MISSING ROLE MODELS

By William M. DiMascio
   Executive Director

As 2004 slips into my memory bank, two events seem destined to stand out. One is the hotly contested presidential election. It was undoubtedly the longest and most divisive campaign in my lifetime; the turnout was huge and voters' passions seemed to reach a fevered pitch. The world watched in worry and wonder, pondering the impact of a contest in which they had no say. In the end, a relatively small but certain margin separated the two contenders.

Even shock-jock Howard Stern got into the act, posting on his web site a list of states ranked by average IQ scores: the first 17 with the highest scores were all blue states, and the last 26 were all red. On closer examination, it turned out the methodology for the rankings was somewhat dubious, but at that point no one seemed to care much. In London, the Daily Mirror headlined its election coverage with a question: "How can 59,054, 087 people be so DUMB?"

These barbs and scores of others that flooded email boxes after the election provided scant consolation for the losers. They were just part of the "political theater" of an extremely intense and often bitter contest.

The other standout event was a project in which we began to explore issues surrounding the frequently troublesome transition from adolescence to manhood. The participants included nineteen men - mostly lifers but all long termers -- from nine different prisons. The aim of the project was to explore the reasons why issues involving individuals' perceptions of manliness play a part in why so many men wind up in prison.

Over the course of two weeks, we met with the men in two groups at SCI Graterford and SCI Camp Hill. Cathy Wise and Jim Smith from the Prison Society staff and Joan Porter, a volunteer and member of our Board, helped to facilitate the sessions. We started by asking the men to reflect on people they have known in prison who get released on parole, then quickly wind up re-incarcerated for doing something impulsive.

Everyone had a story to tell and the dialogue quickly turned from people the men had known to the men themselves. As the discussions progressed, the men - many of whom were strangers to one another - began to open up and share their own experiences. A bond was established between the men, and on days that we did not formally meet, members of the groups continued their dialogues with each other.

Many shared the belief that one of the most troublesome aspects of growing up is that there is no clear definition of how or when the transition to manhood takes place. In most cases it is left to the individual to discover for himself. Positive role models in these cases are rare, yet, unfortunately, negative peer pressures are compelling. While these insights were interesting, none was as surprising as the willingness of the men to grapple with it.

We thought our research might enable us to create a discussion guide that would be valuable in raising the awareness level of other young men. We are still moving in that direction, sorting through the notes and staying in touch with the participants.

As I reflect on these two dissimilar events of 2004, it strikes me that the nation would have been better served if it required the men who ran for president to behave more like the participants in our discussion groups. Ironically, our guys would have been excellent role models because of their willingness to reflect on their pasts and work at articulating a sharp vision for the future.

John Kerry might have been elected if he told the electorate what he planned to do, instead of repeating that he would continue what we have been doing but do it better. And, George W. Bush might have endeared himself to non-ideologues if he confessed his true reasons for going to war in Iraq and admitted to having made a mistake or two along the way.

Of course, with that kind of focus, we probably would have missed the emphasis on the imagery of Bush in a flight suit or Kerry in a camouflage duck-hunting getup.