USA: A culture of violence, Part 2

Second in a series by guest author Anthony Marsella

Charting a “culture of violence:” Causes and consequences

As the immediate emotions of the presidential elections pass — the euphoria and elation of the winners, the grief, despair, anger of the losers — the harsh realities of daily life once again emerge. Among these is the widespread violence pervading the United States.

As Figure 1 demonstrates, the manifestations and consequences of violent acts are extensive. They suggest a “culture of violence” that is generated by acts arising from individual and collective impulse and intent and sustained by tolerance and approval across political, economic, educational, military, and moral policies of institutions.

The omnipresence of violenceCulture of violence diagram

As the new year begins, let us acknowledge that violence abounds in American society, touching everyone’s life as victim, perpetrator, or anxious observer and witness of endless violent acts committed locally, nationally, and internationally.

Ultimately we are all victims and perpetrators through acts of intention or acts of silence and indifference.

How much more violence can we view on TV, how much more violence can we cheer and applaud in entertainment, how much more violence can we experience before becoming overwhelmed by a constant state of stress, anxiety, anger, and/or moral indifference?

Every person — regardless of location — is compelled to live with daily reminders of risk and danger. What is distinct about violence in the USA, however, is the existence of a national culture of shared, learned behaviors and meanings transmitted across generations via values, attitudes, and ways-of-life that are violent. This is our culture today. What can we do about it for tomorrow?

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu

A new way of thinking

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

The immorality of torture

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we are pleased to feature a book review by Carly Warren, who completed my course in Psychology of War and Peace this summer.]

Review of George Hunsinger’s Torture Is a Moral Issue: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and People of Conscience Speak Out

by C.J. Warren

In the aftermath of World War II, an international decree was established in an attempt to protect human rights. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the very same agencies that helped create and establish the international system for the protection of human rights began to reconsider it.

Torture is a Moral Issue book coverTorture, which is internationally forbidden under all circumstances, is now being openly presented and justified as a means to gain military intelligence. Consequently, the fundamental system that was established to protect all human rights has been weakened by its very own founders.

George Hunsinger’s edited collection, Torture Is a Moral Issue, sidesteps the question of whether torture is legally acceptable and instead asks if it is morally acceptable. This compilation of work, from almost two dozen active combatants and survivors of torture, turns to the basics of religion and morals to argue for an immediate end to the practice.

Hunsinger and contributors shift the focus of the torture debate from legalities and loopholes to moral values, thus taking it out of the shadows where governments have  justified its practice.

The book begins with background information that establishes the incidence and severity of torture, and importance of the debate. The dramatic firsthand accounts from a former U.S. military interrogator and torture survivor bring hard realism to the topic.

Muslim, Christian and Jewish arguments against torture form the bulk of the book. However, the religious theme is not overpowering, enabling both secular and religious individuals to understand and identify with its arguments.

This book has been described as hard-hitting because it refuses to let any justification for torture stand unchallenged. Its special value lies in the ethical and realistic advice on how to make changes and find solutions. Without knowledge and the will to understand, we cannot evolve or make strides towards eliminating this inhumane practice.

Ecological approach to studying peace and war

It is unlikely that the human capacity for inhumanity can ever be adequately explained by any one theory. We believe that all behavior is multi-determined—that is, many forces at a variety of levels contribute to any one type of behavior, including aggression.

We subscribe to what has been called an ecological approach to understanding complex behaviors. This approach involves constructs reflecting different contexts that influence individuals and are in turn influenced by those individuals. That set of constructs includes: the macrosystem, the exosystem, the microsystem, and the individual.

For example, an individual’s concerns about “national security” are influenced by:

  • The values and mass media positions of the society at large (the macrosystem)
  • The views expressed in places of worship, neighborhood, and more local media (the exosystem)
  • Lessons promulgated within the home and family (the microsystem)

Moreover, individuals bring to all of their interactions their own genetic heritage and the results of their personal experiences, beginning in the womb. Sometimes that heritage and those experiences can lead individuals to behave in ways that change the microsystem, or the exosystem, or the macrosystem. Think of Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King.

Consider also your own views on national security, on torture, on terrorism. How many influences on those views, at what levels of experience, can you identify?

In our next post, we start considering psychological theories that focus on thoughts and emotions that individuals bring to their interactions, as well as the thoughts and emotions they carry away from those interactions.

Individuals’ tendencies to incorporate ideas from the different environments in which they grow and to which they adapt can lead to a great deal of ingroup and outgroup thinking that can provide a basis for enduring conflict.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology