Month: October 2013

Prison and the just world fallacy

Posted on by kathiemm
Recreation of Dr. King's prison cell
Recreation of Dr. King’s prison cell. National Civil Rights Museum. Image by Adam Jones, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 30 Unported license.

Many Americans want to believe that anyone who is in prison deserves to be there. To differentiate themselves from people in prison, they cling to just world beliefs [opens in pdf]—i.e., the conviction that life is just, that good things happen to good people, and that bad things happen to bad people.

Just world beliefs can give people a sense of stability and reassurance–a belief that sooner or later they will be rewarded for their inherent if not always obvious goodness.

Just world beliefs can also be a barrier against empathy; they can shield people from feeling that they must do something to correct injustices—e.g., police brutality, racial profiling.

Yet we want to remind you that many people have been imprisoned–in this country as well as elsewhere–because they saw and challenged injustice and spoke truth to power.

To mention just a few:

  • Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Read his letter from a Birmingham jail.
  • Father Daniel Berrigan. See his interview with Amy Goodman.
  • Chelsea (Bradley) Manning. Learn more about the effort to obtain a pardon for Chelsea.

Dr. King, Father Berrigan, and other celebrated activists for peace and social justice have regained their freedom, but there are thousands of men and women in prison today who do not have the social and economic support to gain release. (See previous posts on prisons—and torture in prisons–in the continental United States and in Guantanamo Bay.)

To make the world a better place and to make our own country a better place, we need to begin by recognizing that a just world has not yet been achieved.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Systems so perfect

Posted on by kathiemm

By guest author Mike Corgan

“dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.”

Man frightened by specter of national spying.
Image by Carlos Latuff, copyright free. (FRA refers to Swedish wiretapping law).

C.S. Lewis wrote those words for his verse play The Rock, but they could just as well apply to U.S. foreign policy and security affairs. (Witness the current daily National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdropping bombshells.)

We have always been dazzled by our technological prowess when it comes to security. In the American Revolution, the British had muskets, but we had rifles. The Civil War had aerial observation, repeating rifles, railroads, and steam-powered warships. In World War I, every machine gun on all sides had at least one American patent; in World War II, we had long-range bombers that could deliver the atomic bomb.

Nowadays we can listen to everyone everywhere.

Maybe we should take a lesson from our use of the atomic bomb. It took awhile, but many of us finally realized that this was something awesomely and terribly different. In spite of some impassioned calls to do so, neither the U.S. nor any other nation has used nuclear weapons since World War II ended in 1945. In my Navy days we used to deride “capabilities in search of a mission.”

Perhaps we can learn that our ability to eavesdrop on everyone, like our ability to deploy nuclear weapons, has a serious downside. We ought not to use this “system so perfect” everywhere without clear and agreed-upon restraints. Yes, terrorists do present a serious threat to our society–but so does the breakdown of trust between citizens and government and among those who should be our allies and partners in fighting this scourge.

We have incredibly effective, near-perfect systems, like “smart” weapons, drones, electronic intercept equipment, and so on. We humans need to be good and smart, too.

The power of one

Posted on by kathiemm

This year’s winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is a well-deserving intergovernmental organization—the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The OPCW works in collaboration with the United Nations to administer the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWP).

As of January 2013, the OPCW had overseen the destruction of nearly 80% of the world’s acknowledged stockpile of chemical weapons. As I write, it has a team in Syria, working to dismantle that country’s chemical weapons in the middle of a bloody civil war.

As I read the history of their work, I am fascinated. When I think of the bravery of their workers in Syria, and contemplate the potential of their efforts for peace in the Middle East and survival of humanity, I am awed and grateful.

Yet, when I view the video showing their fine exhibits to the public, my thoughts turn immediately to Malala Yousafzai—the Pakistani teenaged girl who was shot twice in the head to punish her for promoting education for girls in a district where they wanted no girls in school.

People around the world were aghast at the effort to assassinate her, prayed for her recovery, and were thrilled to see her nominated for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize—the youngest nominee in the history of the prize.

Malala did not win it this year, though she continues to be recognized for her courage, integrity, activism—and readiness to speak truth to power. When President Obama invited her to the White House “”to thank her for her inspiring and passionate work on behalf of girls education in Pakistan,” she told him she was concerned that “drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.”

President Obama would do well to heed the words of this young woman.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Fundamentalism vs. extremism (Intolerance, cohesion, and killing in religion, Part 2)

Posted on by kathiemm

By guest contributor Emmanuel C. Mbaezue

Though intertwined with many beliefs and purposes, religious fundamentalists and extremists depart significantly from each other in their basic operations.

War image mural in Son Severa by Frank Vincentz
Mural in Son Severa by Frank Vincentz, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

Typically, it is the fundamentalist who creates the vision of the group and their religious and moral legitimization for action. While the leaders provide the concept, the followers design the practice or action.

It is usually in the process of implementing those designs that discrepancies between the original ideas held by the group leaders and subsequent actions arise—the traditional “follower fallacy.” Most importantly, it is also at this point that overzealousness, particularly from the followers, tends to magnify discrepancies.

There are a lot more differences between fundamentalism and the extremism that explain the violence-prone nature of religion today. However, it is important to deemphasize the role of religious leaders in religiously-motivated violence and focus instead on the most basic underlying causes of violence—for example, poverty and inequality–which can be manipulated for personal and group purposes.

Basically, the radicalism and blood-stained nature of religion today can be blamed mainly on structural defects. People frequently need something to believe in, particularly in times of crisis. As Karl Marx once opined, religion is the opiate of the masses.

If the violence and killing prevalent in society today are to be reduced, then we must be ready to help people gain the basic necessities of life. This could be achieved through an honest respect for fundamental human rights, recognized by both international and local laws.

Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Mbaezue has a Master of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of the Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.