The “Just Enough” Policy: Behavioral Control of Collective Protest through Minimum Reward, Part 3 of a 3-part series

 

The Paradox of Advances and Losses

by Anthony Marsella, PhD

Virtually everyone, except perhaps the very young and uninformed, is in disbelief at our national situation. Most adults never imagined a world filled with so many challenges to security, health, and wellbeing. Old timers (i.e., over 70 years) ask, “How did it all happen? It’s not just the changes, but the speed of things!” They gaze into their memories, and utter those timeless words: “It seems like only yesterday.”

There are, of course, many positive changes occurring, especially in our social fabric and formation. Long denied civil and human rights are increasing across different population sectors. Advances in medical sciences and practices fill us with awe as countless lives are saved, and longevity increased. The list is endless, and should evoke optimism. But amid the advances are losses that bring a sense of insecurity and fear.

That is the paradox! The mix of advances and challenges leave us filled with ambiguity. We become immobilized as we search for answers or yield to complexity. Conscience calls, but trade-offs are calculated. Citizen activism is rising, fueled by access to information and knowledge previously unknown. Whistle blowers risk pain and punishment, as conscience rises in the face of injustice.

Who or what is the foe? We are told that the process and product of globalization has resulted in increases in health, wealth, and happiness. But is globalization really hegemonic, controlled by a few nations, corporate monopolies, and powerful individuals? Who is it benefitting?

The concentration of power, wealth, and position is, in my opinion, our greatest threat. It seeks a homogenization of social orders, cultures, and fundamental values. In the heady post WWII days, a strong sense of national pride and identity was natural. But! We were warned by Eisenhower of the impending dangers of a “Military-Industrial Complex” and the capacity of this Complex to dominate our nation’s future. Eisenhower, unfortunately, did not tell us the Complex would grow, and become a “military-industrial-congressional-educational-moral-technological-cultural-managed complex,” now resistant to change because of complexity, resiliency, and concentration of wealth, power, and position.

There is a calibrated mental calculus now in use by those with wealth, power, and position. They are firmly entrenched in every institution, and their interests are narrow and self-serving. We argue over the benefits of capitalism and other neo-liberal policies even as neo-cons re-assert their interests. And through all of this, the “Just Enough” principle is played out confusing, immobilizing, frightening a public unaccustomed to the unfolding changes. Is this a planned conspiracy? I do not know! I do know the wealthy, powerful, and positioned know each other, gather, and benefit from their relationships. I know they function in secrecy, while our privacy is removed. They set the vision. Their appointed “acolytes” implement the vision. Conspiracy? “A rose by any other name, is still a rose.”

What we have today is not much different from the gilded-age period when monopolies in banking, steel, oil, and transportation brought together “barons” in Jekyll Island, Georgia. Together, they grasped their mutual interests. Today we have a return in the form of “Big” agriculture, banking, education, energy, finance, medicine, military, pharmacology, transportation, and on and on. The times return!

The words of an old Arab saying come to mind: “The times are father to the child.” We are experiencing a time of “Just Enough!” The question remains to be answered whether “Just Enough” will be understood, questioned, and replaced by “Not Enough?” Resentment is “smoldering”! Citizens recognize the tactics being used. That may be the topic of my next commentary: Behavioral control through oppression. Ahhh, the endless historical story!

_____________________________________

Anthony Marsella, Ph.D., a member of the TRANSCEND Network, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii, and past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu. He is known nationally and 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 15 edited books, and more than 250 articles, chapters, book reviews, and popular pieces. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.

This is the third in a three-part series originally published on https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/06/the-just-enough-policy-behavioral-control-of-collective-protest-through-minimum-reward/

 

A truly patriotic American is….

 

Photo of a peace flag by the US Capitol during the peace march on 2007-01-27.
Image by Rrenner at English Wikipedia and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.

In my view, a truly patriotic American is an activist dedicated to the goals outlined in the Preamble of our Constitution.  This entails the effort to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

I also believe that anyone who enjoys any benefits from living within a country purporting to be a democracy and providing at least some access to a democratically-based political process has the obligation to participate in that process—in particular by voting.

So, how do you become a patriotic activist in the United States? First of all you need to evaluate the current state of our system.  Ask yourself some questions: is everyone in the country treated justly?  If not who commits the injustices? Who suffers from the injustices?  What will it take to reduce injustices—better laws? Reform of the judicial system? Who has the power to make those changes?  How can you influence those power-holders?

And how about domestic tranquility?  Is the United States aglow with domestic tranquility right now? If not, what individuals and groups are dividing Americans against themselves?  What can be done to bring people together?

When today’s politicians use the word “defense,” are they really talking about defense or is the term “defense” a euphemism for terms such as conquest, imperialism, hegemony, domination? Do current governmental defense programs help or undermine the goal of defense?  And would not the ultimate defense be living in peace?

And then we have the “general welfare” and “blessings of liberty”? Does having a higher level of income inequality than all other “developed” nations contribute to the general welfare of people in this country? In the long run, can it contribute to your welfare? How about racist, sexist, ethnocentric language, or attacks on people of color, or Jews, or Muslims, or Catholics, or immigrants? Do they contribute to the general welfare? Do they secure the blessings of liberty for you, your children, your grandchildren?

If not, then pay attention to the promises of this year’s candidates for political office.  Do they offer adequate solutions to the challenges of democracy? Do some seem more tuned in to the problems than others?  Think carefully, but act too.  Vote.

 

 

If he were alive….

Inscription on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, commemorating the location from which Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech during the March on Washington on 1963-08-28. Available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

If he were alive.  If he had not been struck down by an assassin’s bullet.  If he had not embraced the mantle of peace and social justice in a country where murderers abound, and where their targets are frequently people of color, crusaders for social justice, gun control advocates, and proponents of nonviolence.

If he were still alive, he would probably weep at the slow hamstringing of progress towards the goals for which he fought. Yet, if he were still alive, I know we would see him continuing his struggle to make the US a better place–a struggle in which we should all participate.

Monday is his day, and in his honor I am posting another excerpt from the essay Building a Racially Just Society by Roy Eidelson, Mikhail Lyubansky, and yours truly. Let’s keep his beacon burning.

“Psychology plays an important role in the social forces perpetuating individual and institutional racism. Because of the link between race and class, the psychological mechanisms that perpetuate class injustices also tend to perpetuate racial injustices. The widespread preference to see the world as just, for instance, leads people to… blame those who struggle with socioeconomic disadvantages – disproportionately people of color in the U.S. – for their own plight. This perception then dampens the popular will to support a role for elected governments in setting reasonable minimum standards of economic rights, fostering a political culture that greatly harms working families of all races.

Other psychological mechanisms relatively independent of class also reinforce racist attitudes and actions. Negative cultural stereotypes of African Americans are pervasive and entrenched, in part because of a psychological inclination to unconsciously legitimize status quo disparities….

These biases not only serve as the foundation for intentional expressions of prejudice and racial violence but also for unintended yet harmful micro-aggressions, which often cast African Americans as deserving of fear, distrust, and disrespect. Too often, inaccurate and biased news reports and media portrayals further serve to reinforce perceived differences of the racial “other.” At the same time, stresses associated with disproportionate suffering from class injustices, with being treated as “second-class” citizens, and with being targets of discrimination increase the likelihood of negative physical and psychological health outcomes for African American children and adults.”

If you have not read the entire essay yet, indulge yourself soon.

 

 

Tomorrow’s Wars: A Work In Progress

 

Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License Author= UN Security Council

 

This is the first in a new two-part series by  guest author Dr. Majed Ashy.

Often, the bloody destructive assaults known euphemistically as “armed conflicts”  grow out of the operation of at least three factors. Grievances, real or perceived, need to be present in the relationships of two or more sides. These grievances can be due to historical, social, political, racial, religious, economical, territorial, or other injustices that have not been addressed or are simply denied.

 A common second factor is the occurrence of an event with the power to ignite the conflict—e.g., the killing of an archbishop (impetus to World War I), the shooting down of an airplane with a top official (impetus to the Rwandan genocide).

 A third factor is the presence of leaders who will take advantage of the event in order to escalate the conflict and stimulate destructive emotions through their speeches, propaganda, appeals to deep instincts and fears, and use of historical and current symbols and analogies to whip people up into readiness to commit violence.

Another factor, probably less well recognized, is the rampant experiencing of armed conflict by children and adolescents.  The human brain is in a state of elasticity during the years up through adolescence. Various neurological developmental processes are influenced by environmental events. Stresses due to the trauma of war and violence, experienced and witnessed, have hormonal and other physiological consequences that affect various neuro-developmental processes. In my view, the wars of the past decades contributed to the brutality we witness today, and I believe that the wars of today are the factories that will produce the hate and brutality of the future. Unless we stop them.

 

 Majed Ashy, Ph.D. is an Assistant professor in psychology, Merrimack College and a Research fellow in psychiatry, DBPRP at McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School.