Stop Separating Immigrant Families Press Conference and Rally Chicago Illinois on June 5, 2018. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Author: Charles Edward Miller.
Note from Kathie MM: As too often happens, a major human rights issue has become a political football, human beings are suffering, and important evidence about the outcomes of yet another instance of some people’s inhumanity to others is being ignored. But Dr. Alice LoCicero has some insights to share.
by Alice LoCicero
It is hard for me to believe that while the vast majority of Americans are disturbed by the sight of immigrant parents and children being summarily separated, and babies being remanded to group care, some Americans are not. Yesterday, results of a Quinnipiac poll showed although 66% of Americans reject the policy, 27 % favor it.
The policy has been called child abuse, torture, inhumane. Many have warned that it will do irreparable harm to the families. Others have glibly suggested that the children’s centers are like summer camps and some have even cast doubt on the idea that these separations are causing distress, maintaining that the wailing babies and children are child actors.
For people who are interested in what science has t0 say on the subject, great deal of evidence has accrued, inspired by the many unanticipated and unwanted separations of children from parents during World War II. We know from studies inspired by observations of children and babies separated from parents that babies who receive adequate hygienic care and food but no affection become more vulnerable to illness, and some die. Lack of affection can also cause developmental neurological problems: See https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/parental…
The high numbers of children separated from their parents during the war inspired a great deal of research on attachment, separation, and loss, by John Bowlby and by James and Joyce Robertson, who during World War II, worked with Anna Freud in the wartime nurseries of Hampstead.
The Robertsons developed a knowledge base of what happens to children separated from parents in times of trouble and crisis. They not only observed children directly, but also made several compelling—and heartbreaking—films. One dramatic film documenting the aftermath of separation of young children from parents and placement in group care is called “John, aged 17 months for nine days in a residential nursery,” about a child whose parents believed he would get good care in a nursery setting while his mother was in a hospital giving birth to a sibling.
The nursery where John was placed had good food, a clean environment, many toys, trained caregivers, and other children about his age. The ratio of children to caregivers was not unreasonable for a group care setting. But over nine days, John went from being an obviously happy, well-developed child who could be helped, fed, and comforted by the staff to a child who refused food, seldom played, and simply looked depressed. After nine days, he looked like a person in despair.
This is the kind of decline we can expect for many of the young children summarily separated from their parents and placed with strangers—even if they are provided the best available physical care, food, and a hygienic environment. John was fortunate to be reunited with his parents after nine days. But where is the plan to reunite the parents and children who have been separated at the border?
The Robertsons’ films showed children separated from parents protesting at first , then despairing, and finally detaching from others. The films led to revolutionary changes in pediatric inpatient care–from parents being allowed only occasionally to visit their children to parents being welcomed as part of the caretaking team.
Perhaps it is time to show these films to the 27% of Americans who think separating children from their parents at the border is a good idea. Perhaps it will take 100% of us to stop this madness and reunite the families that have been ripped apart for political purposes.
Alice LoCicero Ph.D., ABPP, is President, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict (Peace Psychology)
Holding space for hope. Author: Kathie Malley-Morrison
By Rev Dr Doe West
I have come to deeply appreciate the concept of “holding space”. Two examples of what that means were expressed in articles I clipped–one by Lynn Hauka and one by Heather Plett .
Lynn offered that “When you hold space for someone, you bring your entire presence to them. You walk along with them without judgment, sharing their journey to an unknown destination. Yet you’re completely willing to end up wherever they need to go.”
Heather added that “It means that we are willing to walk alongside another person in whatever journey they’re on without judging them, making them feel inadequate, trying to fix them, or trying to impact the outcome. When we hold space for other people, we open our hearts, offer unconditional support, and let go of judgment and control.”
Love those definitions.
As I was having deep and painful – yes, even grieving – conversation with friends concerning the gravity of the darkness of these times, I wondered if I could use this understanding for something less tangible than a person. Could I hold space for hope?
Could I bring my entire presence to hope – even as I watched unarmed children, women and men shot down in Gaza?! Could I walk without judgement as I listened to this POTUS call immigrants “animals”?! Could I not try to fix them or impact the outcome when I have devoted my life to the work of Social Justice!?!
As I sat with that contemplation, tears of rage and sorrow poured down my face. What was the worth of even considering such a thing?
And then – as that peace that passes all understanding finally washed over me again – I found my answer.
I learned the art and tool of not judging vs. mindfully observing to allow myself ultimate understanding. I learned the art of not trying to fix a person vs. work to assure I was not acting in a way that either paralleled or allowed their actions. If I do not judge them vs. assure my own convictions and actions are within my ethical and moral place on higher ground, then I am doing the work of social justice… for that is always worked from within first and foremost… always built on a foundation of depth of self-awareness and clear perception of actions so that my own fear, anger, and negative perception does not create my own lie as I live the moment.
I must face my truth; live my truth and so offer the truth of resistance. And my truth will always be cloaked in hope. Not false hope; honest hope that cannot help but arise when your truth is justice. Justice is born of hope in the face of the worst of adversity. Resistance is fed by hope that allows us to walk through the bullets to aid the wounded.
Hope is one of the greatest expressions of love I know. I am holding space for hope.
Standing Rock, North Dakota, December, 2016. Author: Alice LoCicero
by Alice LoCicero
North Dakota: At the daily meetings, anyone who wishes to speak can do so, for any length of time, on any topic. Others listen carefully, patiently, and respectfully, in order to learn from those who do, and those who do not, initially look like they have a lot to teach.
For non-natives, noticing the patience and listening attentively is the first lesson: That there is a different way to engage—that unwavering focus with determination to meet a known goal is not the only—and not always the best–approach. That pushing someone to get to the point might lead you to miss the point entirely.
The wisdom the speaker has to share might come in the first sentence or the last paragraph, or throughout the comments. You cannot know in advance. You must remain engaged.
In the meetings I attended, some who spoke had traveled—some by foot– hundreds of miles to share their experiences and their hard-won wisdom—from other actions in other times.
Grandmothers led the communal prayers that began each meeting, and ended it, and their prayers of gratitude, of memory, of humble request, and of hope, were enhanced by drumming and singing, done by men—usually young men. Those prayers reminded us we were all in this together now—indigenous people, immigrants—voluntary and forced–and the descendants of immigrants. All races and ethnicities.
We all share this one, beautiful, earth. And every meeting left me in hope and awe, as I watched privileged young men and women—the descendants of colonizers–who had opted to learn, for now, from their indigenous relatives, rather than from their college professors. And oppressed young men and women who had committed themselves to stand up and lead others in non-violent actions to protect the earth.
Everyone there was ready to stand with all willing relatives—we are all relatives–putting our bodies and souls on the line to protect the water for future generations.
This experiment in democracy, sustainability, justice, egalitarianism and community was not viewed favorably by the larger community. It was viewed with suspicion, hatred, and condemnation. And the response of the authorities in the nearby non-native communities, with the support of non-native community members, was unbridled, unjustified, absurd levels of violence, both direct and indirect. Violence toward the water protectors and toward the water itself.
Indeed, for hundreds of years, the democratic, egalitarian, spiritual, communal societies of indigenous western hemisphere natives have been viewed by non-natives with fear and hatred.
Natives have consistently been treated with absurd levels of violence, because, for all this time, the settler/colonizers did not—and probably could not–see the indigenous groups as human. If they had, it would have posed a challenge to the colonizers’ values and way of life, with its central assumption that it is normal for humans to be driven by greed, competition, and individualism. With such values, respect is given not to those who share, but to those who own land, animals, and people.
Respect Action Principles, Standing Rock, North Dakota, December, 2016. Author: Alice LoCicero.
Dr. Alice LoCicero is currently a visiting scholar at The Wright Institute in Berkeley, California, and president-elect of the Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict (Division 48 of the American Psychological Association.) Dr. LoCicero was the first president of the Society for Terrorism Research. She is author of two books and several peer-reviewed articles on terrorism. Her recent scholarship has documented the costs of the US counterterrorism policies, focusing on the flawed Countering Violent Extremism programs, and the American Psychological Association’s actions that supported torture of detainees at Guantanamo and other sites. Dr. LoCicero was shocked to see water protectors at Standing Rock, who were committed to non-violence, being treated as if they posed a threat equivalent to terrorists.
Cultural diversity. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Author: მარიამ იაკობაძე
By Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D. – TRANSCEND Media Service
Introduction
1. Fractionation
There is an urgent need for healing the divisive separation of people, societies, and nations. A continuation of the present intentional and unintentional “fractionation” forebodes a tragic future. Humans and the institutions they have created for collective living, now threaten life and lives as they assert selective group domination and control. While unity should be an aspiration, population “fractionation” across virtually every societal status marker is producing chaos and havoc. “We reap what we sow.”
“Fractionation” among population sectors across the world has brought widespread local, national, and international violence, conflict and destruction. Toleration of separation, division, and detachment for selected population sectors has promoted a cascade of “populist” ideologies, now threatening to destabilize existing social, political, economic, and moral orders. While these orders have often failed in their expected noble purposes, and while they are now the very seeds of narrow xenophobic and rabid nationalist “populist” movements, it is essential responses be guided by principles promoting justice and equity.
Brexit, Trumpism, and scores of similar populist movements across the world are promoting intense “nativist-alien” competitions for power. The fate of entire nations (e.g., France, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Poland) is now in play. Widespread fears, anger, and rage are endemic in populist movements. Globalization is considered the fault and the enemy.
2. Hegemonic Globalization
Rather than globalization, however, “hegemonic globalization,” or globalization controlled by a few powerful nations (G-8; G-20) may be the source (Marsella, 2005; 2012; 2017). Hegemonic globalizations legitimized USA global dominance and a unabashed freedom to invade, occupy, and exploit nations across the world. As this unbridled foreign policy proceeded, the Middle-Eastern and West Asian regions brought mass documented and undocumented migrations of refugees and immigrants seeking relief from civil wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Turkey, Nigeria, Congo, and other African nations, and “terrorist” assaults in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
“Hegemonic globalization” ignores and silences, the “common good.” In contrast to “hegemonic globalization,” the “common good” is driven by equity, equality, democracy, and human and nature rights. “Hegemonic globalization” favors a homogenized global community, subservient to special interests and exploitations, serving wealth, military power, and position. Never before has the term “One World” become such a danger!
In the struggle against the pernicious consequences of “hegemonic globalization,” there must be a commitment to the “common good.” “Common good” must become the global goal. The word “common,” itself speaks against fractionation or separation. Interdependency is an unavoidable reality. Even as the risk of “Black Swan” events remains, efforts must be made to develop principles for arbitrating policies and actions insuring the “common” good will trump fractionation. This is the reality!
Opportunistic foreign policies by USA and NATO powers, produced massive national upheavals in identity, and facilitated “fractionation” within and across population sectors. As easy solutions to the problems fell beneath the failed recognition of the complex consequences of intrusions and forced regime changes favored by the USA and its allies, the notion of “endless war” emerged. As usual, these nations concluded their errors revealed the dangerous state of our world, an assertion requiring more global violence, conflict, and destruction, a tragic position favoring only warmongers rooted in government, corporate, and military positions.
Whether by choice, intention, or diabolical impulse, population sectors identified as “different” by status markers (e.g., religion, race, gender, age, gender preference) have emerged as threats, dangers, or risks to the existing status quo. Tragically, the status quo, through media and educational controls, nurtured myths of its “benign” status.
Manichean distinctions became popular among politicians, generals, and war industry mavens. “You are either with us, or against us!” Really! How many Cowboy and Indian movies generated that distinction? Did anyone ever ask the Indians? This in a world of massive population differences! Simplistic solutions from simplistic minds failing to grasp the reality of imposing prejudicial solutions on a world now tired of Western exploitation and dominance, the consequences which now are destroying the West from within!
Unfortunately, possibilities of good, positive, and virtuous changes are denied in the West amid nostalgic calls for a return to the familiar past in which colonization, imperialism, invasion, regime change, labor and resource exploitation, and pollution of the world became rampant. Whether in Africa, Central America, South America, West Asia, or in oceans, earth, and skies, “fractionation” has been the consequence of “hegemonic globalization.” We reap the legacy!
3. Change as Enemy
Change itself has become the enemy! Population sectors considered “carriers” or emblematic of differences have become targets by closed minds who have failed to understand their own egregious role in producing difficulties. The cries of the old status quo echo:
“Remember the “good ole days,” when “men were men,” and you knew what was right and wrong! Remember when we used “bathrooms based on our genitalia,” and our genitalia were sources of pride.” “Men and women knew their place, and foreigners worked their butts off for $3.00 hour plucking chickens, harvesting vegetables, and picking up garbage. Sure do miss those days!”
Many population sectors, however, did not miss those days, and they fought and struggled to change them because of exploitation and abuse. Racial and gender revolutions of past decades, seeking a modicum of equality and opportunity, became labeled as Communist-inspired conspiracies, insidiously inserted into existing stable societies and nations. Unions were considered problems because they pursued equality. Unions, once a voice for workers, became sources of trouble in businesses, schools, and harvest fields.
“We are being screwed!” became the cry! “Take back our society!” “This is not my nation!” “Get out!” In the confusing haze of change, governments, corporations, military, and educational institutions became tyrants oppressing change. Populism became the only salvation for many filled with discontent, fear, and anger.
Ultimately, whether for political, economic, and/or moral reasons, “demonized” population sectors are now being forced into past marginalized statuses. “Fractionation” is omnipresent. Without Constitutional, legal, or moral protections, marginalized population sectors become easy targets for blame ostracism, and justifiable violence. Tensions mount as dominant societal sectors seize power and impose barriers and burdens upon marginalize sectors. “We want law and order!” “We have a right to carry guns anywhere, all the time. Remember the OK Corral?”
In its extremes, ethnic cleansing, genocide, imprisonment, and other forms of social ostracism and isolation become consequences of seemingly “just” effort to protect society. Tragically, the concentration of wealth, power, and position in the minds and hands of a few seeking to perpetuate a past enabling them to maintain positions of power and influence limits and prevents rising protests among marginalized populations sectors (e.g., women, race, gender preference, immigrants, peaceniks, and the elderly).
It is essential concepts and principles for “arbitrating” the “common good” be identified and applied to proliferating local, national, and international policies, regulations, and laws. The latter are seeking to increase separation under nuanced and ambiguous terms. Spin!
Foreign Policy Bias
Monopolistic concentrations of economic, political, social, and ideological power across the world today assure “hegemonic” control (e.g., Big Ag, Big Media, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Military, Big Education, Big Business, Big Medicine) (see Marsella, 2015). This concentration shapes government foreign policy actions resulting in invasions and occupations destroying national histories, traditions, religions, stability, and identity.
Within this context, “regime-change” has become a reflexive foreign policy option for the USA and allied Western powers. Consider the vast destruction of Middle-Eastern nations (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, and likely, soon Turkey and Iran). These nations are “imagined” threats to USA, UK, and Israel hegemony and imperialistic ambitions. In the foreign policy room, however, “imagined” has become real as the perpetrators have forced justification of destruction and war. “Bomb them, accuse them, vilify them, demonize them, and eventually they will respond with anger; at that point we have them where we want them and we can run rampant over them.”
FRACTIONATION: FEAR OF DIFFERENCES
1. Diversity
The issue of “fractionation” is rooted in the contentious ideas and ideologies of diversity, political correctness, and multiculturalism. The world is caught in pressures for cultural and national homogenization versus multiculturalism (e.g., Marsella, 2016). Many government, corporate, and military power sources seek homogenization, because the uniformity will assist in control and domination.
Tragically, “fractionation” is a social, political, economic, and moral distinction and discrimination rooted in differences and diversity. Diversity is the essence of life itself! Diversity reflects the life impulse; the infinite impulse to evolve alternatives.
Chart 1 displays examples of population sector “fractionations.” Current political movements directed toward electing or imposing “conservative,” “neo-cons,” “right wing,” and “fascist” governments and national identities are omnipresent. “Fractionation” is strengthened by competition for limited resources (e.g. financial, education, health). There is a need for justice; not only the perception of justice, but an accepted and established template for arbitrating policies and practices.
Chart 1: Examples of Fractionation Sectors
Chart 2 lists proposed concepts and principles for arbitrating public and private policies and actions for the “common good.” Chart 2 concepts and principles are founded within the recognized need for compromise and acceptance rather than imposed force. The issue of “diversity,” so apparent in Chart 1 on “fractionation,” is best resolved, not through “power” politics, but through establishing an equal playing field. How much diversity can a society or nation take before it looses coherence and the ability to function as a whole? The answer is both complex and simple.
“A society or a nation can tolerate as much diversity as it is willing to establish equal opportunities for access to shared society or nation rewards.”
Arbitration principles and concepts displayed in Chart 2 are well known. The challenge is to use them. Consider the reality that science, religion, philosophy, and all other anchors of moral codes speak of these principles on a near daily basis. They are no longer sources of debate, but rather sources of hypocrisy. The world agrees “justice” is essential in arbitrating legal and regulatory policies and procedures, but “justice” becomes ignored by the time its meaning is tarnished through debate and argument, especially at the hands of those who value injustice.
Chart 2: Principles for Arbitrating “Common Good”
Institutions and professions speak daily of ethics and moral codes, and yet they fail to se human rights as the foundation of any ethical or moral code they advocate. Why not begin with the United Nations statement on “human rights?” This universal statement, UNHCR should be read by all professions and specialty services; it should be read by school students either before or after the various pledges of allegiance. Will this provoke controversy and discomfort? Yes, of course, but political and religious codes and pledges are at best attenuated to an institution’s favor.
Or consider “complexity!” Rather than propose simplistic solutions favoring a particular positions or group, acknowledge the situation is complex and will require a consideration of the many complex variables needing to be considered, and appropriate multidisciplinary models. What about “activism?” While authorities seek to contain activism, and even to label it as a crime or terrorism, fundamental principle of citizen activism is enshrined by law and history. Repression of activism rights and privileges to offer counter opinions and to protest is the hallmark of fascism. Addiction to control and dominance in fascism destroy the human spirit and erode choice.
These principles for arbitrating the “common good” stand as a bulwark against the forces of fractionation. When these principles are advocated and used, the “common good” will survive and thrive.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
The challenge of addressing “fractionation,” is in essence, simple. As Sister Joan Halifax said, “There is no other!” There is only one. Addictions to actions and policies of “separation” represent a pull from primitive instinctual impulses when recognition of differences were considered essential for survival. This was a need in ancient times when perceived differences were considered sources of risks and threats to security and survival. But that was then, and this is now! Evolution has demonstrated primitive instincts can yield to reason. Recognition that “differences” are, in fact, expressions of essential evolutionary life expressions is gaining acceptance.
The cosmic principles of “fission” and “fusion,” which characterize and describe the very creation and evolution of the universe itself, contain the message:
“Separation is essential. It offers variations and differences. At the same time, fusion of connection and unification of differences is also essential because the fused creation contains emergent properties yielding yet new opportunities for creative evolutionary possibilities.”
That is life! It is time to accept a new code: “Lifeism.” (Marsella, 2011). To do less, guarantees destruction. To life!
ENDNOTES
“Globalization” is the process and product of transnational and trans-border policies in communication and information technologies; financial transactions and controls; social, economic, and political dependencies; military pacts and alliances; laws; treaties, transportation; and mega-corporations (Marsella, 2012, 2017).
REFERENCES
Marsella, A.J. (2005) “Hegemonic” globalization and cultural diversity: The risks of global monoculturalism. Australian Mosaic, Volume 12, #4, 15-22.
Marsella, A.J (2011). Identity beyond self, culture, nation, and humanity to “lifeism.”
Marsella, A.J (2017; in press). Globalization. In F. Moghaddam (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Political Behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development and Environment, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Emeritus Professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii’s Manoa Campus in Honolulu, Hawaii, and past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu. He is known internationally as a pioneer figure in the study of culture and psychopathology who challenged the ethnocentrism and racial biases of many assumptions, theories, and practices in psychology and psychiatry. In more recent years, he has been writing and lecturing on peace and social justice. He has published 21 books and more than 300 articles, tech reports, and popular commentaries. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.
