Ever since 9/11, the Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP) has been studying the views of ordinary people concerning war and peace and related issues.
We started our work at Boston University but soon attracted psychologists and other social scientists from around the world to work with us on the project.
We have investigated, for example, the extent to which people from different countries, different continents, different religions, different ethnicities, and different genders define terms like “war” and “peace” in similar—or different—ways. We have also studied people’s justifications for invading other countries or torturing prisoners of war, and explored the extent to which such justifications vary among people from different countries, religions, etc.
We have findings from countries as diverse as the United States, Iceland, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, South Africa, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, Peru, and Nicaragua.
Consider what you know about government-sponsored aggression around the world. In what countries do you think the greatest support for government-sponsored aggression can be found? We’ll report some findings in our next post.
The form of moral engagement that we call “exonerating or pardoning the victim” is in many ways a logical outgrowth of perspective taking and empathy. If you are able to put yourself in the shoes of another, you become more able to understand the ways in which people who behaved inhumanely may be no more inhumane and evil, and have no more desire to kill and maim, than you.
Failure to pardon can have disastrous effects. After World War I, there was no exonerating or pardoning of any of the people in the Axis powers by the Allies. Instead, the heavy load of reparations, imposed poverty, and humiliation of all Germans–whether they had been directly involved in the war or not–contributed directly to the rise of Hitler and World War II.
After World War II, the victorious powers proved that they, for at least that one generation, had learned the lesson of World War I, and avoided acting on desires for punishment and retaliation, working instead to rebuild Japan and Germany.
Perhaps the highest level of moral engagement can be found in individuals who were themselves victimized but have found the courage to forgive their oppressors; a perfect example of this level and type of moral engagement can be found in Nelson Mandela. In a later post, we will provide a review of the film Invictus, a powerful illustration of Mandela’s forgiveness program, carried out in the context o f preparation for a World Cup rugby match.
The following movie review by our guest blogger, Mimi Maritz, illustrates these themes of exonerating and pardoning in another film.
Review of “Forgiving Dr. Mengele”
This documentary tells the story of Holocaust concentration camp survivor, Eva. Like her twin sister Miriam, Eva was subjected to excruciating and nearly fatal experiments by Dr. Mengele, the notorious prison camp doctor, yet she came to pardon her former oppressors.
Through her search to help Miriam discover which drug Dr. Mengele injected to stunt her kidney growth, Eva met face-to-face with other Nazis involved in the Holocaust. Her search led her to realize that the only way to move forward and live life without regret was by forgiving those who had harmed her and millions of others.
Eva argues that to avoid being victims for the rest of their lives, the survivors of victimization must free themselves from suffering, and that the only way to do this is by accepting the past and forgiving the transgressors.
By forgiving, Eva does not mean forgetting; she is continually spreading her story to all who will listen. When another survivor says to Eva “I am unable to smile deeply from my heart… I do not know how to be happy,” Eva declares that we have the right to live without pain and we do not need permission to start healing our hearts.
Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology, with Mimi Maritz
On December 8, 1941, in a speech to the people of the United States, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared: “Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”
Rescuing a survivor of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (Photo in public domain; from Wikimedia Commons)
As most people in the U.S. learn in school, the nation fought a victorious war against Japan, “pacified” it (in part through the world’s first and only use of nuclear weaponry), and directed its transformation into a peaceful and successful democracy.
Following 9/11, President George W. Bush framed the invasion of Iraq in the rhetoric of Pearl Harbor and its aftermath, arguing that once again American force could bring peace and democracy to an aggressive nation.
John W. Dower, in an unheeded message to the U.S. government in the February/March issue of the Boston Review in 2003, warned that Iraq was not Japan, and that an attack on and occupation of Iraq was not the route to democracy in that country. He pointed out that “What made the occupation of Japan a success was two years or so of genuine reformist idealism before U.S. policy became consumed by the Cold War…,” which he contrasts sharply with the prevailing conservative philosophy.
It is appropriate for Americans to continue mourning the loss of lives at Pearl Harbor, and the years of violence and death that Pearl Harbor unleashed. At the same time, it is important to gain a better understanding of the events that led to Pearl Harbor, the events that led to 9/11, and the events that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
John W. Dower’s latest book, Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor / Hiroshima / 9-11 / Iraq, offers considerable food for thought on these issues. In this book, Dower warns Americans again about “how pressures and fixations multiply in the cauldron of enmity and war; how reason, emotion, and delusion commingle; how blood debts can become blood lusts, and moral passion can bleed into the practice of wanton terror.”
Ground Zero (Photo by Niesy74; Permission is granted to use this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2. From WikiMedia Commons)
As we reflect back on the events and aftermath of September 11, 2001, it is useful to consider the question of healing.
Let’s look at an example from the last century. The U.S. and several of its allies learned, at least temporarily, a lesson after World War I.
They learned that a rabid preoccupation with revenge and punishment can keep hatred and a desire for retaliation alive and lead to further violence. Thus, the outcome of World War I led to World War II.
The aftermath to World War II was handled differently and with wisdom, as the allies helped the Axis powers rebuild. Today Germany and Japan are major allies of the United States.
Furthermore, the U.S. government has apologized to the innocent Japanese Americans who were corralled into concentration camps in the U.S. for no reason other than their Japanese ancestry.
Today in New York City we see a reprise of the kinds of hatred and distrust being leveled at innocent Americans because of their ancestry–in this case because they are Muslims.
The efforts to stop the building of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero are fueled not just by prejudice and ethnocentrism but by the political agenda of power-seekers.
Those power-seekers know that one way to get people to follow you and build your power is to foment fear while also making them believe that you have the answers. But are they the right answers?
We started our work at Boston University but soon attracted psychologists and other social scientists from around the world to work with us on the project.
