Tag: punishment

Healing in the aftermath of 9/11

Posted on by kathiemm
Ground Zero memorial
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?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Conservative and liberal world views

Posted on by kathiemm

George Lakoff's book Moral PoliticsOne of the theorists to be considered in greater detail in later posts is George Lakoff.

We introduce several of his main ideas here because they are relevant to how readers are likely to respond to this blog; specifically, Lakoff has provided a brilliant analysis of moral reasoning in liberals and conservatives.

In his book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Lakoff argues that liberals and conservatives hold different values.

Specifically, liberals value:

  • Empathetic behavior and promoting fairness
  • Helping those who cannot help themselves
  • Protecting those who cannot protect themselves
  • Promoting fulfillment in life
  • Nurturing and strengthening oneself in order to help others.

By contrast, conservatives value:

  • A “strict father” morality (using punishment to establish respect for authority)
  • Self-discipline, responsibility, and self-reliance
  • The morality of reward and punishment
  • Protecting moral people from external evils
  • Upholding the established moral order.

Traditionally, liberals have been viewed as doves and conservatives as hawks; however, within both sectors there are pro-war and anti-war activists who differ primarily in their moral reasoning:

  • Pro-war conservatives often refer to the evilness and moral inferiority of the identified “enemy” and view protestors against war as unpatriotic.
  • Pro-war liberals are more likely to use the rhetoric of helping others.

In regard to this blog, it is the liberals who are more likely to be sympathetic to advocacy of peace activism. Would you agree? Why is this likely to be so?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology