Sometimes it seems there is something in us that makes us love to hate. The slightest slights is often all it takes to set off monumental battles on varying scales of social interaction, from the widest of wars to the tiniest of tiffs. In the event that the dehumanizing barriers are lifted and we are able to see our enemies as fellow dignified beings, the fundamental delineation between us and them becomes imperceptible. When we look closely our foes, with all our their faults and shortcomings, we inevitably see ourselves. We're hesitant to admit that what we hate most about our enemies generally shares a strong resemblance to what we hate most about ourselves. In this way, our enemies are simply fulfilling a natural role in the formation of our in-groups. The victim results as an indirect beneficiary to the provocative action undertaken by their supposed enemy; the members consolidate their affinity towards the group as a defense mechanism, subsequently widening the gap between us and them. There is another option for conflict resolution that does not involve the classic form of demonizing one’s enemy. Instead of focusing on the 52 percent devil in our adversary, we ought to look at the other 48 percent fellow human. This presumes that within each adversary, we have a potential ally. Treating our adversaries as potential allies need not include a blind acceptance of their actions. The challenge is to evoke the humanity within our enemies, while preparing for the full range of possible responses they may offer. Striking a balance between distrust and naïvete is what makes us human.
For a student of power, the concept of enemy making in the political arena is of fundamental concern. In an environment of post-9/11 hysteria, George W. Bush launched the shamelessly titled “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Even amidst all the fear mongering that temporarily paralyzed our country’s critical thinking abilities, it seemed unnecessary to seek out and murder our enemies in such cold blood. Had the “conflict” really reached that point? In the process of hunting down the evildoers, we ended up resorting to their tactics, and subsequently relinquished the moral high ground. The attacks of 9/11 turned the American citizenry into a sack of potatoes, and the powers that be grabbed themselves a peeler and exploited the shit out of us. Pandering to the worst part of our nature, we were squeezed into the position of fearing our safety so intensely that we allowed the Executive to order the deliverance of a harsh first-strike. In the process, whether we contributed directly or passively, our nation essentially became terrorists to root out terrorism. Once the threshold of invasion was crossed, and American bombs flat-lined innocent after innocent, the line between good and evil seemed never to have existed.
This has been the example of enemy making for our generation of American youth. Years later, the examination of the process of creating an us and them viscerally tugs at our souls. The inevitable attempts of future leaders to politicize and polarize the relationships of humanity to the point of mutual destruction can only be stopped by a critical mass. We’ve got to create a collective consciousness, expand our moral community. We’ve got to take a cold hard look at the battle cry. If there’s to be any dehumanizing to be done, it ought to be towards those with a thirst for power and blood.
Enemy making is essentially a transportation of our own shadow onto others. We seek those who fit our images of the inferior. History's answer for the creation of enemies is often simplistic in its emphasis on the causality of social forces; it does not take into account the fact that human beings are involved at crucial decision making junctures. One may read that conflict such as wars are caused by nationalism, militarism, alliance systems, economic factors, or some other “fundamental” cause. Are these reasons solely responsible for such conflict?
To be sure, fundamental forces that individual people have no control over certainly exist. However, the fact remains that people are the penultimate facilitators; war is not ecological. War is not caused by a changing of the leaves or seas. War is caused by hatred and fear, which themselves are but pillars buttressed by a solid foundation of ignorance. War is caused by our capacity to understand morality; war is born out of our belief in the substantive existence of evil. This personality dimension of conflict is an important aspect of the creation of the shadow.
A misunderstanding of the motivations and desires of one’s enemy allows our shadow projection thrive. We fail to think of our enemies as people the same as ourselves, with the same fundamental circuitry guiding our interests. In the creation of an enemy, we grossly overestimate our differences, losing that common thread that is manifested in the dignity of each human being, a dignity that binds us all. Perhaps Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said it best this way, “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
To be sure, fundamental forces that individual people have no control over certainly exist. However, the fact remains that people are the penultimate facilitators; war is not ecological. War is not caused by a changing of the leaves or seas. War is caused by hatred and fear, which themselves are but pillars buttressed by a solid foundation of ignorance. War is caused by our capacity to understand morality; war is born out of our belief in the substantive existence of evil. This personality dimension of conflict is an important aspect of the creation of the shadow.
A misunderstanding of the motivations and desires of one’s enemy allows our shadow projection thrive. We fail to think of our enemies as people the same as ourselves, with the same fundamental circuitry guiding our interests. In the creation of an enemy, we grossly overestimate our differences, losing that common thread that is manifested in the dignity of each human being, a dignity that binds us all. Perhaps Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said it best this way, “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”
In February of 2004, President George W. Bush announced support for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit the right of gays to be a legally recognized couple. The announcement was apart of a broader attack of homosexuality occurring within the drunken ranks of American traditionalism. People who live among us everyday with absolutely no harm to anyone are suddenly worthy of amending our most sacred political document in a discriminatory manner against them? That just straight-up makes no fucking sense.
In the process of assigning enemy status, those qualities that we cannot tolerate within ourselves we unconsciously and painlessly attribute to our enemies. Enemy making thus relies on ignorance and the subjugation of complexity in order to thrive within our minds. The Conservative Crusade against homosexuality created an excruciatingly simplistic narrative, spelled out as follows: The union of a man and a woman is the most time-honored institution, encouraged by every culture and religious faith. This tradition underlines the stability of society on the nuclear level. Extending this simpleton logic, marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. The total undermining of our society and values will therefore commence if two people choosing to make a lifelong commitment do so in conjunction with the fact that they both have breasts or a penis. GWB and the American Traditionalist Movement is thus wary that the “degradation of society” follows from legalized gay love. Equating homosexuality with evil is their classic enemy-creating response, displacing the responsibility for their own fuck-ups on an easy target. Reality concerning our so-called "degrading" society is likely more clearly reflected in their inept leadership capabilities, rather than with monogamous homosexuals (mono-homo's). Lets not demonize our neighbors for the circumstances of their birth.
In the process of assigning enemy status, those qualities that we cannot tolerate within ourselves we unconsciously and painlessly attribute to our enemies. Enemy making thus relies on ignorance and the subjugation of complexity in order to thrive within our minds. The Conservative Crusade against homosexuality created an excruciatingly simplistic narrative, spelled out as follows: The union of a man and a woman is the most time-honored institution, encouraged by every culture and religious faith. This tradition underlines the stability of society on the nuclear level. Extending this simpleton logic, marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. The total undermining of our society and values will therefore commence if two people choosing to make a lifelong commitment do so in conjunction with the fact that they both have breasts or a penis. GWB and the American Traditionalist Movement is thus wary that the “degradation of society” follows from legalized gay love. Equating homosexuality with evil is their classic enemy-creating response, displacing the responsibility for their own fuck-ups on an easy target. Reality concerning our so-called "degrading" society is likely more clearly reflected in their inept leadership capabilities, rather than with monogamous homosexuals (mono-homo's). Lets not demonize our neighbors for the circumstances of their birth.
The notions of good and evil are just simplistic, arcane traditions of the old society that we all should gladly leave behind. At the heart of this issue is the sense of community inherent in man; particularly, how we choose, as individuals, to address the unavoidable reality that no man is an island upon himself. Aristotle famously dubbed man a social animal; we are all destined to live in this world together. We ought to exercise pragmatism, deal with our potential conflicts in a more productive manner. When it comes to extinguishing our natural inclinations towards enemy formation, we must derive it from the very best part of our nature. This potent reduction of our proclivities towards cooperation and compassion is a mean to the ultimate end of our human existence, the good life.
“Men of integrity, by their very existence, rekindle the belief that as a people we can live above the level of moral squalor. We need that belief; a cynical community is a corrupt community.”
- John W. Gardner
No comments:
Post a Comment