PROJECT TOPIC: THE SOCIAL

IRRESPONSIBILITY OF MAN IN
NIGHTS OF THE CREAKING BEDS
BY
TONI KAN

INTRODUCTION
1.1

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The crux of this research work is to beam a searchlight on the

social irresponsibility of man in Nights of the Creaking Bed by Toni
Kan. With particular reference to: The Devils Overtime, God is
Listening, My Perfect Life, The Passion of Pololo and The Car They
Borrowed. The emphasis is on the major thematic concern in
these stories which centers on social irresponsibility. This project

will further expatiate the irresponsibility displayed in the stories

by the characters in the short story collection and how it resulted
to untold pain, death, waywardness and backward life.
The theory of social responsibility is built on a system of ethics, in
which decisions and actions must be ethically validated before
proceeding. If the action or decision causes harm to society or the
environment

then

it

would

be

considered

to

be

socially

irresponsible. Moral values that are inherent in society create a

distinction between right and wrong. Every individual has a
responsibility to act in manner that is beneficial to society and not
solely to the individual. In this way, the integrity of society is
protected.
It is morally binding on everyone to act in such a way that the
people immediately around them are not adversely affected. It is
a commitment everyone has towards each other and the society
at large.
There are obvious good reasons for each person whenever they
act the way they do. The general perception of irresponsibility
based on their moral and cultural background, their self interest,
their perceived roles in their social contributions to the society.

Each actor in our stories acts out a different line but the play
remains the same.
This project probes the question: should social irresponsibility be
tolerated due to circumstances?
What are the impacts of an individuals social irresponsibility on
the individual and the larger society?
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The concept of irresponsibility is very disturbing to the society.
It is so important because irresponsibility generally leads to
destruction, waywardness and pain. But in a situation where
people, individuals are responsible, it fosters the growth of the
society, children who are the leaders of tomorrow to thrive
more. That is the reason irresponsible acts must be shunned
from our society. The case of irresponsibility is the core issue
under review.
1.3 THE PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to underscore the disadvantages
of

irresponsibility

and

to

draw

the

attention

of

Parents/Men/Women/Guardians and the relevant government,

agencies as well as non governmental organizations to this

irresponsible

lifestyle.

It

is

also

meant

to

encourage

responsible act in the society and in the World at large.

1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study is on irresponsibility. The study
appraises the view of different scholars on the subject under
review.
1.5 METHODOLOGY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This project is essentially expressing, evaluating and analytical
in approach all in an attempt to underscore the concept of
irresponsibility and its effect in a given society.

1.6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The objective of this study is to show the negative impact
social irresponsibility can have on individuals and families and
how far that affects the larger society. It is also going to show
how institutions and civilization can be affected when people
choose to become irresponsible.
Social responsibility is a duty every individual has to perform
so as to maintain the equilibrium between man and the
society.
When this

equilibrium

consequences.

is

broken

it

has

far

reaching

Even

in

cases of corporate social responsibility,

where

companies have neglected their social responsibility there

have been degradation of the environment.

For instance, in

the mining of gold, it is known to have detrimental effects on

the environment. Most mining companies use cyanide in
extracting the gold and the use of this chemical could have
permanent irreparable damage to the environment (Bernstein,
2004: 2). Such environmental degradation has led to the loss
of livelihood for people living in such areas due to spillage of
harmful chemicals on their farmland. Furthermore, there have
been cases of even deaths resulting.
So whether it is at the individual, family or institutional level,
we all must reflect on the legal, ethical, moral and social
consequences of our everyday decisions.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Concept of Responsibility and Irresponsibility
2.0 Introduction: When a person performs or fails to perform a
significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of
response is warranted. Praise and blame are perhaps the most
obvious forms this reaction might take. For example, one who
encounters a car accident may be regarded as worthy of praise
for having saved a child from inside the burning car, or
alternatively, one may be regarded as worthy of blame for not
having used one's mobile phone to call for help. To regard such
agents as worthy of one of these reactions is to regard them as
responsible for what they have done or left undone. (These are
examples of other-directed ascriptions of responsibility. The
reaction might also be self-directed, e.g., one can recognize
oneself to be blameworthy). Thus, to be morally responsible for
something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of
reactionpraise, blame, or something akin to thesefor having
performed it.

Philosophical reflection on responsibility has a long history. Dating

back to Aristotle. Aristotle (384323 BCE) seems to have been the
first to construct a theory of moral responsibility.(Aristotle, 1985.
The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Terence Irwin, Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Co.).
He begins with a brief statement of the concept of moral
responsibilitythat it is sometimes appropriate to respond to an
agent with praise or blame on the basis of her actions and/or
dispositional traits of character (1109b3035). A bit later, he
clarifies that only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral
agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility,
namely, one who possess a capacity for decision. For Aristotle, a
decision is a particular kind of desire resulting from deliberation,
one that expresses the agent's conception of what is good
(1111b51113b3).
One reason for this persistent interest is the way the topic seems
connected with our conception of ourselves as persons. Many
have held that one distinct feature of persons is their status as
morally responsible agents.

This review will take a look at the concept of responsibility and

irresponsibility, and look at some of the areas of irresponsibility in
the society. The review will look at personal irresponsibility, moral
irresponsibility,

corporate

social

irresponsibility,

and

media

irresponsibility.
Responsibility is a key concept in the twentieth century because it
establishes a connection between the individual and society.
Recent studies analyze responsibility as a relational concept that
connects the individual to an event and its outcomes. In that
sense, responsibility may be linked to the Bierhoff & Auhagen
(2001) responsibility model, involving three relations: (a) being
responsible for something (b) being responsible toward someone
(c) being responsible in relation to an instance.
Responsibility is a social phenomenon which is critical in the
modern democratic societies because of the rise of neglect
behaviors, violence, environmental hazards and claims for more
rights for individuals and specific groups in a connected world.
The twentieth century is witness of the rise of stronger institutions
that have more power to judge and misrepresent the positions of
their

opponents.

Hence,

the

balance

between

rights

and

responsibilities has become an essential requirement of a civil

society and democracy (Etzioni 1991, ONeill 2002).
Responsibility is considered a central construct of human
interactions because of its basic nature of being able to
respond, to establish a connection between the individual and
society. It does in fact imply a relational context between a
request and a response and the concept acquires a central role in
the relationship between people.
2.1 Definition of the Responsibility Concept
The term responsibility, as McKeon (1957) noted, appeared in
Europe in the 17th century. It appeared with a political usage
when the debates about representative governments which are
responsible to the people started. Williams (2009) mentioned:
The etymology of responsibility, the Oxford English Dictionary
cites the debates on the U.S. constitution in the Federalist Papers
in 1787, and the Anglo-Irish political thinker Edmund Burke in
1796. When John Stuart Mill writes of responsibility, in the middle
of the nineteenth century, again his concern is not with free will,
but with the principles of representative government. At the end
of the nineteenth century, the most notable thinker to speak of

responsibility is Max who propounds an ethics of responsibility

(Verantwortungsethik) for the politician. For him the vocation of
politics demands a calm attention to the facts of the situation and
the consequences of actions (paragraph. 4)
Since the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment grew up
the idea of man as independent of supernatural phenomena while
at the same time being deeply rooted in history and nature. With
these ideas and political debates about responsibility led to the
modern view of responsibility. In the twentieth century, philosophy
was

more

focused

in

questions

about

free

will

versus

determinism. If a person is responsible for his actions or if the

truth of determinism eliminates such responsibility were often in
the center of the debate. Responsibility in this sense is about
living in relation to the historical and cultural context (Schulz,
1988).
Winston (2001) stated:
Although the adjective responsible can be traced back to
thirteenth-century French and late sixteenth-century English, the
noun responsibility is less than four hundred years old. In
English, the earliest examples of the word in its modern meaning

came from the seventeenth century. Pascal, in his Lettres

Provinciales in 1656, is credited with one of the earliest
occurrences of responsabilite in French. In German, the verb
verantworten (to be responsible) first appeared in the second half
of the fourteenth century, the noun Verantwortung in the second
half of the fifteenth. These neologisms apparently made their
debut as vernacular translations of such legal expressions as
respondere, responsio, and responsum. If a persons ability to
respond could establish his innocence in a court of law, could it
not establish his moral integrity in general? It was probably this
line of thought or something like it that cause responseability to pass from the Latin of the courtroom into the moral
vernaculars of Europe. (page 2)
In the past the relationship between individuals and groups was
based on the concept of duty, with its focus on the idea of control
and repression of individual freedom, but in the twentieth century
it becomes imbued with the concept of responsibility.
Bierhoff and Auhagen (2001) mentioned that responsibility is a
construct which has a long tradition through history and is not
only important today, but also for future generations (page.

169). The construct of responsibility developed through time from

the traditional perspective. This classical framework was centre
on being responsible for something which has happened in the
past, up to a more general ethical perspective which involves
being responsible for the consequences of ones behavior, which
may not even be foreseeable (Bayertz, 1995; Ropohl, 1994;
Weber, 1919/1968). Modern approaches to understand the
responsibility concept are usually influenced by the Greek
philosophy or other earlier traditions, emphasizing the attribution
of responsibility, accountability, guilt and punishment (Lerner and
Tetlock, 1999; Shaver, 1985).
Markova (2008) described responsibility:
As a concept in moral philosophy where

the

subject

of

responsibility has a long history; it has often been treated under

other names, like duty, obligation and morality, among others.
One can presuppose that its origin, just like that of language and
symbolic

communication,

goes

back

to

the

beginnings

of

humanity. Praising and blaming individuals and groups, judging

actions and interactions as good and bad, all those phenomena
take place in and through communication. They also presuppose

an awareness of agency and intentionality. The concept of

responsibility, moreover, has been linked to freedom, will, the
person and the selfhood. In addition, accompanied by different
adjectives, like causal, intentional, legal, political and moral, the
concept of responsibility displays its heterogeneous nature and
multifaceted meanings (page. 254).
The different approaches to define the responsibility construct are
important to
considerate because all along history the concept has been
changing and individuals are using it in their daily lives.
2.2 Types of Responsibility
There are many classifications of the responsibility phenomena in
different disciplines. It is possible to find in many sciences for
example

personal

responsibility,

retrospective

responsibility,

prospective responsibility, corporate social, media responsibility,

criminal responsibility, social responsibility, moral responsibility,
etc. Each one represents a different aspect of the phenomena
that is studied and interpreted in a theoretical framework of the
project.
One

of

the

most

important

studies

on

the

meaning

of

responsibility was that of Hart (1968), which pointed up that the

term as used in criminal law as well as in ethics and common

sense has four main classifications:
(A) role-responsibility: refers to the specific duties that are
attached to the person to provide for the welfare of others or to
advance in some specific way the aims or purposes of the
organization. The person is responsible for the performance of
these duties, or for doing what is necessary to fulfill them.
(b)

causal-

responsibility:

regards

to

the

attribution

of

responsibility as cause of something. For instance, the presidents

speech was responsible for the panic; the icy condition of the road
was responsible for the accident. Its clear that in this causal
sense not only human beings but also their actions or omissions,
and things, conditions, and events, may be said to be responsible
for outcomes.
(c) liability-responsibility: refers to be responsible for ones
actions. It means that a man is legally responsible for some act or
harm is to state that his connection with the act or harm is
sufficient according to law for liability. Because responsibility and
liability are distinguishable in this way, it will make sense to say

that because a person is legally responsible for some action he is

liable to be punished for it.
(d) capacity-responsibility: is when the person is responsible
because he has certain normal capacities, in other words, a
person is responsible to the extent he is capable. The capacities
are understanding, reasoning, and control of conduct. It means
the ability to understand what conduct legal rules or morality
require, to deliberate and reach decision concerning these
requirements, and to conform to decision when made.
2.3

Moral responsibility is also an important type of

responsibility. Braham and Hees (2010) described the concept in a

retrospective view:
It is the moral responsibility that an individual bears towards
some realized outcome or states of affairs. It is about what has
happened, such as Jones being killed, the pasture over-grazed, or
a particular policy being approved by a committee. Retrospective
moral responsibility can be said to come in two forms. The first,
and more general, conception is attributive responsibility. Roughly
speaking this is the notion that an outcome bears the authorship,
hallmark, or stamp of the person in the sense that the behavior

that brought it about is expressive of that person's values and

ends. Insofar as we blame or praise people on the basis of their
attributive responsibility, we are doing so in view of the person's
norms, ends, or character that is rejected in the outcome. We take
attributive responsibility to be characterized by the following two
conditions. (a) agency condition: the person is an autonomous,
intentional, and planning agent who is capable of distinguishing
right and wrong and good and bad. (b) causal relevancy condition:
there should be a causal relation between the action of the agent
and the resultant state of affairs. A narrower conception of
retrospective

moral

responsibility

for

outcomes

is

that

of

accountability. As Watson (2004: 265) has put it, this is a form of

responsibility that may permit social censure and sanction in that
the agent is accountable for what she has done with reference to
a set of shared norms and expectations on the basis of which the
censure and sanctions are imposed. This goes further than
attributability because it serves for more than just an appraisal of
a person's goals or character; it may, for instance, underpin
demands that the person answer for her deeds or claims for
remedy (page. 7).

Mgr.Humberto Emilio Aguilera Arevalo (2011) gave a further

distinction:
First, responsibility
(retrospective)

can

sense

be

and

used
a

in

backward-looking

forward-looking

(prospective,

remedial) sense, i.e., essentially referring to blameworthiness for

past actions

or

to

future

action

taking.

The notion

that

responsibility is sometimes more forward-looking than backwardlooking is common in non-philosophical discussions, but it is to,
some extent, a neglected topic in philosophical discussions.
Traditionally, the primary notion discussed is backward-looking
responsibility,

or

rather

backward-looking

responsibility

as

blameworthiness or culpability. The notion of responsibility I

question in the following is backward-looking, referring to actions
performed by an individual in the past that are believed to have
caused negative outcomes and where the agent is considered
blameworthy. This idea will be contrasted with a more forwardlooking notion of responsibility.
So, what is it to be responsible in the backward-looking sense?
According to Peter Strawsons influential theory of responsibility,
moral responsibility consists of the reactive attitudes, for example

resentment and gratitude, we hold towards each other as comembers of the moral community.
2.4

Personal responsibility is another type of responsibility.

Ruyter (2002) it has been defined as being accountable to oneself

and to the needs and well-being of other people. Other authors
take a similar approach to personal responsibility. Brown (2009)
defined it like the responsibility assumed by a person rather than
a representative (pag. 14). For example when some friend from
other country is visiting me and I ensure him to have an enjoyable
stay in my town, I make it my personal responsibility. Also he
mentioned the reflexive personal responsibility, referring when
the subject and the object of responsibility are one and the same
person.
Linley and Maltby (2009) mentioned:
Personal responsibility is concerned with people taking individual
accountability for their decisions and actions, together with the
outcomes they create and their impacts on others. It is about
feeling that one is the author of ones own life, accountable for
the life that is created and the impacts caused through ones
decisions and actions, both on oneself and on others. Within
philosophy,

the

concept

has

been

referred

to

as

moral

responsibility,

although

with

narrower

focus

on

causal

accountability for actions either undertaken or not undertaken

(page. 686)
Linley and Maltby (2009) also stated:
Responsibility is often defined from the perspective of legal
culpability, but the concept of personal responsibility differs from
this constrained definition being focused more widely on a
prospective, future-focused sense of the need to take actions that
will deliver appropriate outcomes over time, rather than a
retrospective, past- focused accountability and culpability for
previous actions. On this basis, personal responsibility can be
understood as actively taking responsibility, rather than passively
being responsible (pag. 686). The personal responsibility can be
understood in different aspects, Brown (2009)
describe it as (a) autonomy when the individual exercise a kind of
self-determination over their destiny (b) self-reliance when people
internalize the costs of their actions, so there is the possibility of
drawing distinction between actions which do and actions which
dont impose burdens to others (c) reward when its perceived a
world where it can be fair to hold individuals personally

responsible for the failure of their own lives, it is equally fair to

hold them personally responsible for their success.
Linley and Maltby (2009) also noticed:
Personal responsibility is about ones willingness to be held
accountable for ones life and ones impacts on others. When one
chooses the behavior in knowledge of the outcome, one is also
holding oneself accountable for that outcome, whether the
outcome

is

achieved

or

not.

The

opposite

of

personal

responsibility may be considered entitlement, the sense that

someone or something else is accountable for ones life, rather
than irresponsibility or acting without responsibility (page. 686).
In his article the sequence of personal responsibility ( July 2009)
Jon Haskins defines Personal responsibility as the willingness to
both accept the importance of standards that society establishes
for individual behavior and to make strenuous personal efforts to
live by those standards. But personal responsibility also means
that when individuals fail to meet expected standards, they do
not look around for some factor outside themselves to blame.
Personal irresponsibility occurs when individuals blame their
family, their peers, their economic circumstances, or their society

for their own failure to meet standards. Jon Haskins (July 2009 )
stated further the three area that young adults can show
Irresponsible behavior: education, sexual behavior and marriage,
and work.
When applied to education, personal irresponsibility means that
students are unwilling to accept the responsibility to study hard
and to learn as much as they can in courses that press against
the limits of their capacity. Hard work is a must because the single
most accurate predictor of college performance is high school
grade point average, probably because grades reflect both
capacity and hard work. Students who choose not to prepare for
college must prepare for the world of work, a goal that also
requires strenuous personal effort. Students who do not go to
college should enroll in training courses after high school. Without
job training, an apprenticeship, or a two-year or four-year degree,
most young people are destined to a life of marginal employment
and income.
When applied to sex and marriage, personal irresponsibility
means that young people engage in sex while in high school and
in most cases do not use a form of protection against pregnancy

and sexually transmitted diseases. Young adults should avoid sex

until at least high school graduation or entry to college. Many
adults argue that young people should wait even longer. Parents,
teachers, ministers, and other authority figures should send an
unambiguous message that the best choice for all adolescents is
to just say no. Both research and centuries of human experience
show that single parenthood is difficult for both parents and
children alike. Non marital births, which are almost always caused
by a lack of commitment to moral norms or by inability to act
responsibly in light of those norms, bring a new dimension to
personal responsibility because the future of three people are
implicated, one of whom has no voice. Regardless of the decisions
young people make about age of sexual debut, personal
responsibility and the needs of society require that pregnancy and
child birth occur within the context of a loving marriage.
At the crescendo of his astonishing inaugural address, President
Obama called the USAs attention to a new era of responsibility.
What did he mean? At minimum, he meant that young Americans
should be guided by a clear and straightforward set of goals:
finish your education, get a job, get married, and only then have

children and get the sequence right. After that, everything is

possible.
2.5 Social irresponsibility
J. Scott Armstrong, Social Irresponsibility in Management,
Journal of Business Research, 5 (September, 1977), 185-213
defines Social Irresponsibility as a decision

to

accept an

alternative that is thought by the decision maker to be

inferior to another alternative when the effects upon all parties
are considered. Generally this involves a gain by one party at the
expense of the total system.
Although this definition is accepted by many, there is still some
ambiguity about the meaning of social irresponsibility. Therefore,
a second definition was used; this stated that an act was
irresponsible if a vast majority of unbiased observers would agree
that this was so.
Many managers and individuals tasked with the responsibility of
running society act in their own selfish interests. This often leads
to irresponsible behavior. However, do they commit irresponsible
acts when they behave according to the expectations of their role.
Do they do harm when they try to do good?

In a recent posting, The British Psychological Society's ethics

committee and research ethics reference group have serious
misgivings about the recent "experiment" by Facebook (Report,
29 June). Facebook sought to modify peoples' emotional states by
selectively withholding postings with emotional content. This
appears to contravene all four principles of research ethics as set
out in the Society's code of human research ethics and a recent
set of principles agreed by most British learned societies involved
in social science research.
It infringed the autonomy and dignity of individuals by interfering
with the personal decision-making as to the posts that people
wished to make to their chosen groups and, most importantly, by
failing to gain valid informed consent from the participants. The
scientific value of this study would seem to be low, since there is
already a strong body of literature which confirms emotional
contagion as a social process. The intervention was socially
irresponsible, in that it clandestinely meddled in people's social
lives with consequences that are very likely to have had
significant negative effects on individuals and groups.
There has undoubtedly been some degree of harm caused, with

many individuals affected by increased levels of negative

emotion, with consequent potential economic costs, increase in
possible mental health problems and burden on health services.
2.6

Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSIR): The focus of

Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSIR) is on businesses that

behave in a less than ideal way with regards to their legal
obligations, ethical commitments, and the consideration they give
to economic, social, and environmental factors. CSIR defines itself
as distinctive from and at the same time in relation to CSR.
Corporate Social Irresponsibility can be defined as business doing
wrong in relation to the environment, community, society, ethics,
and business practices. CSIR is when things go wrong in relation
to

profitability,

the

environment,

and

people

(customers,

suppliers, or employees). (Dr. Brian Jones Ph.D)

There are lists of rules by the United Nations, that outline the
requirements a corporation must meet to be a socially responsible
company. There are many companies that are popular today,
however, that dont meet the criteria stipulated by the UN.
Hoards of people, distracted by catchy advertising and creative
logos, fuel the machine that feeds on exploiting human beings.

Society contributes to the oppression of these people, by buying

goods

produced

in

this

manner.

Although

inhumane,

and

unethical, blinded either by ignorance or apathy, people still

support these businesses. But not only are they thriving from
support, these conglomerates lead the way in profit, and
popularity.
A large number of comparative researches discuss that, under
competitive environments, corporations run in such a way to
create all sorts of irresponsible activities to harm others to benefit
themselves. Instead of contributing to collective or public
welfares, a number of firms ruin social welfare (e.g., cheating on
product quality, dumping toxic waste into rivers). Only when
institutions are put in place to deter such irresponsible behaviors,
these firms will not stop pursuit of any short term profits (e.g.,
Crouch & Streeck, 1997). But such irresponsible activities not only
damage society but also other firms from several dimensions.
First, companies that operate in CSiR manners can have
disastrous social and environment consequences. For instance, in
2008, the worlds economic system almost collapsed and severely
downturn due to irresponsible American banking practices.

Likewise, firms have also caused great environment destruction.

According to the satellite images, the BP oil spoil in 2010 directly
polluted 180,000 km2 of ocean area which as big as Oklahoma
(Norse & Amos, 2010).
Second, companies CSiR acts will cause serious consequence to
employees. For employees, previous research showed that the
perceived CSiR of the corporation will not only affect employee
well-being (e.g., work satisfaction, health condition, working
emotion) but also influence organizations relevant outcomes,
such as employee productivity and turnover rate. Research
implies that a firms social responsible standards also impact
employees perceptions of the firm (Ramus & Steger, 2000). For
responsible corporations, employees are more willing to take part
in, dedicate themselves to, and start to make social change
positively. For instance, an offensive or abusive leader will impede
employees from engaging in organizational activities and may
even push them to engage in anti-organizational activities (e.g.,
Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1987; Tepper, 2000). Further, Ashforth
proposed that unethical working environment would increase
employees complain, reduce productivity, resist and quit, and

eventually lead to organizational failure (Ashforth, 1994).

Third, CSiR affect consumers motivations of buying products. First
of all, through media, consumers are more exposed and attracted
to CSiR news than CSR news (Branch & Tkacik, 2003). Consumers
will have negative emotions about socially and environmentally
irresponsible

corporations

and

further

affect

their

buying

motivations. In addition, consumers are more likely to share CSiR

news with each other than CSR information (Harmon & McKennaHarmon, 1994). Such sharing information behavior tends to
decrease other consumers buying motivations as well.
Fourth,

CSiR

activities

also

damage

corporate

reputations.

Customers are the end users of a companys goods and services.

They are possibly the largest stakeholder group that can be
greatly affected by CSiR. They depend on businesses to meet
their expectations, and businesses depend on them to bring them
revenue. When customers place a value on a companys goods
and services, they trust that the business will give them what
they are paying for. If the company does not perform to
customers expectations, they will place a reputation on the

company, and possibly spread that reputation amongst other

customers of that same company.
Furthermore, some researchers further argue that CSiR actions
significantly impact an organizations reputation if CSiR actions
are directly related to the corporations business areas. For
instance, research shows firms that have higher product quality
reputations will significantly damage their reputation if find out
that they have quality problems (Barber & Darrough, 1996; Rhee
& Haunschild, 2006).
Fifth, corporations engage in CSiR activities get punished by law
and

external

stakeholders.

External

stakeholders

punish

corporations irresponsible action by selling the corporations

stock which lead to stock price drop. For instance, BP was
convicted to 11 counts of negligence, two minor crimes, and one
heavy offense in 2010 oil spoil. In addition, the stock market
rolled away BP $32 billion which is far exceed analysts estimation
of $3 to $12 billion.
In addition, CSiR increase costs of banking loans. After analysing
the relationship between CSR and the cost of bank loans, Goss
and Roberts (2007) found that corporations with the low CSR

scores have to pay higher to get loan while corporations with high
CSR scores do not pay less to get fund.
Unlike CSR positive effects, CSiR activities have disastrous
consequences, such as undermine economic returns by adding
costs and lower stock price, damage corporation reputation and
adding financial loans cost. In the meantime, some research
suggests that a firms CSiR not only harms the corporations
financial performance (e.g., Baucus & Baucus, 1997) but also
punish by the law and stock market (Bromiley & Marcus, 1989).
All these internal and external factors can sufficiently stop
irresponsible actions.

CHAPTER THREE
3.0 The Passion of Pololo
Paul's (Pololo) mysterious and insatiable sexual adventure, that has so much to do with
personality-disorder and post-infant-sexual trauma begins when he is confronted with the

nakedness of their neighbour the one he calls Uncle Mike, an undergraduate of medicine on the
stark nude body of his mother when he bursts into his mother's room after a short tennis game he
had with his dad. The memory of his mother's 'naked breasts heaving, one hand outstretched in a
plea and a finger on her lips urging silence' makes Pololo to embark on a journey that only he
understands. When Pololo can't solve the mystery of the image of his mother's very nakedness
leads him to sleeping with numerous girls, he goes back to finding answers by summoning
enough courage to have a taste of his mother's flesh.
This story simply narrates parental irresponsibility and negligence as demonstrated by the mother
of Pololo.
Perspectives on irresponsible parenting vary, but a common perspective is that irresponsible
parents neglect their core duties as parents for self-indulgence. Irresponsible parents often lack
the emotional connection to their children that compels them to make personal sacrifices and to
train, nurture and care for their kids. Often this social neglect can affect the emotional,
psychological wellbeing of the child as shown in the case of Pololo developing a personalitydisorder and post-infant-sexual trauma.

Children learn from their parents. In fact, parents are the most influential guides in a child's life.
Many will see their mannerisms and phrases being used by their child. But parents are more than
models for mannerisms and phrases. They are models for crucial aspects of life: a work ethic,
intimate relationships, friendships, domestic skills, communication, and problem-solving skills.
In fact, the life of the children is moulded by the parents.

Lessons about life are being taught when a parent has an illicit affair -- lessons that they usually
don't want their child to learn. The first lesson a child learns is:
a How to deal with emotional pain.
Children whose parents are experiencing marital conflict and infidelity feel many emotions -guilt, confusion, loneliness, sadness, fear, worry, abandonment, and many other excruciating
feelings. When a child is losing the security and trust of a strong marriage they are bombarded
with pain.
So how is a child supposed to soothe their pain and the feeling of helplessness? And how does a
child gain control in an uncontrollable situation? Out of the need to defend against these
uncomfortable feelings comes a new rule about life -- If a problem arises it is better to deny that
there is a problem than to face it and feel the pain. In the case of Pololo he dealt with this through
silence and starving himself which later resulted in ulcer.

Pololo was also taught a second lesson- how to lie.

In order to maintain a secret second life, wayward spouses need to keep up the deceit. After
being caught by her son, Pololos mum begged her son to lie on her behalf. Pololo became
complicit by his silence; then came a second rule about life --Lying is allowed if it spares another
from pain or spares you from punishment.

A third crucial lesson is- how to be thoughtless

Doing what you please regardless of how it affects other people. Pololo would learn how to take
advantage of his friends and family when there was something in it for him. He would learn how

to disregard others' suffering because he had a right to enjoy life to the fullest. Pololo embarked
on an adventure of recklessness with young ladies in a bid to satisfy himself caring less about
how they feel. Eventually, he could only find the satisfaction he wanted in his own mother,
caring very little about the implication of his actions.
All wayward parents hurt the people they care about the most. Wayward spouses rationalize that
they had to look out for themselves which is why they developed the relationship outside of their
marriage in the first place. Their actions seem to benefit themselves in the short term, but it has
disastrous effects on members of their family.
Parents have a responsibility to teach their children the importance of honesty and the
importance of thoughtfulness -- considering other people's feeling when decisions are being
made. To do otherwise is not only terribly irresponsible, but may tend to perpetuate the learning
of these rules of deceit and thoughtlessness for generations to come.
What lessons are we teaching our children? What legacy are we leaving behind? Are we
protecting our marriage from infidelity? Are we making sure that our children will not learn the
unwanted lessons of denial, deceit, and disregard for others? Whatever lesson we leave behind
our children will definitely follow on in the same path after us.
Children can learn unwanted and irresponsible attitudes from an unfaithful and Irresponsible
parent. But these lessons can be changed. A wayward parent can decide to model new behaviors
and teach new lessons. It could be the greatest gift you will ever give to your children.
3.1 My Perfect Life

Sylvia, a 20-year-old final year College of Education student from Abraka, met Seun, a Yoruba
man who worked and lived in Warri. Within three weeks of their meeting, Sylvia and Seun were
madly in love and Seun proposed to Sylvia. However, Sylvias father refused to allow his first
daughter to marry a Yoruba man because of what his people did to his uncle after the war.
Although Seun pleaded with Sylvia to defy her father and elope, she was afraid and fell ill
enough to be hospitalized. Upon discharge she found that Seun was gone.

Years later at 41, Sylvia was married to a kind, loving and gentle man, had two children, a good
job and home. But Sylvia's perfect life is distorted and punctured when her past surreptitiously
crawls into her present. When she met Seun at a visit to her regular shopping mall, Shoprite in
VI, turns everything in her perfect life around. The truncated love relationship was instantly
renewed. Happiness and excitement were most important to Sylvia; she was not content to be
ordinary like other women and remain in a marriage that was devoid of sexual excitement and
love. She was tempted by Seuns proposal that she leaves her husband and children and travel
with him to America. He pleaded that they should not miss this opportunity as they had missed
the first one. Sylvias own happiness seemed more important to her than that of her husband and
children and she appeared to have made up her mind to leave her family.

While we might be quick to judge Sylvia as an irresponsibly woman who found it so easy to
cheat on her loving and good husband and who also found it easy to walk out on the happiness of
her children, we should first of all take a look at the prejudice of Sylvias father.

He will not allow his first daughter marry a Yoruba man because of what the Yorubas did to his
uncle during the civil war. His hatred and disdain for the Yorubas was based on a single
experience which should not be the bases to judge and condemn an entire race. Refusing his
daughter to marry the love of her life not only robbed her of true happiness in life but created the
conduciveness for her infidelity later in life. It is irresponsible to judge people based on their
ethnicity and also, to deny them true love in life.

However, we cannot justify the infidelity of Sylvia because she was robbed of the love of her
life. Marriage is a lifetime commitment. She made the commitment to a man who became the
father of her children. It was her responsibility to respect the union. Rather, she allowed her
unbridled passion to have a better part of her. She thought only of her selfish desires. Caring less
of her husband and children and the emotional and psychological impact her decision of
infidelity and eloping will have on them.

Every family is different, each child is unique, and yet there are certain common responses to
parental infidelity and elopement that most children experience. The following however, are core
responses experienced by children of every agefrom young children to adultsonce they find
out that one or both of their parents has been sexually unfaithful.

 Loss of trust - When children of any age learn of a parents infidelity, they usually find it
extremely difficult if not impossible to trust that someone they love will not lie to them, reject, or
abandon them. They very often learn not to put their faith in love, and they may also learn that
they are not worthy of receiving monogamous love.

Shame - A child may feel as if the betraying parents sexual transgression is a black mark
against him and the rest of the immediate family. And if the child has been pressured by the
cheating parent to keep the secret of infidelity from the betrayed parent, the child is left with
the added and unwarranted burden of guilt.

Confusion - When marriage includes infidelity, children often draw the conclusion that
marriage is a sham and love an illusion. And when parents stay married even when one or both
parent(s) continues having affairs, the effect on children is profound confusion about the
meaning of both love and marriage.

Anger and ambivalence toward the betraying parent - When infidelity partially defines a
parents character, a son or daughter often feels torn between feelings of anger and yearning.
Some even express this emotional conflict in terms of there being two mothers or two fathers
the one who used to be their parent (and was deserving of their love) and the one who was
revealed when the infidelity was brought to light (and whom they now hate).

Resentment toward the betrayed parent - Some children resent the betrayed parent for

requiring them to be their emotional caretaker, for under-parenting due to preoccupation with
the infidelity drama, or for having been unable to prevent the infidelity in the first place.

Acting out - Rather than confronting sad, angry, or confusing feelings directly, children may
exhibit behavioral problems during childhood, sexual acting out during adolescence, and
intimacy avoidance or sexual addiction during adult years. Issues of promiscuity may arise in an
attempt to play out what a child perceived from his parents about the casualness of sex and the
impermanence of love.

Sylvias irresponsibility of infidelity and elopement will leave a permanent irreparable emotional
damage on her husband and children for the rest of their lives.

3.2 God is listening

Angei becomes an unprotected child from external forces that parenting bars out when her
parents die in an inexplicable auto accident. She is left with nothing as her father's brother, Uncle
Thomas, swoops on her father's properties. Her siblings sacrificed their slavery on Uncle
Thomas' farm so that she can be allowed to finish her SSCE. Bright light starts illuminating her

dark life when she perceives a great future in the promise her lover, Goddie, who assures her to
open her legs for sponsorship through school to study her dream course accountancy. Unknown
to her, Goddie only eggs her on to have what seems impossible with his wife at home a male
child.
God is indeed listening when her mother and father crash to death. The Creator truly isn't deaf
when Goddie dumps Angei because the x-ray shows she is carrying a girl-child. God is even
paying attention when Angei uses her virginal to pay her rent to her landlord. God is looking,
when Angei finally dumps the child in a trash can and is afterwards raped by a watchman who
exploits her naivety.

The intervention of death in life terminates lofty dreams, ambitions and aspirations. Such events
when they occur, jolts
us back to the harsh realities of life. It is sad to loss both parents at once exposing you suddenly
to the real world and forcing you to grow up quickly. What is sadder however its when those
who should be responsible in helping you find your path abandon you to your fate, such as the
case with Angeis uncle, Uncle Thomas.

The tradition of "property-grabbing" has benign roots: Widows and children were once absorbed
by a man's family along with his property. These days, however, the relatives usually just want
the goods. Now this vestige of patriarchal society is illegal and irresponsible. As widows and

children are left not only without their main provider but also with little of the material support
they may have had. For children, it's a double tragedy. It means orphans lose parents but also are
deprived of the means of survival.

Uncle Thomas attitude is the general irresponsible attitude characterizing most African
communities. This irresponsibility have destroyed many children and has had a negative impact
on the larger society. Not only in the prevailing poverty and untold hardship they experience, but
many of these children grow up as the miscreants of society.

The case of Goddie was in many ways not different from Uncle Thomas; Dumping a pregnant
woman because she is pregnant with a female child. This act completely destroyed the life of
Angei and led to so many other unpleasant experiences. Firstly, she was forced to use her body to
pay for her own rent to her landlord. Secondly, she was also force to abandon her baby and
eventually raped by a night guard.

However, if Goddie had been responsible enough to cater for the woman pregnant with his child,
the chain of events that follow would have been prevented.

Our actions have far reaching consequences. Take for instance, what will become of the child

that was dumped? An armed robber?, A rapist? One act of irresponsibility can go a long way to
alter the lives of many people in the society.

We also have the night guard who should be protecting a helpless girl but rather chose to exploit
her sexually by raping her at gun point. Sexual exploitation of women today transcends racial,
economic, social and regional lines. This exploitation is directed at women who lack the
economic and social status to resist or avoid it. According to statistics, 45% of sexual assaults are
perpetrated against girls under the age of 20.

This acts of irresponsibility perpetrated by a guard who should be protecting a young girl alone
and frightened at night but rather choose to use his advantage to exploit her shows how
irresponsible those we are suppose to trust can disappoint us.

3.3 The Devil's Overtime:

When the devil is at work, there are moans and bitter tales to tell. But when the very devil with
two horns and a tail stretches his time causing groans, then, no one can be crestfallen about how
much hurt people will writhe under. It is the devil's overtime when Daniel's mother is trapped in
the village by irresponsible pregnancy. The devil outstretches his hours as Justina is killed with
her pregnancy ripped off her stomach and kicked around like football by religion-fighters. The
devil isn't also too fair to Daniel when he is abandoned by his mother at a tender age to decide

his fate under Lagos' bridges and slums. The Devil can't have been reasonable this time around.
No, he can't have been, maybe he doses off, when Michael, Daniel's friend, dies before Michael,
even when he isn't suffering from any disease like his friend, who is battling with liver-crisis.

The devils Overtime is simply a narration of parental irresponsibility and negligence.

Parental responsibility according to Katrin Bain (Modernising Children Services 2009) can be
broadly defined as a legal term that specifies rights and responsibilities of parents towards their
children.
Parental duties will include:
1.

The duty to protect the child.

2.

The duty to maintain the child.

3.

The duty to secure the childs education.

4.

The duty to control the child. (Allen 2005, 23)

But clearly the mother of Daniel in our story did not take her role as a parent very seriously. The
sad story did not however begin with her when she heartlessly abandoned her son in Lagos at the
age of nine to fend for himself. It started when she allowed herself to be impregnated by an
irresponsible man who only cared about nothing else but himself.
Daniels Father would easily pass as a Casanova who was never interested in taking on the

challenge of parental responsibility. As a truck driver who shuttles the village to Asaba, with
little money to throw around the young women, his lifestyle was easily predictable; booze,
women and with no long time commitments. Daniels mother knew this of course, but she was a
woman who was blinded with ambition and vanity who cared very little about the consequences
of her actions.
Her desire to see the world at all cost led her to abandon her own son in the market. This perhaps
is the height of parental irresponsibility that can be committed by a parent. The abandonment did
not start at the market in Lagos, but from the moment the child was born- he was unwanted. It
began first as a psychological abandonment when she saw him as a noose around her neck, a
piece of rope that tethered her to the village, a swollen foot that would not let her run with the
wind and take flight.
Though there are no hard numbers, reports would seem to indicate that the number of mothers
who actually do run away -- or at least walk away -- is increasing. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, the number of single fathers has been rising steadily, from more than 600,000 in 1982 to
more than 2 million in 2011.
Freedom of choice does not necessarily mean freedom from stigma. Abandonment of children
simply does not raise our judgmental hackles for a father the way it does for a mother. For a
woman, there is that nagging perception that she -- for whatever reason -- found something more
important than her children.
Mothers who do leave or abandon their children seem to violate some natural order abandoning
them to their fate from which their children will never recover. Children abandoned by their

parents go through a lot of psychological pain and hurt.

According to Peter K. Gerlach, MSW in his article Perspective on Parental Abandonment
Their hurt is a mix of;
Shock, if the abandonment was unexpected and/or explosive. Confusion - many mental
questions and uncertainties about the abandonment and what it means; shame ("low selfesteem") - feeling unlovable and unworthy, even if other adults are genuinely nurturing and
attentive; guilt - feeling (irrationally) that they did something bad or wrong that caused the
abandonment; fears of (a) bonding with some or all adults / men / women; and that (b) their
other caregivers may also abandon them, and they will die. If a child is raised in an ''anti-grief''
family, s/he can unconsciously carry unfinished mourning into adulthood as periodic or chronic
"depression."
I am fourteen years old now and I am dying. My liver is ruined, eaten away by all that kai-kai I
drank like water in the days when I lived rough.
This statement captures the negative impact of parents abandoning their children to their fate at
an early age. Daniel will die young because his father rejected him. His mother abandoned him.
He found himself with the wrong crowd; to survive did what he had to do. The story of his hard
and short life is the tale of what becomes of children whose parents do not value the gift of a
child and the responsibility of parenthood.
Conclusion

My project has looked at the problems that can arise from social irresponsibility, when
individuals chose to become irresponsible in their actions. Drawing conclusions based on five
stories from Toni Khans A Night of the Creaking Bed. Each of these stories has highlighted the
negative social consequences when individuals neglect their social responsibilities and the ripple
effect it can have on the larger society.
Each of our story highlights in very vivid picture the trauma, pain, sorrow, regrets, complication
and trouble social irresponsibility can bring on individuals, families, and society. It has shown
how criminals can be created, how fear and anger can be fanned, how individuals perceptions
can be shaped about society and how people can become twisted in their desires and
expectations.
Society is shaped by individuals who are shaped by the home. In order to curb social
irresponsibility, firstly, values and ethics must be taught at home, schools and all levels and
adhered to by all and sundry, laws and regulations must be strict enough to prevent or at least
minimize irresponsible actions that have direct consequences on the larger society. Secondly,
when these values are broken punishments should be employed as a way of deterring
irresponsible actions. That way the integrity of society can be maintained.