It is not their fault

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qfDgxNWkdkg#!

June 20 is World Refugee Day, established by the United Nations “to honor the courage, strength and determination of women, men and children who are forced to flee their homes under threat of persecution, conflict and violence.”

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) has been helping refugees—including survivors of the Holocaust—since shortly after the end of World War II. As genocides, ruthless military regimes, internecine warfare, and torture have continued to engulf many areas of the world in blood, agony, and horror, the numbers of men, women, and children displaced from their homes continue to swell. For most of these refugees, the UNHCR is their only lifeline.

The UNHCR site provides videos in which some of these survivors describe their experiences. If you listen to these stories, you will be both chilled at the terrifying nature of the dilemmas that these survivors faced and moved by what they were able to achieve despite these horrors.

In reflecting about the work of the UNHCR over the last six decades, we do well to consider the extent to which American participation in armed conflict in pursuit of its own interests has contributed to many of the refugee problems, and to reflect on how we can atone.

At least one in five refugees has been subjected to torture—the topic of our upcoming June 24 post. Many of the people labeled “immigrants” in the U.S. today are refugees, and many have suffered horrendous torture. Many need ongoing services to recover. I have met some of them. Perhaps you have done so also, without even knowing it.

To learn about some of the circumstances in which the U.S. has gotten it right, watch the video, “Six voices for six decades.”

June 20 is a good day not just to honor the courage of refugees but to recognize that helping others to help themselves benefits all of us and perhaps helps to save our souls.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Moral disengagement – Introduction

Photo of 3 monkeys in "hear, speak, see no evil" poses
Hear, Speak, See No Evil. Toshogu Prefecture, Japan. (Unconditional permission granted by photographer, via WikiMedia Commons.)

Psychologist Albert Bandura has devoted his life to the study of human aggression and violence.  It is his theoretical constructs that we begin considering today.

Bandura recognized that shame and guilt are uncomfortable emotions and that people will utilize a variety of strategies to avoid feeling them.

For some people, feelings of shame and guilt resulting from bad behavior may lead to positive character development, mature intimacy, generativity, and integrity.

Other people use strategies of “moral disengagement” to help them avoid shame or guilt while continuing to behave badly.

According to Bandura, “mechanisms of moral disengagement” can serve to satisfy their users that they are behaving morally because they are conforming to the values of their role models, spiritual guides, or political leaders.

Unfortunately, many leaders, often with the help of the media, promote the development and use of moral disengagement in order to insure their followers’ compliance in acts of horrifying violence against others.  For example, they encourage viewing “the enemy” as someone evil, inferior, and deserving punishment or even elimination.

Bandura has identified several types of moral disengagement that allow ordinary people to tolerate and even contribute to behaviors like torture, rape, and murder–behaviors that violate the ethics of reciprocity, the teachings of love and brotherhood in all major religious texts, and the human rights laws endorsed by the United Nations.

These mechanisms of moral disengagement include:

  • “Moral” justification–which we prefer to call “spurious moral justification”
  • Euphemistic labeling
  • Advantageous comparison
  • Displacement of responsibility
  • Disregard or distortion of consequences
  • Dehumanizing or demonizing the other

In upcoming posts, we will explore each of these mechanisms in more detail, and give common examples of their use. We will also introduce the mechanisms of moral engagement that allow individuals to resist spurious calls to violence in the name of peace.

Be sure to check back to learn more.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.