Thursday, January 29, 2015
Monday, January 12, 2015
Group reasoning: Stereotypes, hatred, and all that
Belonging to a group is a powerful motivator in people actions and also in how they understand the world they live in. Our social tendencies, our desire to live among equals are very obvious and have some positive consequences. But they also help the drawing of many of the arbitrary lines that divide us, like nation or race.
In his 'The Lucifer Principle , Howard Bloom presents two interesting examples of creating enemies as a way to gain support and power. He tells how Orville Faubus created a bogeyman, inventing a story where he claimed the black population in Little Fork was getting ready for violence when the schools would open, finally forced to integrate black and white students by a Supreme Court decision. Meanwhile, Faubus incited the violence and, by blaming in on the black people, he was able to be elected and re-elected until he decided to retire. A similar strategy was used by Fidel Castro, in order to get the Cuban people to follow his rule. In more recent examples, it is not even necessary to look hard to see how both sides in the Western versus Muslim societies "conflict'' gain the hearts and minds of the people inside each group simply by pointing at the other group as outsiders, as them, basically not granting the same humanity that the group "we'' belong to has.
Dave Grossman's 'On Killing analyses the question of how soldiers deal with the killing they are forced to inflict. While the book has serious problems in his analysis of historical cases (extending the morality of present time to the past and using too few information sources), it points to some interesting, if incomplete, data about the behavioral of soldiers in our more recent wars. Typically, it seems that, in our modern society, most soldiers would naturally avoid firing their weapons and, when they do, they prefer to aim higher than the heads of their opponents. But this tendency can be trained away and techniques of dehumanizing the enemy already exist. Among them, simply attacking from far in a way where soldiers can aim at objects (tanks, for example) instead of human beings, can make it much easier to avoid the horrible feelings many of us would have from taking someone else's life.
Hatred is indeed a powerful element in how we deal differently with ingroup relations as opposed to outgroup ones. Eran Halperin et al, while studying Israeli-Jewish adults, have observed that hatred is indeed even more important to establishing of political intolerance than other strong inducers of intolerance, such as perceived threat.
Sullivan and Transue, in a review of previous research on political tolerance, observed some rather troublesome effects. For example, a previous study conducted during the McCarthy era by Samuel Stouffer, in Communism, Conformity and Liberties
, observed that an overwhelming majority of the Americans interviewed in the study were in favor of denying the political rights of free speech or participating in the political process to groups they considered a threat, such as communists or atheists. Interestingly, in this study, this tendency to deny political rights was weaker among community leaders. In a later study, James Prothro and Charles Grigg verirfied that, while their respondents actually agreed with general democratic principles such the protection of minorities, this consensus in favor of democratic practices disappeared when applied to controversial issues. The strength of tendency of not accepting divergent opinions was observed to depend on several factors, such as perceived threat, educational background, psychological attitudes and values and so on.
In his 'The Lucifer Principle , Howard Bloom presents two interesting examples of creating enemies as a way to gain support and power. He tells how Orville Faubus created a bogeyman, inventing a story where he claimed the black population in Little Fork was getting ready for violence when the schools would open, finally forced to integrate black and white students by a Supreme Court decision. Meanwhile, Faubus incited the violence and, by blaming in on the black people, he was able to be elected and re-elected until he decided to retire. A similar strategy was used by Fidel Castro, in order to get the Cuban people to follow his rule. In more recent examples, it is not even necessary to look hard to see how both sides in the Western versus Muslim societies "conflict'' gain the hearts and minds of the people inside each group simply by pointing at the other group as outsiders, as them, basically not granting the same humanity that the group "we'' belong to has.
Dave Grossman's 'On Killing analyses the question of how soldiers deal with the killing they are forced to inflict. While the book has serious problems in his analysis of historical cases (extending the morality of present time to the past and using too few information sources), it points to some interesting, if incomplete, data about the behavioral of soldiers in our more recent wars. Typically, it seems that, in our modern society, most soldiers would naturally avoid firing their weapons and, when they do, they prefer to aim higher than the heads of their opponents. But this tendency can be trained away and techniques of dehumanizing the enemy already exist. Among them, simply attacking from far in a way where soldiers can aim at objects (tanks, for example) instead of human beings, can make it much easier to avoid the horrible feelings many of us would have from taking someone else's life.
Hatred is indeed a powerful element in how we deal differently with ingroup relations as opposed to outgroup ones. Eran Halperin et al, while studying Israeli-Jewish adults, have observed that hatred is indeed even more important to establishing of political intolerance than other strong inducers of intolerance, such as perceived threat.
Sullivan and Transue, in a review of previous research on political tolerance, observed some rather troublesome effects. For example, a previous study conducted during the McCarthy era by Samuel Stouffer, in Communism, Conformity and Liberties
, observed that an overwhelming majority of the Americans interviewed in the study were in favor of denying the political rights of free speech or participating in the political process to groups they considered a threat, such as communists or atheists. Interestingly, in this study, this tendency to deny political rights was weaker among community leaders. In a later study, James Prothro and Charles Grigg verirfied that, while their respondents actually agreed with general democratic principles such the protection of minorities, this consensus in favor of democratic practices disappeared when applied to controversial issues. The strength of tendency of not accepting divergent opinions was observed to depend on several factors, such as perceived threat, educational background, psychological attitudes and values and so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)