Tag: politics

What do you have to lose?

Posted on by kathiemm
Donald Trump
Image by Gage Skidmore and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

“When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country, we don’t know if they’re ISIS, we don’t know if it’s a Trojan horse….it could be the great Trojan horse of all times

Question 1: what can a politician gain when he makes a comment like this?

Your answer (Select all that apply.)

  1. a sense of power from successfully manipulating people’s emotions.
  2. actual power through gaining votes by portraying themselves as tough on crime and terrorism.
  3. delight in the media attention and the endless money and fame it can generate.
  4. a quiet sense of satisfaction from recognizing that they are doing everything possible to promote peace and human rights.
  5. recognition that they may be nominated for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

Question 2: What would a politician’s followers gain from accepting such messages and using them to guide their behavior?

Your answer (Select all that apply.)

  1. the comfort that comes from finding a strong leader who will take on troublemakers and knock them out of action.
  2. pleasure in finding a leader who confirms your beliefs concerning what is right and what is wrong.
  3. confirmation that there are real and present threats to the American way of life that have been too long neglected by weak Presidents.
  4. reassurance that good people from all walks of life can work together to achieve solutions that make the world better for everyone.
  5. the ability to see themselves as good people who live by the Golden Rule.

Question 3: What could a politician’s followers lose or escape from by accepting such messages and using them to guide their behavior?

  1. anxiety related to not knowing whom they can blame for any current dissatisfactions or fears in their lives.
  2. unease related to the feeling that there isn’t anyone around who is tough enough to put a stop to the threats to the American way of life.
  3. the sense that they are increasingly powerless in a country where the government cannot be trusted to represent their interests.
  4. a sense of pride in knowing that they have reached out to people with different backgrounds and different experiences before making a decision regarding their future and the future of their country.
  5. recognition from leaders of the human rights and environmental movements concerning their sense of morality and concern for others and the planet.

Final Questions:

Who gains the most when politicians make statements like the one above? The politicians? Their followers? The American people? People around the world? Terrorists? Victims of terrorism?

Who has the most to lose when the message above is adopted by advocates of the message?  The politician? The politician’s advocates? The American people? People around the world? Terrorists? Victims of terrorism?

What do YOU have to lose?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

A new way of thinking

Posted on by kathiemm

The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th century brain, by George Lakoff

Book review by Kathie Malley-Morrison and Sarah Bleicher, student of linguistics and international studies at Boston College. (Sarah took Psychology of War and Peace with Kathie Malley-Morrison at Boston University this summer.)

Upon reading the introduction of George Lakoff’s The Political Mind, one may feel that brainwashing will ensue. Lakoff calls for a “New Enlightenment,” a new way of thinking, and for “changing minds.”

He explains how the brain shapes the political mind, how politics challenge the 21st century mind, and how old ways of thinking left over from the Enlightenment era are used—ineffectively—by neoliberals who think you can change people’s thinking by presenting them with facts.

In this book, Lakoff cites a number of  studies in support of his argument that human beings are emotional in ways that affect how they think about issues of values and morality. He argues that the combination of particular emotions with particular ideas can create synaptic bonds in the brain that in turn shape responses to those ideas and similar ideas.

According to Lakoff, human beings are not completely rational, and ideas with a strong emotional component (e.g., the extent to which wars are necessary and can be won) are influenced not just by information but by how they are framed, the language in which they are embedded, and the effects of that language on the brain.

This book provides a rich perspective on how cognitive science, politics, language, and experiences in the family and the broader society all work together in ways that can have a fundamental influence on political thought. Lakoff’s theories are mostly directed at helping progressives argue and debate more effectively in trying to counter the messages of conservatives; however, I think many of Lakoff’s ideas can be used to promote peace and a better world.

Specifically, I think we should consider the applications of his theories to peace building and peace education. Lakoff is quite convincing in his arguments concerning the tactics used by conservatives to influence political thinking; why shouldn’t peace educators use similar principles in framing the values of peace in a way that will energize people to work for peace?

Kathie Malley-Morrison and Sarah Bleicher

Responsible democracy

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we welcome the second of several contributions by our guest contributor, Dr. Majed Ashy. And be sure to listen to his recent interview on Internet radio; just click on the sidebar links.]

Egyptian protests, January 25, 2011
Egyptian protests. Photo by Muhammad Ghafari (licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic; from Wikimedia Commons)

Some international stereotypes about the Middle East might be convenient, but can mislead those who hold them, lead to inappropriate responses, and serve as obstacles to further development in the Middle East.

It is important to acknowledge that relative freedoms already exist in several Arab countries such as the Gulf States; many of these countries adhere to Islamic laws in various degrees and many have experienced remarkable economic and social development in the past 40 years, along with good and responsible relations with many other nations.

I suggest that there is an international need to develop what I call Responsible Democracy. Responsible democracy would require that people take their freedoms seriously and understand the consequences of their choices and political participation. It entails gathering information from multiple sources on the issues at hand, and attending to principles of morality, peace, and international law before making political choices. Successful governments adapt to and respect the needs and the development of their peoples.

Responsible democracy rejects intellectual laziness, stereotyping, and adolescent tendency towards screaming, adventures, taking sides, fighting, and winning. It is based on a healthy understanding of politics, citizenship, patriotism, international law, one’s own place in the world and history, and recognition of how the world and its people are interlinked.

I think the Middle East is evolving towards responsible democracies driven by internal forces of morality, culture, and history. Some of its governments have been reforming wisely, gradually, and peacefully towards that achievement.

I believe that a fair form of government that respects, takes seriously, and responds to its peoples’ needs and aspirations, as well as their natural rights, and their historical and cultural developments, is a prerequisite for mental health. In turn, mental health can contribute to responsible democracy and governance, and to international peace.

Majed Ashy, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School