media – Page 4 – Engaging Peace

Humanizing the other (Moral engagement, part 8)

Posted on December 30, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Humanizing the other, which is the reciprocal of Albert Bandura‘s moral disengagement mechanism known as dehumanization, probably relies greatly on perspective taking (see 11/18/2010 post by Sherri McCarthy).

Humanization involves both recognizing the human qualities of the other and responding to them in a humane way.

Many people attribute human characteristics to their pets—e.g., “my sweet little puppy understands everything I feel and gets so sad when I am feeling bad”—yet defend themselves against acknowledging the human qualities of the designated enemy.

Humanizing clearly involves the ability to put oneself in the shoes of another—a common refrain but often a difficult ability to achieve. It also requires empathy—not just anticipating the intentions and behaviors of the other but understanding how the other would feel in a particular set of circumstances.

In war time, humanizing the enemy may involve recognizing that the people who are shooting at you are doing so only because they are afraid of what will be done to them if they don’t obey orders, or because they have been convinced by their leaders that you are as inhumane and subhuman as your leaders have convinced you that they are.

BeyondIntractability.org has identified a number of strategies for increasing the ability of people to humanize their “enemies.” These strategies include:

Teaching about stereotypes
Promoting empathy
Encouraging dialogue
Focusing on commonalities
Facilitating cooperative projects
Providing education on the negative effects of propaganda
Establishing media that provide alternatives to the media that justify and promote violence, and ultimately
Helping conflicting parties build trust, work for constructive resolution of differences, apologize, and seek reconciliation.

Now that the Cold War is over, many of the mainstream media have shifted their focus from dehumanizing Communists to dehumanizing “Islamists.” How might those Beyond Intractability guidelines be translated into concrete suggestions for countering pressures toward aggression and intractability?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Terrorizing with Islamophobia

Posted on November 15, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

“I learned over time that extremists of all shapes try always to feed their extremism, and the way they do that is by digging into the news or searching in the religions of the ‘others’ so they can rationalize and feed their hate.” –Contemporary Muslim scholar

As we move into the season that Christians consider the occasion for peace on earth and goodwill to all, we should remind ourselves of the critical importance of being alert to the ever-renewed messages of hatred.

Crusaders throwing heads of Muslims over ramparts, by Guillaume de Tyr, 13th century. (In public domain; from Wikimedia Commons)

There has been increasing media attention to the scourge of Islamophobia infecting our vulnerable and perhaps fading democracy, but little in the way of understanding the problem.

Certainly vicious propaganda, disguised as objective consideration of “facts,” is abundant in print and in pseudo documentaries.

The claim, for example, that later statements in the Koran (sometimes condoning violence) always nullify earlier statements in the Koran (including many messages advocating peace, and demanding that women, children, and other noncombatants always be protected) is rejected by serious Muslim scholars.

Yet many people prefer to accept the propaganda than to seek greater knowledge and understanding of the Koran.

If Islam is like what [the propagandists] say, then why aren’t the vast majority of Muslims carrying arms and killing non-Muslims everywhere in the world? If Islam is evil, and if Muslims are blood thirsty people, then how do they explain the behavior of hundreds of millions of Muslims who live in peace? (One third of the world’s countries have a Muslim majority, and Muslim minorities live in almost every country in the world.) — Contemporary Muslim scholar

Be alert. Ask yourself, what do the purveyors of hatred seek through their messages? Peace? Justice? A moral life? Or the power that can come from scaring citizens and convincing them that sacrificing democracy and human rights can somehow make them safe?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Misrepresenting or minimizing consequences (Moral disengagement, part 6)

Posted on November 4, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Misrepresenting or minimizing consequences is another moral disengagement mechanism.

Psychologist Albert Bandura notes that when people commit atrocities for personal gain or as a response to social pressure, one way to offset shame and guilt is to minimize or distort the ill-effects of their behavior.

During contemporary warfare by the developed nations, this process is facilitated by modern technology, which allows maiming and killing from high in the air–thus avoiding the sight of blood, guts, and dismembered bodies; the screams of pain, pleas for help; and victims begging for an end to their ordeal.

It has been noted that the Pulitzer-prize winning photograph of the naked Vietnamese girl running from her napalmed village played a pivotal role in turning the American public against the Vietnam War.

To avoid a repetition of that kind of public disavowal of their political and military aims, more recent governments have exercised extreme control over media portrayals of wartime events.

Misrepresenting and minimizing consequences is rampant in relation to the environmental consequences of war. Among the long-lasting effects of war that are minimized right out of people’s consciousness are:

Sunken ships that continue to pollute the oceans
Landmines that continue to maim and kill
Hazardous waste from the manufacturing of weapons
Destruction and pollution of wildlife and human habitat through use of herbicidal weapons such as Agent Orange
Environmental degradation from the thousands of refugees fleeing the armed conflict.

(For more about environmental consequences of war, see the report of the Environmental Literacy Council.)

In reaction to the minimizing, misrepresenting, and denial of the environmental effects of war, the United Nations, in 2001, declared November 6 to be International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.

Remembering Hiroshima, 1945

Posted on August 6, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

atomic cloud over Hiroshima — Photo from the National Archives via Wikimedia Commons

Today, August 6, 2010, is the 65^th anniversary of the dropping of the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. This U.S. military action instantly killed over 70,000 Hiroshima residents, almost entirely civilians.

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” Thus spoke J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the principal architects of the bomb.

Despite that condemnation, many Americans still believe that bombing Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was morally justifiable and that maintaining a nuclear arsenal is a sensible policy.

During the Second World War, the Japanese people were demonized and dehumanized by the media. Many Americans, already racist, believed the Japanese all deserved to die. Yet today–and indeed for several decades–Japan is and has been a major ally of the U.S., viewed as an essential partner in maintaining stability in Asia.

In a world with rampant armed conflict and many apparent threats to individual and family security, it is important to search for pathways away from death and destruction. We have chosen today to launch our new blog, dedicated to the promotion of world peace.

The blog has several specific purposes:

1. Promote optimism concerning the possibility of peace.

2. Explore how people in power and the mainstream media persuade citizens that various forms of government-sponsored aggression, such as war and torture, are justifiable.

3. Present examples of serious conflicts that have been resolved without warfare.

4. Demonstrate that a major pathway to peace is through responsible activism.

5. Translate into user-friendly language the best of relevant scientific and academic work contributing to the understanding of war and peace. In particular, we will periodically mention some of the major findings from the work of our own international research team.

6. Help readers find useful tools and important resources to support their own efforts to seek and promote peace.

7. Encourage readers to share their opinions and contribute their own stories and examples of “engaging peace.”

Please join the dialogue about Engaging Peace. We welcome your comments.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology