6th century Ladkhan temple, infinite two knots symbol of karma rebirth cycle and interconnectedness, Aihole Hindu monuments Karnataka. This file is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Author: Ms Sarah Welch.
by Ian Hansen, PhD
Particulars and Universals
Kerala is a geographically tiny state in a large country—India—that doesn’t make the news much in spite of having over a sixth of the world’s population. As such, Kerala is a very particular place. When I was a graduate student in cultural psychology, I remember my advisor telling me that another particular place, Japan, is considered the graveyard of all great social theories. This is in part because as an “interdependent” or “collectivist” culture, Japan fails to conform to many of the theories of human psychology backed up by data gathered in individualist cultures (particularly the United States). It is also in part because idiosyncratic Japan often defies expectations about what an interdependent or collectivist culture should behave like. I have now come to think that almost any distinctive cultural-political-economic entity, closely examined, will seem like a graveyard of all great social theories. Examinations of the particular tend to trouble pretenses to the universal.
Japan’s
127 million people—1.7% of the world’s population—are more plentiful than
Kerala’s 35 million. But if Japan’s
population is not to be sneezed at, then neither is Kerala’s. A whole movement in psychology—cultural psychology—has drawn much energy from studying fractional exceptions
like Japan and Kerala to the apparently universal. And cultural psychology is gradually shaping
the sense of the “actually universal” in general psychology, with psychology
textbooks highlighting cultural differences in psychological processes, and
cultural psychologists even becoming well-known public intellectuals like Jonathan Haidt1.
Now Japan
specifically is a political ally of the United States, so studying it can feel
like looking at some of the charming differences enjoyed between allies. Even with Modi’s India also being a US ally, Kerala’s
particularities—including its role as a pocket of resistance to Modi’s Hindu nationalist
fascism within India—are more politically troublesome to study. Though most psychologists are nominally “liberal”, a plutocratic militarist structural
academic climate still hangs heavily over the psychology
profession. So Kerala will probably not be a household
word among even cultural psychologists anytime soon. Kerala’s benign-looking manifestations of
communism, Islam, etc. will probably not be considered sexy by those whom many US
psychologists beg hat-in-hand for grant money, status and fame. If the political economic will were there,
though, more cultural psychological attention to the study of Keralan particulars—and
Kerala-illuminated universals—could skewer some paradigms to potentially explosive
effect.
Scientifically
speaking, I think Kerala could illustrate how apparently shocking exceptions to
the supposedly universal can sometimes mask an illuminating embodiment of the actually
universal. In this case, the shocking
universal that Kerala embodies exceptionally is that most ideologies are okay,
and peace between them is better than the alternative. More specifically, most of the ideological
principles we humans have been stealing, raping, torturing and murdering for over the last century
are both (a) pretty good, and (b) would have been better served by peaceful
integration, or at least live-and-let-live coexistence. Insofar as Kerala illustrates both the
pretty-goodness and should-have-tried-to-get-alongness of the big three value
foundations for the last century’s massive ideological projects, Kerala can be
considered a cultural psychological goldmine.
Or rather it could be considered a self-interest-threatening landmine if what you want is the
military, corporate or CIA funding that can make you a household name in psychology. That’s because Kerala is, as per my title,
the graveyard of all war propaganda.
Footnote
1. Haidt’s case illustrates the costs of once plucky and gadfly-like cultural psychology going mainstream. Being a US public intellectual and a successful psychologist at the same time appears to require more fealty to structures of power in the US (the military, the intelligence agencies, and the peculiar form of “capitalism” practiced by US financial institutions and corporations) than is required for public intellectual success in other disciplines. To some extent, Haidt embodies the gadfly critiques of cultural psychology. He became a wealthy, famous public intellectual even while offending many rank-and-file psychologists with his attack on an apparent hegemony: the overwhelming prefer-Democrats-to-Republicans “liberalism” of rank-and-file US psychologists. But perhaps his underdog success capitalizes on the fact that the psychology profession is minimally accountable to its rank and file. With regard to the more powerful sources of hegemony affecting how psychology operates as a profession, Haidt has demonstrated considerably less inclination to offend them. Even cultural psychology’s ideological organizer, Richard Shweder (whom Haidt studied under), appears to have felt the zeitgeist calling him to flatter these sources of power.
Ian Hansen, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the
Behavioral Sciences Department at York College, City University of New York,
with a research focus on social psychology, religion, ideology, tolerance, and
support for peace and pluralism. His core research interest is investigating
psychological “odd bedfellows” phenomena with regard to religion and
ideology. He is also an active member in Psychologists for Social
Responsibility, and served as its 2017 president.
An Illustration of the Golden Rule by Norman Rockwell used as the cover of the April 1, 1961 edition of the Saturday Evening Post. In the public domain.
by Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D.
The aspirations for peace and justice are as old as written human history, but the behaviors are not commensurate.
Tragically, the Golden Rule is easily dismissed and disregarded when importuned to pursue selfish aims.
If treated as arbitrary, the Golden Rule becomes a deceptive Sunday, Saturday, or Friday night comfort and parody.
Can you hear the plea: “If only they would follow what they preach!” Who preaches, who follows, who lives, who dies, who …….?
Religion at its best promotes the Golden Rule. See the message here, in 11 different religions.
“If you seek justice, choose for others what you would choose for yourself.” (Baha’i)
“One should seek for others the happiness one derives for one’s self.” (Buddhism)
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” (Christianity)
“What you do not want done to yourself, do not unto others.” (Confucianism)
“Do naught to others which if done to thee would cause pain.” (Hinduism)
“No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” (Islam)
“We should . . . refrain from inflicting upon others such injury as would appear undesirable to us if inflicted upon ourselves.” (Jainism)
“What is hurtful to yourself, do not do to our fellow man.” (Judaism)
“As thou deemest thyself, so deem others.” (Sikkhism)
“To those who are good to me, I am also good; and to those who are not good to me, I am also good. And thus all get to be good.” (Taoism)
“Do as you would be done by.” (Zoroastrianism)
(Anthony j. Marsella – Adapted and Expanded from Steven Blessman)
Anthony J. 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’s Manoa Campus in Honolulu, 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 21 books and more than 300 publications noted for challenging the ethnocentricity and biases of Western psychology and psychiatry, and for advocating peace and social justice. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, a monument at the Menachem Begin Heritage Foundation, Jerusalem. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: דוד שי.
Invoking the moral authority of “God, god, gods, g _ d” is a timeless ploy used to assure military invincibility, enlist public support, and comfort public doubts about consequences of violence, destruction, and war. The 2013 paper focused on the debate between two competing British prime minister election candidates in 1878: Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone. Gladstone raised the question of whether “God” favored Britain or Afghanistan following British invasion and occupation. Gladstone argued eloquently, God would have no preferences because God valued all lives.
Of special interest in those times was the controversial decision to divide Afghanistan between Britain and Russia according to the 1893 Durand Line; this line established specific spheres of influence and control between the two nations, ignoring any Afghanistan concerns. (see: Durand Line, en.m.Wikipedia.org. October 14, 2016, 11:47).
Fifteen Anniversary Day of Invasion: October 7, 2016
USA Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)
October 7, 2016 is the Fifteenth Anniversary day of the NATO (USA) invasion, occupation, and on-going destruction of Afghanistan. In some quarters, the Anniversary will be celebrated as an example of Western (USA) determination to avenge the 9/11 attacks with military, economic, and political responses, and to assert USA military power and global domination. The Afghanistan invasion was adroitly sanctioned by the G.W. Bush infamous Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), with its ridiculous “Manichaean” duality: “You are either with us, or against us!”
While the USA and Europe recall, relive, and celebrate June 6th as the D-Day WWII landing in Europe, it is unlikely similar status will be assigned to the Afghan invasion date. Perhaps this reflects the growing shame and guilt associated with the blood stained decision (“Out, Out Damn Spot!” Thank you, Lady Macbeth, for reminding us guilt is difficult to erase).
The GWOT is now acknowledged to be a surreptitious-failed policy, contrived in Pentagon rooms by neo-cons, militarists, and right-wing zealots; it was presented as a triumphal stance asserting Bush’s legacy of leadership. The GWOT continues to be used by President Barack Obama’s Administration whenever needed. It is essentially “carte blanche” to invade at will, without remorse, regret, accountability, or risk of criminal prosecution.
There are now informed views proposing the 9/11 attack was itself part of a false-flag conspiracy; these views acknowledge (1) the architectural impossibilities of the towers’ orchestrated collapse; (2) the targeted location destruction of the Pentagon budget office and personnel office. This office location was investigating billions of dollars in military fraud; (3) obvious failures to prevent the 9/11 tragedy when information was available weeks prior to the actual attack.
Was the 9/11 tragedy a radical Islamic terrorist attack, a state-sponsored terrorist attack, or a carefully contrived plan to justify the destruction and decimation of Middle East invasions and regime changes (e.g., Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Turkey). The destructive role of the infamous 1996-1997 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) remains to be explored (Wikipedia reference).
9/11: False Flag?
Although celebrated in some quarters, in other quarters, the Anniversary of the Afghanistan invasion will be recognized as yet another example of the continual efforts by Western international military-industrial cabals to provide causes and/or reasons to invade, occupy, and exploit non-Western nations. Although noble cries of liberty, democracy, and freedom are voiced by the USA and its NATO allies, more sinister reasons are always denied, including concerns for access to implement and exploit natural resources (e.g., oil, rare metals), strategic military positions (Silk Road gateway, military missile defense locations), and chess-board game dominance tactics enjoyed by foreign affairs experts (e.g., Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski).
In the non-existent world of principled media and journalism, the October 7, 2016 Fifteenth Anniversary would elicit challenging headlines of remorse, using forceful words and analyses condemning USA’s “lust” for war using the aegis of lies, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentations, celebrity endorsements, movies, games, medals, and, bombs and bullets.
Total War: Learn from Nazi Leaders
Unfortunately, headlines of this nature are unlikely to occur. Unlikely, also to appear in headlines, will be accusations of the slaughter of soldiers, enemy fighters, and innocents. The sterile term for innocent-citizen deaths is “collateral damage.” How quaint! Deaths of soldiers and enemy fighters, however, are considered acceptable legal and legitimate actions! A death is a death! Enemy fighter deaths are inscribed in impersonal accounting-ledgers as numbers’ soldier deaths on tombstones.
The “Total War,” military strategy policy was advocated by Nazi Minister Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Josef Goebbels (1897 – 1946). “Total War” is now accepted logical military strategy. When you make war, use every tactic you can to win. Among militarists, war brings a calculated indifference to human suffering, destruction, and death. Reflexive reliance upon limited military solutions raises questions about the consequences for both targets and the perpetrators. “Total War” offers flexibility to destroy.
Interestingly, an article on a recent Government Accounting Office (GAO) report (see Claire Bernish, October 14, 2016, Activist Post), alleges the Pentagon uses more than five hundred million dollars annually to “galvanize public support for its wars.” At some point, invoking “God, god, g _ d” would by an excellent PR tactic. Can’t lose if “God” is on your side, even if it is a lie!
I wonder? Is there some functional value considering war-making a psychological, behavioral, and moral disorder? While it is notably absent as a category in the two arbiters of insanity, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and ICD 10, it could be argued chronic pursuit of war warrants a disorder, disease, and/or deviancy status for either a nation, society, and or culture. Perhaps it could be called the “The Pentagon Syndrome.”
Lessons from 19th Century “Imperialism”
In 1877-1878, as Great Britain struggled to expand its imperialistic global empire spanning six continents, two men, dramatically different from one another in political ambitions and moral values, were pitted against each other in a fierce election struggle to become prime minister: Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone.
At this time, Britain and Russia were at war against each other in Afghanistan, in what was euphemistically called the “Great Game,” romanticized in the novel, Kim, by Rudyard Kipling (1865 – 1936). The two nations were fighting over the division of Afghanistan. Little concern was given to the wishes of the Afghan peoples, who were considered by both sides to be war-like uncivilized hill tribes, deserving Western civilization’s fateful invasions.
Disraeli and Gladstone
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), believed Britain should continue to expand its colonial wars and occupations. He argued the pursuit of “Empire” reflected Britain’s destiny to lead the world; Britain’s moral responsibilities to “civilize” the world. Disraeli pointed out the extensive economic wealth brought by Empire, as evidenced by the financial profits of generated from the Industrial Age (Edwardian – Victorian periods). Can you hear English composer Edgar Elgar’s (1857–1934) rousing Pomp and Circumstance Marches?
William Gladstone (1809-1898), leader of the opposition Liberal Party, argued in favor of re-considering Britain’s imperialistic expansion because of its social and moral consequences for both the people colonized, and for the moral standing of Britain’s citizens. Gladstone saw colonial wars as a “criminal assaults on innocent people” (Porch, 2001, p 42).
Gladstone appealed to conscience at a time when Western imperialism was colonizing Africa, Asia, and South America, exploiting natural and human resources, killing conquered people with impunity, and celebrating (Joseph Conrad’s gripping novel, The Heart of Darkness, 1899 & 1902, captures the sheer madness and horror of imperialism).
Results of the 1878 British election would have profound implications for the entire world. Amid the accusations, character insults, and personal attacks, fundamental questions emerged regarding (1) the morality of wars, invasion and occupation, (2) colonial domination and exploitation, and (3) national economic growth and development. Issue: “Invoking God as a moral justification for ending imperialistic invasions and wars.
Disraeli and disliked each other intensely; their quick wit made for memorable political insults. At one social gathering,” Gladstone said to Disraeli, “I predict, Sir, you will die either by hanging, or of some vile disease.” To which, Disraeli replied, “That all depends, Sir, upon whether I embrace your principles, or your mistress.”
Although quick-witted character insults brought laughter, applause, and well-known British triumphal affirmations of shared opinion: “Hear! Hear!,” but a pivotal moral moment was at hand. The election came down to Gladstone’s views the Zulu War and Afghan War (“The Great Game”) were essentially “slaughters of innocents” by British Redcoats;” an indelible stain on British identity and civility. It was a time of choice! At the height of the debate, Gladstone appealed to the British public’s sense of conscience:
“Remember the rights of the savage. . . . Remember the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eyes of Almighty God as can be your own.”
Timeless words and wisdom! Anyway you spell it, Gladstone asserts God does not play favorites. Disraeli lost the election. Britain’s pursuit of empire continued, but lacked the prior resolve and support of its citizens. A nation’s conscience was laid bare. Some claim Gladstone’s words signaled the beginning of the end of the British Empire! Imperialism, of course, continues today via violent wars and invasions and associated immoral political and economic exploitation and abuse.
Question: Can awareness of the Afghanistan invasion Anniversary date lift American “public conscience” to rises in protest: Whose side is God, god, gods, g _ d, on? Gladstone’s words remain one of the most powerful arguments against the “exceptionalism” used by the USA, Great Britain, and allies (e.g., NATO) to justify invasions, occupations, and domination. No nation can claim moral superiority as a sanction from “god” or any other force or history, to justify its violent actions.
Enduring Lessons
Are there any enduring lessons to be learned from the fateful words of this 19th Century election in Britain? I believe so. Some lessons come from sacred religious texts, too often forgotten amidst carefully selective proclamations from Monotheistic religion pulpits and lecterns. Some come from secular texts (e.g., Magna Carta, UDHR, and USA’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution), which speak of the enduring human values of peace, liberty, freedom, beauty, and god-given rights. Some lessons are in the daily utterances of people who see the tragic consequences of militarism and violence.
The following is a list of enduring lessons coming to mind as I reflect on the endless wars of our times. With Gladstone’s words ringing in my ears, I offer them to you:
You reap what you sow!
Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed”
“Thou shalt not kill!”
“What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not s that your passions are at war within you?”
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.”
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you (Golden Rule in every major religion)
Violence begets violence; violence begets hate; hate begets hate; hate begets violence.
Every empire in human history has collapsed.
Empires collapse from within.
As empires collapse, leaders impose domestic controls, and assert their dominance.
It is easier to conquer a people and their land, than it is to leave depart in peace.
Wars are easy to start, difficult to end.
The legacy of Imperialism is enduring resentment.
Wars require money; public services are denied.
Major beneficiaries of war, are war industries, arms dealers, and generals.
Exceptionalism is always self-deceit!
There are no winners in wars.
Wars scars are permanent.
When you go forward for revenge, dig two graves.
Oaths of office cannot be used as excuses for war. The best defense for a nation is peace and justice.
War socializes a “culture of war; a “culture of war” socializes citizens.
“Nation shall not lift up sword against nation.”
“God, god, g _ d,” does not have favorites!
And So . . .
Today the national dish of Britain is “Curry.” Britain and Russia remain rivals. The United States of America is involved in hot-wars and cold-wars around the globe; USA sullied and flawed invasions and regime-change strategies and tactics have resulted in millions of deaths, displaced people, floods of refugees, and mass migrations redefining nation identities and boundaries.
The United States of America has been at war in Afghanistan for 15 years. Estimations of human, environmental, economic and moral costs are staggering; yet even so, they do not capture the full consequences of our tragic invasion for Afghanistan, for Afghani people, and for our conscience. Numbers are tossed before us as a balance sheet of assets and liabilities. My “God, god, gods, g _ d,” or whatever force may be! The horror is apocalyptic!
This is genocide and ethnic cleansing by any name, term, or definition! It is endless war; destruction of a nation, people, culture, and history. This is savagery at the hands of the USA’s paradoxical self-defeating counter-terrorism war. This war fills immoral military-industrial complex coffers, and a suffering people’s coffins. Gladstone’s words echo today if we choose to hear them: “Remember the sanctity of life . . . “
And Now Africa . . .
And as if to dismiss any semblance of moral authority, the USA has announced it will send USA troops to 35 African nations. The strategy is the same: advisers, troops, occupation, regime change, exploitation. Stop it! We are not the Empire of “God, god, gods, g _ d!” We are a cruel, brutal, merciless, vicious nation. No amount of PR can disguise this fact! Have we no shame?
We punish and abuse our own citizens! Stop this delusional portrayal of our nation as sanctioned by “God, god, gods, g _ d.” We are not! We are a corrupt and bought nation, sold like a slave to the highest financial bidders! What happened to us? Are the roots of our actions traceable to our own savage history? Are we now? Have we always been a “Culture of War?”
References:
Corbett, J. (2016, October 12). Afghanistan War: What you are not being told? Corbett Report: 10:16 PM.
Khouri, R. (October 12, 2016). The frighteningly high human and financial costs of war. Al-Jazeera.
Marsella, A.J. (2014). War, peace, and justice. Alpharetta, GA: Mountain Arbor Press.
Marsella, A.J. (2011). The United States of America: A “culture of war.” International Journal of Intercultural Research, 35, 714-728.
Porch, D. (2001). Wars of empire. London, UK: Wellington House.
Wikipedia: Durand Line, October 14, 2016, 11:47 AM.
Anthony J. 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’s Manoa Campus in Honolulu, 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 21 books and more than 300 publications noted for challenging the ethnocentricity and biases of Western psychology and psychiatry, and for advocating peace and social justice. He can be reached at marsella@hawaii.edu.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 17 October 2016.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Whose Side is “God, god, gods, g _ d,” _ _ _ on? A Reprise and More, is included. Thank you.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. Henry David Thoreau, 1817-1862. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy , Eugenio Hansen, OFS
The argument you get from the warlords, the arms industry, the right-wing extremists, the power-seekers is that some forms of torture are needed to fight terrorism, to save lives endangered by “ticking bombs.” Bull hoowey. If you want to understand why people torture, consider the components of this definition from Miriam Webster:
Torture is “the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.” (emphasis added)
To punish. That’s a biggie, one we’ve discussed before on this blog. The monotheistic religions “of the Book” (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), as well as countless other religions from earlier centuries, have promulgated visions of Hell in which “sinners” (e.g., violators of cultural norms, rebels against authoritarian rulers) will be punished (tortured) by eternal burning and sometimes other horrors.
That preoccupation with punishment has a broad reach and is as American as apple pie. Parents who inflict intense pain on children (e.g., whipping, burning) for “not minding their manners,” for “giving lip” or “being sassy” are inflicting torture on their children—and were often tortured themselves while growing up. Both men and women often torture their partners physically or psychologically to punish them for infidelity and other “crimes.” And racism in this country has, for centuries, been associated with the torture and murder of people of color, both in the streets and in prisons, to punish them for their differentness.
To coerce. Okay, in today’s world “coercion” could be interpreted as requiring an admission regarding the location of a ticking bomb (although there is no evidence of such a location ever having been discovered this way) but for centuries coerced confessions involved, for example, admitting that one was or was not a “good” Catholic. Think Inquisition. We may well ask how effectively torture worked to protect Catholicism from infidels and purify the image of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
For sadistic pleasure: Heartbreakingly, torture for sadistic pleasure is widespread in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world where abuse of various forms is a part of everyday life. My guess is that every one of my readers has at some point in his or her life met someone who got pleasure from inflicting pain on some person or animal. Right?
Regardless of its purpose or motive, torture, as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is banned at all times, in all places by international law.
Shouldn’t people of conscience be acting to resist its use in their homes, their communities, their country, and wherever their efforts can reach? Time to stop excusing it?
