By these small acts, children can regain a sense of agency and mitigate the nihilism and depression now appearing in children obsessed with climate change.
Ms. Kooney is also not alone in favoring normative social influence in our community. Those disagreeing with Ms. Kooney’s position normally frame the counter-argument in terms of First Amendment jurisprudence, academic freedom, or the inherent social good flowing from each individual feeling free to express themselves without fear of ostracism. Those are valid arguments, but I would add that there is a Croton-specific beneficial aspect to those Gazette letters which Ms. Kooney finds objectionable.
Croton is precisely the type of insular environment where conformity is most likely. Usually we view this in benign terms such as Ms. Kooney expresses. But Solomon Asch’s foundational experiment illustrates the impact on municipal governance in a place like Croton.
Asch presented his subjects not with opinions, but with an obvious fact. In a private setting with no pressure to conform, 99% gave the factually correct answer. But in a group setting where Asch’s confederates gave the false answer, the results were far different. In repeated runs, only 25% of people were always willing to break with the group and 5% always agreed with the group despite the demonstrable mathematical fact that the group was wrong.
Conformity can facilitate accomplishment of difficult tasks thru the increase in cohesion. Conformity can also result in bad policy.
Croton already has a tiny number of people who set policy, and recent events prove that the people developing Croton policy often do so in secret. Distortions of perception and judgment seen in the Asch paradigm are a real issue in small communities. The cure is dissent: research shows that even a few group members publicly deviating from the normative pack leaders will result in a greater willingness by others to express alternate viewpoints.
Croton can benefit greatly by open and robust discussion. I appreciate the forum provided by the publisher of this newspaper. Even if you disagree with the views expressed in these pages you should consider the need to be welcoming of diverse viewpoints if for no other reason than to improve the quality of decision-making. I disagree with Ms. Kooney on some issues but I respect and value her opinion as a member of this community. I hope she stays in Croton for many years to come.
Paul Steinberg