Jacob Rees-Mogg and Andrew Brigden have apologised for their comments regarding the Grenfell Disaster in which 72 people perished in a tower-block fire.
Now, I personally don't feel either politician was victim blaming - these people died not because they made any kind of mistake but because the building had undergone shoddy refurbishment and consequently the instructions they received from the fire dept. to stay put and await rescue were...catastrophic.
The problem is that to stay put and await rescue in a burning building flies against not only common sense but also every human's instinct to preserve their own life.
The only reason for not evacuating that I can think of are:
- I am (or a person I am with is) physically incapable of leaving without help
- I can find no clear route of escape
Besides this, everyone is taught from an early age that in the event of a fire alarm (much less an actual, tangible fire) to:
- Stay calm
- Do not retrieve possessions
- Leave, via the nearest available exit (often with the subclause of do not use a lift)
This is at school, at work, in hotels, on public transport, in shops and public buildings...literally everywhere.
So Rees-Mogg and Brigden asked the fairly obvious question - why, when instructed to do something that goes against logic, against self-preservation, against a lifetime of a very specific learned response to this particular kind of threat did the people in that tower block not go against that instruction?
There are several significant possibilities that spring to my mind:
First and probably most importantly is TRUST IN AUTHORITY. They trusted people to know what the right thing to do was, especially the fire dept. whose literal job is to keep them safe. I have issues with this cos I simply don't trust people. Like, ever. it's just not in my make up to do anything beyond listen to my own gut. And my gut can be wrong.
Secondly is FEAR. When people are afraid there are two key responses - firstly, Fight Or Flight where the choice is to fight the danger or run from it. This is were you either grab that fire extinguisher or make for the fire escape. Second is Deer In The Headlights, and that's what I'm thinking here. People who are frightened often freeze, people who freeze often look to others to tell them what to do, or are susceptible to being led...this is, in part, why runaways are so vulnerable - a frightened kid can go into things they'd never have dreamed of doing if led astray by someone malicious.
Third up is the controversial one: I blame the education system. Basically, SOCIETAL BRAINWASHING. From an early age, usually pre-school age, kids are taught to defer to adults - specifically authority figures: cops, doctors, teachers etc. Beyond this all through school are taught over and over not to act without instruction. To do ONLY as they are told.
To elaborate on this last point I want to cite experiences from my last two jobs.
My last job was in a shop. I worked with several school leavers who shared a common characteristic - they couldn't self-motivate, like AT ALL. They'd literally stand there waiting for someone to tell them what to do, even if there was a really obvious task at hand. Meanwhile, myself and other older workers instinctively looked for things to do - we disliked being told what to do like we were kids, also tasks done at our convenience made for smooth running of the shop - basically, it was to make our own lives easier to declutter, reorganise or whatever.
In my last job before that I worked in a school. One particular classroom disgusted me because the walls were covered in pictograms of 'acceptable behaviour' - no speaking unless spoken to, no moving unless instructed to, using a 'whisper voice' only, do not do anything until you have listened to all the instructions etc. At this time my own kids were in uni & 6th form college and I talked to both of them about these signs and both confirmed that this had been drummed into them at school. To literally not think for themselves but to defer always to someone else's instruction. I was appalled! If I had known this I'd have homsechooled throughout instead of the times I was otherwise obliged to.
Fortunately, what I taught my kids at home was very successful. Both my kids are capable of thinking for themselves, getting on with things, dealing with a crisis. At sixteen my youngest accidentally set fire to the bathroom - it is one of my proudest moments as a parent because she dealt with it - she calmly threw a fire blanket over it, even cleaned up. Did she call anyone for help or advice? Nope, she had it in hand. Conversely a story I saw on the news has stuck with me for many years: a family saw smoke issuing from their tumble dryer so they fled their flat and called for help (nice flight response) - only they didn't unplug the machine, they didn't grab a fire extinguisher...their home & possessions were destroyed as a result. Probably avoidable without any of them being in any actual danger. Very unfortunate.
This whole business makes me think of a couple of examples from history.
One is the Titanic. People look back and are VERY judgemental of the White Star Line for not providing enough lifeboats (there was a greater provision than required by law) and against the officers who allowed lifeboats to leave the ship far below capacity (partly because proper evacuation procedures were not in place, partly because 'women and children first' was misinterpreted) - much like Grenfell, a series of unfortunate misjudgements and mistakes. But there too the victims were criticised - in this instance, for 'not believing' the ship would sink...but this assertion was based on false information.
"White Star Line President P.A.S. Franklin announced 'We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable'" AFTER the ship was reported to be in distress. The ship was DESIGNED TO BE unsinkable, it was never claimed that it WAS so; and the myth surrounding the term 'unsinkable' largely came about after the disaster.
Certainly the passengers may have had faith in the ship, may have believed rescue would come in time, may have been in denial of their peril (because people often are) and may have been not unreasonably afraid to get into vulnerable little boats in the middle of an icy ocean. But unlike Grenfell no one died because they were told to stay, and no one died because of shoddy materials.
Another, more recent, parallel is from 9/11. Workers in the South Tower were told to stay at their desks, after all, it was the North Tower that had been hit. Director of Security at Morgan Stanley, Rick Rescorla, had other ideas. He'd been drilling the staff FOR YEARS, every three months he got EVERYONE to practice emergency evacuations - annoying executive types who resented the interruptions. People took the piss at his 'over preparedness', they thought him paranoid. However, on 9/11 Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter lost just SIX employees out of two-and-a-half-THOUSAND. One was Rescorla. He could have escaped, having done his duty to his company, but he couldn't walk away when there were still lives to save.
Not only that but employees of other companies followed the example. They'd seen Rescorla leading his evacuation practices and decided to join in. They ignored official advice and followed the guy who seemed to know what he was doing...not least cos it fitted in with natural desires to preserve your own life
Another story from 9/11 involves a group of ten co-workers who worked together carrying a wheelchair-user down a stairwell of the North Tower. They encountered a firefighter on the 10th floor who told them to leave the disabled man, John Abruzzo, with them and the fire service would take it from there. They'd already carried him 59 floors, they were tired...they did not leave Abruzzo but finished the job. The building collapsed just 15 minutes after they got out. They made a choice not to defer to the 'authority figures' and it worked out for them - clearly it might not have done, but they made the choice they could live with. If their escape had been delayed by their choice and they had died they'd still be heroes for trying.
Sources:https://nypost.com/2017/09/10/the-port-authority-yanks-an-honor-from-911-heroes/
https://www.911memorial.org/blog/colleagues-use-special-chair-save-quadriplegic-911
Lastly, I want to use a thought experiment.
You're down in the London Underground and there's a fire alarm. The tunnel splits in two, both marked 'way out'.
One way (Route A) is wider, well lit but the smell of smoke seems stronger, the other looks like the path less travelled (Route B) but the air is clear. Which way do you go?
Same scenario but there are a dozen or so other people with you now and they're taking Route A, do you follow?
Same scenario but there's a scruffy type in ripped jeans and covered in tattoos saying Route B looks safer, do you believe them?
Same scenario but the person saying Route B looks safer is now a wearing a smart suit. Do you believe them more than the tattooed scruffy person?
Same scenario but the person directing you is now a member of staff and they're showing you to Route A but the smoke is now thick. Do you challenge them on why B is not an option?
You challenge them and they say Route A is the shorter route to the surface - the Route B tunnel leads to a neighbouring station where you can get to the surface but it'll be full of people from the trains that aren't stopping here. What do you do now?
Same scenario as before but now smoke is even thicker and the member of staff is saying 'stay put' - anyone who suggests Route B is rebuffed by being told they'll cause congestion in the other station.
My opinion is that Route B is always the best - regardless of whether you're alone to make a choice, others are choosing what is apparently a poor option, whether those recommending a safe route are smart or scruffy and whether an official is telling you an unsafe route is best - even if they provide reasoning.
It's my fear that we have a culture of discouraging people from thinking for themselves. No blame whatsoever to the Grenfell residents, just questions over why people believe counter-intuitive statements.
FOOTNOTE
On my Facebook's On This Day for 11th Nov 2011 is the following post:
G-Zeus! Woman rings NHS Direct re: daughter's migraine
that had lasted days. Advised to give her TWELVE Anadin
and ANOTHER TWELVE after 12 hours.
Daughter is now in hospital for the overdose.
For Gawd's sake peeps - double check the medical advice
you are given. Don't trust people.
I have no idea where the story came from as, pre uni, I wasn't so careful about citing sources. Quite possibly a totally fake story although I've been prescribed meds I'm contraindicated for and been instructed to use meds improperly by paramedics & nurses so I'm inclined to believe. What I struggle with is that anyone would follow such instructions. Sure X is a 'medical professional' but if they instruct you to take waaaaay more pills than the packaging says why would you believe X and not the manufacturer? One or two extra I can believe but 12???
I definitely feel our society trusts certain people implicitly. When I was at uni we did critical thinking of which PART was assessing the reliability of sources. I can understand why someone'd believe (in general terms) a doctor over the hedgewitch down the end of the village but if the doctor tells you to do something stupid you're supposed to look at that critically TOO.
Question everything, do the reading (and still take it with a pinch of salt), think for yourself. PLEASE.
