violence – Page 2 – Engaging Peace

The Crime of Punishment *

Posted on July 6, 2015July 3, 2015 by kathiemm

In the The Crime of Punishment originally published in 1966, Dr. Karl Menninger pondered the question of whether violence was spreading in spite of our legal and court systems or because of those systems. He concluded, “I suspect that all the crimes committed by all the jailed criminals do not equal in total social damage that of the crimes committed against them.” Reissued in 2007, his book is as relevant to all levels of violence today as in the sixties.

In a second book, Men Who Batter, Nason-Clark and Fisher-Townsend (p.7) argue that when battering men believe they are not getting what they deserve, they use power and control to punish their partners or to maintain dominance.” Weaving themselves through case material from male batterers are two interrelated themes reflecting powerful forces in the broader ecological (largely patriarchal) context in which wife battering and other forms of violence take place: respect (including self-respect) and punishment.

Hicks¹ (2011, p. 5) has defined respect as something to be earned, yet in patriarchal cultures, it appears that many individuals, groups, and even governments consider respect as something to which they are entitled—by virtue, for example, of their superior strength or power. Indeed, within such cultures, the powerful often seem to confound respect with fear—that is, evidence of another’s fear may be seen as the respect to which the powerful or those desiring power believe they are entitled.

Many of the men’s narratives in the Nason-Clark and Fisher-Townsend study emphasize disillusionment with the punitive nature of traditional batterer intervention programs. One batterer involved in a traditional (patriarchal) program explained, “I felt that they were doing just exactly what I was there for—they were saying they were addressing power and control and abuse, and they were [using those same tools] against me….They were abusing me….” (p.110). Other men described harsh experiences of “being cut down, demoralized, treated like you were dirt…” (p.107). By contrast, participants in STOP programs (state-approved faith-based intervention programs) were more likely to comment, “They are not here to punish you. They are here to help you” (p.109).

As the authors state, “when they first enter any program—and especially a mandated one—most of the men are defensive, unsure what to expect, angered at having been ordered to come, feeling sorry for themselves, and a long way from developing empathy for those they have hurt” (p.131). However, in contrast to more punitive models of treatment, all aspects of the STOP Program were structured around its guiding virtue of respect. When one man was asked about what he had learned from the STOP program, he responded by stating, “I have learned respect for myself first of all, and for everybody around me…” (p.118).

Extending from their frequently troubled childhoods through involvement in the criminal justice and other punitive systems, the men share stories providing valuable insight into the factors fueling a batterer’s violent behavior and the aspects of intervention most likely to foster positive change. These aspects include developing a sense of accountability that may be a good model for all individuals and groups who confuse fear with respect and rely on punishment to “correct” particular behaviors in others–regardless of whether they engage in those same behaviors themselves, or not.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

^{*Parts of this post were adapted from a book review by Malley-Morrison and Samkavitz “Copyright American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal PsycCRITIQUES. It is not the copy of record. Information about the journal is at http://www.apa.org/psyccritiques/.”↩}

^1.Hicks, D. (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.↩

Oracle, Optimist, Ostrich, or Obfuscator? Part 1.

Posted on June 18, 2015March 11, 2021 by kathiemm

Abraham tries to sacrifice Isaak.
Image by Sibeaster, image is in the public domain.

The postulates and prophesies of the impressively credentialed psychologist and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, formerly at MIT and now at Harvard, appear to be everywhere. He is a darling of the New York Times and endless variations on his ex cathedra pronouncements concerning a purported global decline in violence echo across the media. Violence, he intones repeatedly, “has been in decline for thousands of years, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species” (emphasis added).

One pillar of Pinker’s argument is that, historically, human beings were much more violent than is generally recognized today. One of his sources, the Old Testament, contains, he tells us, numerous examples of genocide as well as death by stoning to punish “nonviolent infractions, including idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, disrespecting one’s parents, and picking up sticks on the Sabbath.” Early tribes of Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and Chinese were, he said, as murderous as those early Hebrews, and current casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan pale by contrast. It is romanticizing the past and ignorance of history, Pinker argues, that lead people to believe the modern era is unduly violent.

(To see rejections of his historical arguments, click here. )

Mathematically, Pinker supports his thesis by calculating percentages of violent deaths in relation to the global population within a particular era. As Timothy Snyder suggests, “[Ask] yourself: Is it preferable for ten people in a group of 1,000 to die violent deaths or for ten million in a group of one billion? For Pinker, the two scenarios are exactly the same, since in both, an individual person has a 99 percent chance of dying peacefully.” Snyder’s question is critical one. What would your answer be?

A Mom Model for all Moms

Posted on May 10, 2015January 4, 2016 by kathiemm

Activist Frida Berrigan at an anti-war rally in Newark, New Jersey, 2007.
Image by Thomas Good, licensed under GNU Free Documentation License.

For this Mother’s Day, in addition to honoring my own Mom for over 90 years of loving motherhood, I want to celebrate the work of another model of moral engagement—Frida Berrigan. Frida is a long-term peace activist (and yes, she is related to the famous Philip and Daniel Berrigans, who are themselves long-term anti-war activists). She is a columnist for Waging Nonviolence and serves on the National Committee of the War Resisters League.

For Mother’s Day 2015, Frida has written a poignant and captivating essay “Echoes of the original Mother’s Day Proclamation at home and abroad“, which celebrates women who struggle valiantly for peace and justice in 28 active war zones around the world (including the US).

Her examples include:

Madame Kamouss from the Central Republic of Africa

Froilyn Mendoza from the Philippines, and

Shereen, a Syrian refugee who lives with her daughters in a refugee camp in Kawergosk, Iraqi Kurdistan.

Her list also includes the mothers of Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, and Sean Bell, whose sons were killed in the U.S. by police officers in the last few years; all of these mothers are pushing for non-violent protests against injustice.

Frida is also the author of “It Runs in the Family: On Being Raised by Radicals and Growing into Rebellious Motherhood,” which includes considerations of how to rear children non-violently—without spanking, hitting, and similar time-worn-out methods, which many mothers of today are gradually replacing with love, kindness, empathy and other non-violent approaches to parenting.

How to Defeat Terrorism 101

Posted on October 2, 2014November 15, 2014 by kathiemm

By Dr. Majed Ashy, Guest Author

Terrorism emerges in environments that feed it. Such environments provide intellectual, financial, and personnel support and supplies. The main intellectual supply comes from a few branches of Islam in which some members are intolerant of other religions and sects and tolerant of coercion–even violence. The main financial and personnel supports come from governments pursuing their own interests.

Terrorism can be defeated if governments stop providing both direct and indirect support to violent groups. History has shown repeatedly that when the US government supports a group in its fight against a perceived “enemy,” this group starts to have a life of its own and turns against us. Destabilizing countries, governments, institutions, and cultures creates fertile environments for the spawning of terrorist and criminal groups.

The goal of international terrorism is to weaken the US militarily, economically, and image-wise. They try to do this by creating multiple hot spots internationally, and shocking the American public with atrocities intended to pressure the American government into ever expanding military involvements. Such involvements stress the economy and, given the nature of terrorism, rarely if ever end with a victory.

We need a new concept to replace that of the “sovereign nation state,” which is the basis of the UN and international affairs. Many developments are weakening the “nation state,” such as the Internet, media, globalization, communication, and terrorism. Defeating terrorism requires more than aggressive responses from individual nation states; it needs a coordinated international effort that is holistic and cooperative. The best antidotes to terrorism include inter-group tolerance and pluralism, as well as the establishment of justice and better living conditions, less war, and more hope for all.

Dr. Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He was born in Lebanon and is a Saudi. He earned his B.A., M.A, and Ph.D. in psychology from Boston University. His research in psychoneuroimmunology and political psychology focuses on childhood experience of adversity and its psychobiological consequences.