Blog

Dialogue on Fearcriminalysis (Part 3): R. Michael Fisher, B. Maria Kumar and Desh Subba

[This is third, and last of the Fearcriminalysis series of dialogues. If you haven't already read the earlier ones, I recommend you do, but it is not necessary to understanding a good deal of what is in this dialogue. For the Pt. 2 go to:  https://fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/fearcriminalysis-dialogue-series-pt-2-subba-kumar-fisher. Perhaps a small book will be published one day on this topic using these initial dialogues as a basis. Enjoy, -rmf.]

"Crime is down... but fear is up!"  - R. Michael Fisher

In Fisher, I wrote [1]

"Political leaders and authorities (like the police force) in Canada have been heard on CBC radio interviews in the past few years making remarks that have stuck with me: for e.g.,  the Vancouver Chief of Police was asked about the problem of violence in the city and he said (paraphrasing), ‘It isn’t the violence that is the real problem for the police force. It is peoples’ fear of violence that is creating more enforcement problems that we don’t have the resources to handle.’ The Hon. John Havelock, Alberta Justice Minister, recently (1998) reported on CKUA radio, that after tougher legislation against violence and more legal clout for the victims and society in general, he is pleased to announce statistics indicate ‘crime is down.’ However, in the next breath, he reports that ‘fear is up’ and the governments’ citizen response lines are bursting with complaining calls because people don’t feel safe anymore and governments need to do something more about all the crime and violence. In the May 6, 1997 edition of the Calgary Herald, a male Alberta judge remarked: ‘A climate of fear has started to pervade this city at night’" (Fisher, 1998, p. 5).

Fisher: From the above quotes, you can see I have long been interested in Fearcriminalysis, even though I didn’t call it that back then in the late 1990s. I was aware that crime and its effects are not merely physical but psychological and sociological. The research concept and phenomena called the “fear of crime” is one of the biggest and hottest topics, at least, in the West, as it is present in a lot of the criminology and social sciences literature.

In a policing Newsletter from the U.S. National Institute of Justice [2], the authors write about how concrete crime negatively impacts people but “Behind the immediate, concrete losses of crime victims, however, is a different, more abstract crime problem—that of fear. For victims, fear is often the largest and most enduring legacy [trauma] of their victimization….For the rest of us—the not-recently, or not-yet victimized—fear becomes a contagious agent spreading the injuriousness of criminal victimization….Of course, fear is not totally unproductive. It prompts caution among citizens and thereby reduces criminal opportunities….Thus, reasonable fears, channel in constructive directions, prepare society to deal with crime. It is only when fear is unreasonable, or generates counterproductive responses, that it becomes a social problem. This paper explores fear as a problem to be addressed by the police….it turns to what is known about the efficacy of police strategies for managing fear, i.e., for reducing fear when it is irrational and destructive, and for channeling fear along constructive paths when it is reasonable and helpful in controlling crime” (pp. 1-2).

What is interesting to me is that this policing report is totally appropriate to today, and yet it was written and published in 1988—that’s 30 years ago. The authors then conclude the report with two basic findings: (1) “Society does not yet systematically collect data on fear. Consequently, our map of fear—its levels, trends, and social location—is sketchy. Nonetheless, its main features are easily identified” (p. 2), and (2) “Fear of crime is an important problem in its own right. Although levels of fear are related to levels of criminal victimization, fear is influenced by other factors” and they suggest research shows that “the current strategy of policing [in general]  does not result in reduced fear. Nor does it leave much room for fear reduction programs in the police department” (p. 6).

My first question to you Desh and Maria: Do you think anything has substantially changed in criminology and policing strategies in your countries that has improved the situation of fear as a social problem as brought forward in this report from 1988? Explain your answers.

Subba: It is very interesting to hear words like: “fear of crime,” “collection data on fear,” “map of fear.”
They are to me beautiful words for a Fear Dictionary. These are new phrases in my knowledge. They seem to follow nicely after the word and conceptual field of Fearcriminalysis. I seek to learn more about these.

Fisher: Desh, you in your own unsophisticated way made your own Map of Fear(s) in Figure No. 21 in your 2014 book, where you began a very basic map/model of “sources” of fear to humans but yes, it would be a next step to find ways to map geographically, politically, etc. the way “fear” exists and moves on the planet [3]; the field of “geography of fear” is making some strides in this but that information is still new and hardly anyone is practically using it, especially in police forces, at least not that I know of.

Kumar: I feel that the report of 1988 is still relevant even today because there is no substantive relief in mitigation of fear. In regards to the reduction in fear of crime generally, there seems to be no change in status but rather, unfortunately, the quantum of fear appears to be on the rise.  

Subba: There now is another new phrase “quantum of fear.” Wonderful.

Fisher: Yes, I agree it is a term that catches the imagination. I’d like Maria to explain why he chose that particular phrasing.

Kumar: Good query Mr. Subba and Dr. Michael! I mean this phrase by two aspects:
1) Literal: as it means amount or quantity. A sort of an idea to quantify fear just like the way ‘intelligence’ is measured in terms of IQ with the help of Simon-Binet tests, so that we may also devise a Fear Quotient (FQ).

2) Psychological: Juxtaposed to Ian Fleming’s Quantum of Solace (QS), which refers to comfort level during tense moments, Quantum of Fear (QF) means the opposite, i,e., tense moments during comfort. When QS stands at zero on 0-9 scale, love and fellowship simply doesn’t exist. On the other hand, if QF stands at zero, fear doesn’t exist, and the world is simply overflowing with love and fellowship. That’s an ideal.

Therefore, a fearologist’s pragmatic endeavor inter alia ought to be the study of how to bring down higher QF levels to the lowest level possible, if not zero, of course, within the understanding and framing of a context of fearism-t as you both have articulated. Concomitantly, this would be a condition of the higher FQ.

Fisher: A good challenge for fearology alright. Indeed this sounds worthy to me, a Fear Quotient measure and quantum of fear. Sounds like a whole other conversation we ought to have someday. I have argued that like we have developmental lines that are measurable, e.g., re: multiple intelligences as Howard Gardner, the Harvard psychologist argued; he said, we have a cognitive intelligence (CI), a moral intelligence (MI), an emotional intelligence (EI), aesthetic intelligence (AI), etc. Then I believe we ought to have a Fearlessness line of intelligence or defense intelligence (DI); it would be similar to Fear Quotient, if not homologous.

Kumar: Back to my point. Normal crimes of 1988 had normal fears. Now different crimes like that emerging from cyberspace are dangling over our heads.

“fearism-t (toxic form) is the core issue at hand. All crime in one way or another is going to add fearism-t to the social fabric and destroy social trust—and, fearism-t is basically the more subtle form of terrorism.”   -R. Michael Fisher

 Fisher: The everywhere and nowhere kind of fear atmosphere since cyberspace was generated is definitely taxing us in new ways.

 Subba: I have listed this in my 2014 book “Cyberphobia- fear of computers or working on a computer” [4] but now in this context of Fearcriminalysis discourse beginning, I can see this psychological disorder from the DSM-IV manual must change to include the larger sociocultural and political implications, all of which advance the quantum of fear, as Maria suggested. In my book I neglected to mention cyberterrorism directly, but I say “The [new] modern fears are the products of new inventions for the protection from fears and avoiding fears….Some fears have been minimised, but many new fears have been added. It is moving around in a full circle [cycle]. We are entangled with it.” [5] In general, “the world’s become the victim of a great fear. To rescue the world from such quicksand, its sources have to be identified and they have to be reinterpreted” through a fearist perspective/lens [6]….

 Fisher: And mapped as the 1988 authors above point to, we need better research to entangle the Fear Problem and cycle of Fear analytically, never mind emotionally and philosophically. I think Desh you said it well in your evolutionary and historical mapping of the Fear Ages. Your sixth age is “Cyber Fear Age,” in which you begin that description of that age based on Prof. Dr. Gobinda Raj Bhattari whom you quote: “Cyber has a big role in transplantation of psychological fear and [an] even bigger role to wage psychological wars,” [7] like cyberterrorism.

 Kumar: I agree with Desh, that the quantum of fear high levels, which police forces and military and governments generally come across, are due to three interrelated complex factors: 1) Technological 2) Socioeconomic and, 3) Legal. For example,


  • With the advent of CCTV/AI/robotics, privacy of the individual is at stake. Fear of being watched is ubiquitous. There are the threats of identity theft, computer frauds etc. that pose new fears, adding accumulatively and qualitatively, not merely quantitatively, to traditional fears.
  • As Hawking noted, socioeconomic inequality increases with the accumulation of much of wealth in a few hands, thereby leading to more economic uncertainties and insecurities like joblessness and to the rise of a new vulnerable class called the precariat. So, again more crimes, accompanied by fears and we get that cycle of fear that Desh referred to. Like Macbeth’s fear of ghosts, people tend to nurse feelings of fear, more through imagining shadows than actual crimes but the crimes are still there and increasing in complexity and interrelationships.

  • To regulate technological proliferation and its repercussions, senators naturally happen to come up with more laws, creating and defining new crimes, hence more fears.

I feel that this is the general cycle of Fear scenario. But the problem is that the society seldom recognizes that police alone cannot tackle every crime and fear. Criminogenic factors lie elsewhere like in socioeconomic environment, socializing processes, psychological makeup, international relations among countries, unbridled enactment of laws, unnecessary curbs or restrictions on lifestyles etc.

Fisher: Thus, the need for the whole society to take responsibility and develop a good fear management/education programming everywhere, so that citizens at the foundation of society can become more response-able to handle safety and security needs, as well as initiate desires for a quality of life that no longer feeds on and depends on the cycle of Fear, but rather grows based on a Fearlessness Paradigm.

Kumar: For example, recent news points out that crime in Holland is declining so much that their prisons are being closed up. I think fear might have also diminished in Dutch society commensurately. It may reveal new realities if we can check up the state of these reports over there [8].

Fisher: One perspective on this is that Holland has overall promoted an advancing critical consciousness and evolution of thinking that few countries have. I’m not sure why that is, but some studies show this progressive thinking there. Which doesn’t mean they haven’t other kinds of problems too, because they do. I do agree they can serve perhaps as an image of possibility, a model, to some degree. I didn’t know it’s particular effective reforms to reduce crime and fear, improve safety, as you mention Maria.

Subba: I think Fearcriminalysis will be a hard conception to be listened to by others, especially in policing but there are some good signs slowly happening like in the UN Peace Keeping forces recently in Sudan, where fearism is being introduced. However, for all of us promoting this shifting consciousness regarding the role of fear, it is going to take time. It will be slow. Recently I gave an interview in Sewa Ro talk show. I said "Geeta" [i.e., Bhagava Gita] says "without expecting good result just do work." Similarly Marxism says "do labour." Why do work ? It is not mentioned. Cause and effect is popular word in Philosophy. Beyond cause and effect, there is more cause. I mean when we do work, we get wages. Work is cause and effect is wages. Behind work there is more cause, and that is fear. This fear motivates in a positive way to explore the world creatively and make it a better place with less excess fear and anxieties. In relativity theory, there must be a base. Without a base relativity cannot exist. Fear is the base of all cause. All activities are relatives of this phenomena. 

When society and governments are enlightened with a new idea, the new idea explores new solutions. Fearcriminalysis is like that, we just have to keep doing the work, without expecting good results, at least not right away.

Back to Michael’s earlier question, I do agree with Maria that fear of crime and fear of violence is becoming a hottest topic everywhere not only in Canada. Particularly the climate of fear in Canada is different, I suspect, than in Nepal. Major fears are similar but minor fears not similar. Nepal never faced fear of terrorism much but we certainly faced fear of civil war. The form of civil war encourages a trend of terrorism almost more so. I’ll tell you what happened in my home country Nepal. In 1995, allies of the communist parties put 52 demands to Congress government. Allies of communist party became Maoist later.

Nepali Government ignored their demands, underestimating them. That time communists didn't have even a rifle. Government thought they are powerless, can’t do thing. This was big mistake. If government, try to come to positive dialogue, try to listen demands, even if they cannot solve all conflicts with opposition groups, they can begin to be more positive and cooperative to avoid greater problems with security issues later. Because of government’s arrogance 12000 people directly lost lives and billions lost in values property. 

Rise of crime and terrorism must be closely related to civil war of Nepal. Nepal has not done anything much about the growing fear. There is no data of fear, maps or good analysis. There is an insidious climate of fear, unemployment, disease, poverty and all contribute to a sense of national hopelessness. Natural climate and weather crises cannot be easily changed. But a social climate of fear is not unchangeable. 

Fisher: Thanks for the history lesson in Nepal, which is probably like a lot of other countries under similar political, economic and historical challenging conditions. What stands out for me from this 1988 report, which I believe is still totally relevant, at least in the West, is that fearism-t (toxic form) is the core issue at hand. All crime in one way or another is going to add fearism-t to the social fabric and destroy social trust—and, fearism-t is basically the more subtle form of terrorism.

And terrorism I define in a much broader way than do the legal justice and state security discourses. It is not merely a political or ideological act against society or the state authorities. Terrorism is a psychosocial process whereby someone (e.g., criminal), who is already terrified and been so terrified by others, whether they know they are or not, acts out means whereby they spread their terror to the rest of the world. In a way, they are “sharing” their fear/terror and the wounding underneath it. In a way, they are looking to get attention from others, from authorities, even from the police. Sure they also want power, but who doesn’t?  

However, most terrorism exists not in the ‘big’ criminal acts of blowing up a bomb in the public square or kidnapping and killing journalists or government people or hi-jacking a plane, but terrorism has its roots in and more subtle form in fearism-t. The ‘small’ acts of someone who is afraid spreads their fear through lying, stealing, cheating, bullying, scaring, and/or other forms of abuse, some which is nearly impossible to pin down and label so clearly. It is even more subtle how fearism-t spreads fear contagion and how the quantum of fear increases so rapidly. One example of the benign spread of fear that I detest is when people in the community you live, and this happened to me living in Carbondale, IL in the USA the past nine years, tell “stories” and spread “news” as if they are helping out to avoid crime, or bad weather like tornado’s as possibilities. Yes, there is always a possibility of some horrible event and we should be cautious. But they would send me and the community members emails about the next warning, and the next possible and there was a crime here and so on. After awhile, this scared me too in deep almost somatic unconscious ways I didn’t want to be scared over.

Because I want to assess things without all of other people’s fear on top—even if they are trying to be helpful. I found that kind of “news” unhelpful, and I felt a bit bad being critical of their tactics because they argued they were being good responsible citizens helping to warn others. They defended their position when I challenged them. But something was really out of balance in those communities of “do gooders” as they are kind of like the first-warning responders for a community.

Well, it is hard to say they were bad or doing crime in any way. At least, not from a normal position of examining their behavior. However, from the critical consciousness of attempting to slow down or stop the quantum of fear cycling, that is, the climate and culture of fear, there is a moral and just reason that these tactics should be challenged and stopped if necessary. Yet, only Fearcriminalysis could really make a good case against what these people are doing. Law is useless, and police wouldn’t even touch such a case as being illegal or against bylaws of the cities.

To its credit, in part, Law, at least in the West, has long been attempting to create more and more definitions of forms of “abuse” and making them illegal. But we simply can’t make a law against every abuse and harder still is then trying to enforce it. Because so much abuse and hurting takes place in private homes and relationships that are part of families, workplaces, school systems and everyday interactions in neighborhoods.

So what do you two think of calling “fearism-t” what it is, that is—the foundation of terrorism? Would law and criminology and policing be open to this idea? Wouldn’t it help better frame an understanding of the social problem of fear that the 1988 report described? What do you think?

Kumar:  Yes, I think so. We may call fearism-t as the foundation of terrorism. Art of War strategist Sun Tzu said, ’kill one and terrify one thousand.’ And this tag line has become the unfortunate fundamental base of terrorism. One of the main objectives of terrorism is to spread fear.

Fisher: And, to do it with the minimum of resources and greatest efficacy. I think every good military leader would say something similar; even if they may sound less radical and extremist than a “terrorist” type. We know counterterrorism is an accepted and rationalized part of most every form of government, no matter what ideology and political stripes or histories—the tactics of terrorism and counterterrorism are fearism-t when you boil it down to the basics. Much conflict and out-and-out war is based on it. That’s where the problem is deep rooted and no one side can claim to be the ‘angel.’ All contribute their share to the social problem—the Fear Problem. If police forces and criminology as a whole, including Law, could begin to see their contribution to fear production, even when they may think they are not doing so, then that would at least be an admission to start the journey of recovery from this mess.

Kumar: A terrorist by nature is a sadist. There may be a good thief, good cheat, good fraudster, good drunkard etc., but not a good terrorist. Because he wants to see others stricken by fear, panic, terror and so on. The easiest and worst way to realize his motive is to get media to sensationalize through publicity his thoughts, words and deeds, however minor it could be - like issuing threats and warnings, burning of an unclaimed bike or a simple hoax. This kind of attention of public threatening becomes oxygen for which terrorists survive, strive and thrive.

Law, criminology and policing also endorse this view in that the law itself defines terrorism in terms of such and such an act that causes extreme alarm, over-awe, anxiety, fear, threat, panic etc. Criminology looks at terrorism as a serious crime because it is an embodiment of genesis of terror and the power that accompanies it.

Coming to the proposed premise of Fearcriminalysis, I also concur that it will certainly help better if we can create an understanding of the social problem of fear. Ultimately, we have to keep asking: What causes a terrorist to wage their kind of ruthless and barbaric war against the society?

A young Fearologist team may someday be lured by this dialogue to do something creative. We can do more work on family and society terrorism.    -Desh Subba

Subba: Right. This is the philosophical “cause and effect” issue that a philosophy of fearism can analyze probably better than other ways, and other philosophies that have not given such attention to fear and its role.

Kumar: To my mind, one of the main reasons appears to lie in economics, much like the Marxian view of economic determinism. As one economist professed, poverty anywhere in the world is a threat to prosperity everywhere in the world. We see many of the terrorists are a disgruntled lot, on the move to avenge the society. As has been known, no one is more dangerous than the one who has nothing to lose. Persons of such background are likely to form a major chunk of terrorist cadres, who don’t hesitate to use any nefarious means to achieve their objectives.

Therefore, one of the efforts on the part of fearologists should be to explore and plot how the potential perpetrators of terrorism could be identified so that the steps to thwart the prognosis of infection could be taken before hand.

“Policemen should not get panicky themselves. Don’t use unnecessary force and don’t create further panic.”

-B. Maria Kumar

Fisher: Yes, that’s a great challenge for fearologists, terrorologists, traumatologists, victimologists and criminologists—for starters—who have to learn to work collaboratively in the future. Then we have to get research accomplished and good critical thinking into the hands of the people on the front lines “fighting” the battles of crime and trying to maintain civil life and order. I am also optimistic that “the people” will, for better or worse, take “order” into their own hands if the authorities don’t. On the better side of that, are civil protests for new laws and policing policies and security priorities. I am thinking of the recent walkout of 1 million school students in America because they believe the gun laws in the US are not working for them, not protecting their schools from mass gun murders, etc. Yet, sadly, such protests are not accompanied by an improved fear management/education, which needs to happen below the Gun Problem, which is a Fear Problem at root. Why are people carrying guns around in the first place? There has yet to be the critical awareness in students, faculties and/or in the media and public leaders that cover and discuss these protests that what our societies need is to “fight for” an improved Fear Quotient or Defense Intelligence as I call it in my writing. So much still to be done educationally. Unfortunately, guns and violence and terrorism that is ‘big news’ and dramatic gets all the attention and resources, and fear management/education and the problem of fearism-t, gets left behind in the shadows and denied importance.

Subba: I agree with Michael that terrorists are already terrified and sharing their fear/terror within victimization. That’s a dangerous situation when they start carrying deadly weapons. In my view terrorist are victimized by some community, government, race, religion. According to them they are suffering from injustice. In the primary stages they had no rifles like Maoists of Nepal. Slowly gathering they get support from their group and grow and add technologies and economic support to their goals. This is the problem. When a small problem grows without good interventions, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to solve later. Mix up and conflict with many sources like political, international game, economic, ego, jealous, hatred, revenge. It makes the problem very big. Through terrorist attacks they want to draw attention, collect support, take revenge, create dramatic explosions, nurture hatred and fear, etc. 

Like our dialogue as example, there needs to be open ideas and follow through with respect and actions. Sometimes human beings become so hard. They keep a permanent pillar of protection around their heart, and they don’t want to move. When they start to move, then there are chances to solve the problem. If it cannot be solved, the problems over time, one day, they become a fire that burns the earth and all that remains are ashes in our hands. 

Fisher:  We need to think not just in short-term, but long-term effects to everything we do. I want to change the course of dialogue just a bit. “We are not bad, we are frightened.” – Jeanne Segal, a progressive spiritual psychotherapist [9] wrote in 1985, and it is one of my all-time favorite quotes to provoke critical thought. It is 33 years ago. Wow. I have used it often in my publications; but no one, to my surprise, ever seems to get the grit and importance of what she is claiming as a potential truth or working hypothesis.

I would like either of you to respond to this in the context of our rich discussions of what Fearcriminalysis might be, and regarding our terrorism discussion here. Go for it.

Kumar: Yes Michael! You have very thoughtfully caught hold of a clever observation made by Jeanne Segal. How I interpret it is that she put forth her assertion as an anti-thesis to what Burke quoted long ago. He stressed, ’the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ He felt that bad things continue to happen as long as the people including the good, do not oppose the bad. Since evil is ignored, it grows further and spreads farther. So, in a way the so-called good men also come to be treated as bad. But Jeanne refutes saying that it doesn’t mean such people are bad just because they couldn’t oppose bad things. They are also good but they are not in a position to put up resistance since they are too frightened and forced to remain hapless and helpless without being allowed to take a step forward externally but they are intrinsically still imbued with righteous virtues that inspire. Their condition is like the truth that unfolds slowly. As Churchill said, ’A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.’

The fight against terrorists is going on across the world and millions and millions of people, though not explicitly seen or felt due to unseen reasons by way of being put to fear or whatever, continue inspiring millions of policemen to take on the evil triumphantly. That’s what Jeanne’s quote implies, I suppose.

Fisher: From the first dialogue on Fearcriminalysis in this series I began with, “I  am intrigued by the long standing traditional ethic in law, be it judges or police officers that they are to do their duty ‘without fear or prejudice.’ Easier said than done.” From what you are saying above Maria, there has to be a realistic adjustment of ideals. Whereby we have to realize that people, including police, will at times be too fearful in certain situations, conditions, contexts, to apply law as it should be applied, and to do what Burke would have wanted in a humanistic and democratic society—that is, that we not act unnecessarily from our fear or terror, and panic and thus end up not making the best or most just responses. From what I understand it has long been part of criminal law to assess the “illegal” acts of the accused under the law, not only assessing judgement and/or penalties based on the letter of the law, but also on psychological circumstances. If someone was, arguably, so fearful due to reasonable cause in a situation, the judge will give them less of a sentence or even let them off the hook of the crime.

Now, if we had police training and civilian education from the start that taught us how to develop the highest Fear Quotient or Defense Intelligence, then arguably when under stresses we would nearly all respond so much better, more just, more lawful, more democratic. Research on people in emergencies shows, if I recall, that on average only about 10% or so actually can lead, operate intelligently and flexibly in such times and not let fear overwhelm them, at least during the critical period of required action. Maria, I know that you have written on important psychological principles that ought to be taken into account in your book on law and order, which is translated into English, could you share a bit of that material as it is relevant to this series.  

Kumar: In my 17th book [10], Application of Psychological Principles in Maintenance of Law and Order, I was covering a number of broad topics but fear was in this discussion. As we all know, policing involves interactions with people. Policemen or policewomen are supposed to deal with behaviours of various types of people during the course of their day-to-day duties, and at the time of emergency operations. Therefore, handling situations by a psychological approach does matter most in any enforcement activity and it is incumbent on the police to take recourse to psychological skills and techniques in the interest of quality policing.

So I have dealt with policing in this book exclusively from a psychological perspective touching upon topics ranging from common sense to crowd behaviour, stress management to human management, persuasion to negotiation, police-public relations to attitudinal aspects, morale-motivation-discipline-welfare-leadership on the part of policemen to interrogation etc. From our dialogue’s point of view, relevant are some excerpts from my book such as the following four items:

1).Controlling Panicky Situations

Regarding panicky situations, police should be extra-cautious. The origin of panic should be found out and eliminated. In such circumstances, the police commander himself should not get panicky as a rule. Rumor mongers should be identified and dealt with sternly. There should be public announcements through public address system and media. It should be made by the way of explaining the facts. All efforts are must to restore confidence in the public. Panic stricken people could be given proper clarification about realities. And the most important part is to uplift morale and give courage to policemen under the command of police leader.

2).Handling Panic 

  • Find out the origin and eliminate it.
  • Announcements to be made through public address system by explaining actual situation and an assurance should be given to the panic stricken in order to uplift their spirits and confidence levels.
  • Rumor mongering should be stopped.
  • Peace Committee meeting should be convened and cooperation of the people should be sought.
  • Take the panic stricken people along for clarification of the realities at the very source of panic. 
  • Instill courage and confidence into law enforcement officials under command. 
  • Divide the whole force ( contingent) into sections and entrust different officers to handle different areas to ease fears.
  • Immediate foot and mobile patrolling by armed police and fixed pickets in hypersensitive areas will alleviate public fears. 
  • Policemen should not get panicky themselves. Don’t use unnecessary force and don’t create further panic.
  • Restore communication. 
  • Panic creators should be dealt with sternly.

 3).Rumor Handling /Public Opinion/Propaganda

 Counter the rumors

  • Truth to be told to the people if it has positive effect.
  • Mischievous elements who spread rumors should be detained. 
  • Denial of rumors through public announcements, tv, loud hailers, newspapers, radio etc.
  • Disinformation technique.
  • Preemptive arrests rumor mongers.
  • Police intelligence to be activated.
  • Deploy persons of credibility to counter rumors.
  • Administer vaccine against fake news.

 4).Media to be Used to Help Police 

 Create positive opinion amongst public 

  • Boost police image 
  • Contradict rumors 
  • Caution people against criminals 
  • Identify the missing/ absconders
  • Help people understand police better 
  • Promote public trust in police 
  • Help people during natural calamities 
  • Act as check on police efficiency and against police inertness 
  • As source of information! [10]

 Subba: I have curiosity to read Maria’s books. It seems attractive and useful to cure fear problems. It will be inspiring and a motivational source for some governments, communities and leaders. I think a young Fearologist Team might be lured by this entire dialogue to do something creative. We can do more work on family, society terrorism. What we are discussing is based on international terrorism often. Terrorism has multiple aspects and we have to look from more than one lens. One lens cannot see everything obviously. We have to be more alert. 

 

Notes

 

  1. Fisher, R. (1998). Culture of ‘fear’: Toxification of landscape-mindscape as meta-context for education in the 21st Technical Paper No. 7. Vancouver, BC: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.
  2. Moore, M. H., & Trojanowicz, R. C. (1988). Policing and the fear of crime. Perspectives on Policing, No. 3, 1-7.
  3. Subba, D. (2014). Philosophy of fearism: Life is conducted, directed and controlled by the fear. Australia: Xlibris, p. 66.
  4. , p. 338.
  5. , p. 20.
  6. , p. 65.
  7. , p. 42.
  8. Go to: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-prisons-are-closing-because-the-country-is-so-safe-a7765521.html
  9. Segal, J. (198 ). Living beyond fear: A tool for transformation. Hollywood, CA: Newcastle, p. 88.
  10. Go to: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Madhya-Pradesh-IPS-officer-B-Maria-Kumar-releases-his-17th-book/articleshow/48505634.cms

You need to be a member of Fearlessness Movement to add comments!

Join Fearlessness Movement

Comments

  • FYI, myself (as lead author), Desh, and Maria, have committed recently to co-authoring a book "Fear, Law, and Criminology: Critical Issues in Applying the Philosophy of Fearism" (to be published in late 2018 by Xlibris). 

  • For another related dialogue amongst fearist thinkers, focused on the global problem of terrorism, go to http://globalpostinfo.us/en/2018/03/25/a-dialogue-on-terrorism-the-...

    A DIALOGUE ON TERRORISM: The Fearist Perspective
  • "This is really a good dialogue, more up my alley as a long-time wildlife officer. I enjoy reading about what you and the other 'fearologists' are doing.' - Murray 076

  • This complex and rich dialogue (series of 3 blogs) on Fearcriminalysis is a beginning exploration by three people who really are still feeling out their relationships as colleagues and their life experiences, learnings--and theories. There is not yet a casted down "theory" for Fearcriminalysis in these dialogues but there are lots of seeds for that. I am a believer that theory and practice must go together--as in praxis. Then we can use both to correct the failings and incompleteness of the other in an ongoing dialectical and growing and healthy relationship. When it comes to dealing with "criminals" so-called, there is a tendency to move into only practice (over theory), and this would not be what I would want to see happen in Fearcriminalysis. So, this raises the bar to ask and to think and teach about theory, without an underlying fear of theory itself, a fear that it will lead nowhere and foster only abstraction, or be too hard to learn, or time-consuming and a waste and or just boring--but beyond that fear and annoyance one may have around theory, to think about theory in new ways. 

    I like the Albert Einstein quote, "It is theory that decides what can be observed." And he means that theory is a perspective or worldview connected thing, and cannot be extracted from everything we do as humans, and that it is important not even so much of what it tries to tell us about reality, but that it also excludes what we are not taking in to build that reality. THEORY is crucial to critical awareness of everything. We want to learn what theories are guiding our decisions, our perceptions, beliefs, around criminals and how best to deal with them, and to help us envision a better justice than we know now for everyone. In times ahead, I will write more on this in terms of my growing interest in the "Indigenous paradigm" or "Indigenous worldview" (contra a dominant colonialist Western worldview)--re: crime, criminality and law; and, I will do this not only generically from what ancient and primal cultures have to teach us today in the postmodern world, but I will do it through the lens and theory of Four Arrows (aka Dr. Don Trent Jacobs) whom I have studied his Indigenous philosophy and thoughts and writings for over 10 years--because he does something quite remarkable in constructing an Indigenous perspective, he foregrounds the notion and phenomenon and theory of Fear in his work (i.e., fear management/education, and thus my attraction to his work and his to mine). I will talk about my own theory of Domination-Conflict-Fear-Violence (DCFV theory) that I arrived at in the late 1990s in graduate school in my masters degree in Educational Studies--where I analyzed that everything, including Law, is really a form of conflict management, and fear management (the latter, which I drew out and developed in my doctoral studies 2000-03). So, more to come on all that. 

    The good news just came in that Desh Subba, B. Maria Kumar and myself are planning to write a book on this topic of fearcriminalysis, hopefully to be finished and published by early autumn 2018. So, stay tuned. 

     

     

     

This reply was deleted.