Category Archives: Psychology

Propaganda & Finding Meaning

Leave a reply

“Meaning is not given to us; we have to create it.” (Bolman, p.248)

Random colorful letters

As a student of propaganda, I see ‘meaning’ as a matter of individual and public perception. It is formed by input, and thanks to modern modes of communication and the accessibility of information, there is no shortage of potential input. It’s a practice of nations and corporations to insert their ideas into this large pool of concepts, for financial gain and social control.

They ‘form attitudes’ or ‘create meaning’ through thousand-fold layers of ideas, with an endgame or goal desired through the effort of deception and subterfuge. I’m a firm believer in the observations of Jacques Ellul, a social scientist who has studied the pervasiveness of propaganda in society, who figures that most “people live in the mental confusion that propaganda purposefully creates.” (Ellul, p. 199) Our understanding is one that is presented to us, be it ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Unless we take it upon ourselves to find and determine our created meaning using our faculties and senses, we are subject to the influence of ideas which generally do not have our intentions at heart.  I believe that meaning IS given to us, if we have not created it for ourselves.

Meaning can be turned on and off, by folks ‘higher up in the pyramid’. I believe that we are awash in a sea of propaganda, thousands of layers deep, which has us generally (purposefully) confused on most issues, unless we have examined them thoroughly for ourselves to our own conclusions. I think there is an ethical responsibility, be it in leadership, government, or the corporate world to convey a plurality of ideas, and encourage those who listen to examine the notion further, as opposed to blind acceptance. However, that works contrary to the purpose of propaganda and streamlined thought.

Bolman, Lee G, and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Print.

Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books, 1973. Print.

Racial Profiling Data Collection in CT

Leave a reply

Rather, the “Shortcomings of Racial Profiling Data Collection in Connecticut”

34187_109258829122993_109247899124086_69056_7387693_n

Enacted in Connecticut on the first day of January in the year 2000, following a wave of racial profiling legislation throughout the country, the Penn Act, like the laws passed in other states, relies on the collection of data to spot trends in traffic stops. There are items of the Act that are taken for granted; the cooperation of state police agencies to be compliant with the law and the analysis of submitted data to be reported in the manner proscribed. Thus far, the majority of Connecticut police departments are non-compliant and the collected data sits on shelves, in various slips of papers bound by rubber-band, un-analyzed.  There is another serious question about the data collection itself—can offending officers be relied upon to report accurate profiling data when they fill out the form based on their perceptions?  The Penn Act is a start to correcting discriminatory police tactics, but its shortcomings need to be addressed—otherwise the law is a waste of even the half-effort put toward its enforcement—and a failure at ensuring the protected rights of  State residents.

The most troubling aspect one finds when researching the Penn Act is the unwillingness of the Connecticut police departments to comply with State Statute.  According to their 2008 Annual Report, the African-American Affairs Commission (AAAC), the agency charged with analyzing the profiling data, “barely twenty-five percent of the required law enforcement agencies…submitted reports” in that year.  You would figure that the State’s police departments—the lawkeepers of the land—would have a compliancy rating of better than 25%, especially on a highly publicized issue.   Telling is the fact that Hartford’s urban police forces are among the departments that do not submit data.  There is quickness to dismiss the fact that racial profiling even occurs at all.  According to many officers, the issue instead is “a myth,” and if discriminatory intent was perceived, then it was the lack respect towards the peace officer, or probability of criminal cause that led to the police encounter.  There are many thousands of individuals who claim otherwise, and “driving while black” continues to remain a popular phrase, due to its prevalence in daily urban life.  Departments need to work within the law.  Only then, will they receive the respect they claim they aren’t given.

Another failing of the Act is that it doesn’t designate an “official” form or format for the data collection.    According to the AAAC, the data that had been submitted was “received electronically while others were received in several paper formats.”  I have witnessed this first-hand in meetings with AAAC Executive Director Glen Cassis, who when asked about the way the data is collected, left the room and came back with bundles of scraps of papers…of different size, color, font, etc.  Some of the handwriting was impossible to make out on the forms, which dated back (at least as far as I could see) to 2002.  The cost that the AAAC cites as a hindrance in the analysis of this data comes solely from making sense of this jumbled mess.  Sifting through the piles of bundled papers made me realize the need for a uniform method of data collection—starting with the form.  “Some of them come on slips of paper, some on disc . . . some of it’s coded . . . it comes in various shapes and sizes, and it’s difficult to do any kind of comprehensive report,” says Cassis.  Why is paper even used, considering the amount invested in patrol car computers?  Is the data collection issue something that can be solved by Scantron?  Speaking of bubble forms, can’t the analysis and reporting be completed by college students, as has been suggested by State Representative Michael Lawlor?  If the State tells an agency to get something done and they don’t provide the money, they should, at the least, supply ideas on making the process cost effective.

When discussing the Penn Act with other activists and community members, they are astonished that data is even collected in the first place.  The first question many people have asked is “who collects the data?” When told that is the officer who makes the traffic stop, their immediate concern is whether or not an officer who engages in profiling would self-report their own criminal activity.  A good point is also made that officers aren’t necessarily trained to interpret race.  Oftentimes, the ticket that is received is riddled with errors regarding the officers presumed interpretation of race (or religion in some cases, in the states that track that data)—sometimes even gender is inaccurately recorded.  An immediate question is “who is to say…” that the data the officer reports—unseen by the person being pulled over—has accurately been recorded.  This model of data collection carries many fallacies, which, like probable cause (“what is probable cause?”), leave much to interpretation.  What exactly is “officer’s presumption” and what options, if any, are available to individuals who believe they have been racially profiled?

Beyond reporting of the data, there are no ways to spot profiling, accept by anecdote, and then by lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the State Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.  Of these cases, usually only the “surest” go to trial. While they grab attention from the media, they drawn out, and in the course of the wait, a person sometimes suffers from lost employment because of a traffic incident in which they may have been profiled (ex. truck drivers).  There is no immediate recourse available to the victim in this case.  To help overcome this inequity, municipalities in other states such as Oregon and California have requested that the officer’s business card be presented at each traffic stop.  The hope would be to keep the offending officer less likely to engage in profiling, for fear of recrimination by the persons they pull over.  It seems a cheap enough addition to range of alternatives, though there are complaints about the cost of paper.  A less costly method might be to print a line on the bottom of the ticket:  “Do you believe you have been racially profiled?  Tell your story @ www.XYZ.”  The “hotline” webpage could serve as either a un- or low-funded forum simply to broadcast the issue, or as part of a state agency or non-profit organization (hopefully this time, funded).  Academia could well step in, and leave the running of the site to those studying web-design; and the handling of the legal matters to professors, advocates, and those pursuing a law degree.  Fixing the problem of racial profiling doesn’t have to be a slow or expensive process.

The issue of racial profiling first needs acknowledgement by the State’s police forces.  The reality is that racial profiling is not the myth that they have made it out to be.  Rather than dismissing the idea of it, or spinning it to be a “lack of officer respect” outlook on the part of the citizen, police agencies should own up to their role in this ordeal.  If they wish to handle the problem of profiling internally, as is the current “strategy,” those efforts must show results—to the satisfaction of the community that they serve. The police must be compliant with the law they are charged with keeping.  There must be championing on this issue, politically and in the community, to pressure this wrong to be righted.  A failed, yet expansive, racial profiling law shows poor leadership thus far in that regard. Rather than continue with the chaos of the current system, the will to accomplish the intention of the Penn Act is within reach, and needs the support of police leadership and elected officials.  Instead of taking an adversarial approach with this issue, the onus is on them to cooperate with the community and move beyond this discriminatory, archaic idea.  Simple steps, some of which are proposed in this document, are low-cost, “low-hanging” approaches that can be implemented to both curb racial profiling and provide a form of recourse to the individual affected by the practice.

REVIEW: “The Bookseller of Kabul”

Leave a reply

purchase on Amazon, used, for dirt cheap or pick out the highlights from different reviews

Asne_Seierstad_The_Bookseller_of_KabulThe bookseller: Sultan Khan

Both professionally and at home, Sultan Khan is cold and demanding.  When discussing the issue of the carpenter who stole postcards from his shop, Khan is unsympathetic to the plight of his former employee.  While the rest of the Sultan’s family feels that the carpenter had faced punishment enough in the shame that he has brought upon himself, Khan sees little need for mercy, expecting more than just the beatings that the man received from his father.  When his son Mansur asks him over the phone if the carpenter can be released, the Sultan maintains that he has been insulted, shouting, “He wants to ruin my business, undermine my prices.”  This is not true; as the carpenter’s primary motive for the theft was to help feed his children, not the ruination of Khan or his business.

Khan continues to play the victim in the ordeal, still blind of reality saying, “I paid him well.  There was no need to steal.  He’s a crook.” The carpenter stole because the wages he received were inadequate to support his family—in such dire circumstances, there was a need to steal.  Khan, though, refuses to see this perspective and show mercy and he quickly judges the carpenter guilty. He feels “the truth will have to be beaten out of him” by police interrogation.[1]

Even after the carpenter implicates others, Khan’s son feels badly, remembering the interrogators promise of allowing the man to return to his family if only he confessed.  Mansur knows that the promise will likely remain unfulfilled, recalling his father’s final words before he had left for business in Pakistan: “I’ve worked my tail off to try to create something…and a bloody carpenter comes and tries to usurp my life’s work.  He will be punished.”[2] He ignores the concerns of his family and wife who hope that he will “show mercy” before subjecting the man to a prison sentence.  They are concerned that they will be responsible for the death of the carpenter’s children, should he not be around to feed his family.  They also worry that he could die during the six year sentence, saying that “many never make it through the six years” because the prison is “riddled with infection, tuberculosis, and lots of other illnesses.”  When Mansur mentions to his father that the carpenters children could possibly be dead by the time the six years was up, Khan responds with antipathy saying “If he gets sixty years, I couldn’t care less.  He is going to suffer…”[3]

Khan is ever the master of his domain, and his word dominates above all others in his household and family.  The family accepts this treatment with (mostly) silent and resigned indignation. Khan’s sister accepts his “moods,” crying the whole day when he sends her son Fazil home from the bookstore job that the child had performed so well.[4]  The boy had worked twelve hours per day, under Khan’s promise to his sister to feed and shelter his nephew. However, one day, before the end of the arrangement, Khan scolded the boy, saying, “I’m fed up with you.  Go home.  Don’t show yourself in the shop anymore.” Meanwhile, no explanation was given to the both the heartbroken mother or the boy for the banishment from the bookstore.[5]

The author of The Bookseller of Kabul, Åsne Seierstad, puts it best when she describes the Sultan’s role in the family, likening him to a king who took over “the throne” after the death of his father.  She says “not only does he lord it over the household, but he also tries to rule over the siblings that have moved away.”  She describes Khan’s relationship with his brother, who “kisses his hand when they meet.” Khan demands respect from his younger brother and Seierstad falls short of hypothesizing when she says “God help (the brother) if he even dares contradict the Sultan or, even worse, lights up a cigarette in front of him.”  She suggests that when scolding and hitting no longer work for the Sultan, “the next punishment is rejection,” as was the case with another brother, Farid, who defied his older brother in setting up his own book shop.  Baring rare exception, Khan gets what he demands from his family, or they are disowned.  “Farid’s name is no longer mentioned” as if “he is no longer the Sultan’s brother.” “His word is law,” Seierstad says, and “anyone who does not obey him will be punished.”[6]

[1] P.237

[2] P.244

[3] P.244

[4] P.200

[5] P.187

[6] P.114-115

Manifest Destiny: American Progress?

Leave a reply
John Gast’s (1872) “American Progress.”

John Gast’s (1872) “American Progress.”

Few early American paintings capture the “spirit” of the young nation like that of John Gast’s (1872) “American Progress,” otherwise known as “Manifest Destiny”.  The visual detail itself tells a great story that is familiar from any history reading.  It shows the westward migration of “Americans” across our continent, leaving behind the civilization of east, and entering the foreboding “unsettled” territory that lay beyond the reach of train and telegraph; All of this, while being guided by divine “providence,” who carries the books that will “civilize” the wild west and helps to lay the wire that will keep the country connected, brightening the path for the railroads and future expansion.

Being driven ahead of the new settlers, are the old inhabitants of the land; the bear, the Indian, and the buffalo; moved out as to be replaced by a manufactured landscape filled with new farms and cities, supervised by a beautiful servant of God, who helps to rid ignorance and evil in this “untamed” land.  The painting shows no sympathies towards those displaced, and they can be looked at as a hindrance of progress.  They stand in the way of this great migration, and are relics of a darker, less civilized time.  American idealism is what will “save” our land, and in its future applications, the world.

It is an aspect of early America that has carried into modern times; the idea that our way of life is worthy of expansion and wished for (and supported) by our God.  We see in ourselves the ability to help mankind, and at the same time help ourselves.  But in reality, as well as what is on the canvas, the tendency is to forget about the perspective of the people driven out by our expansion, and the decimating effect it has on culture; the ones who never asked to be “saved” from their supposed “ignorance.”

While “Progress” depicts a hard-working, groundbreaking ideology with enormous potential; one can see the makings of a self-centered, oblivious, obnoxious, and ultimately insincere materialistic consumer nation.  The tendency is there to jump headfirst into any project, because of the faith we have in ourselves and our “destiny”.  It is shown in the attitude of the portrait: that there is “new land” that must be “tamed” and it is the American destiny to tame it.  We eventually decide to “share” our idea with the rest of the world.  Pride and capital led to further expansion, but faced the externalities of egoism and greed.

The plight of the ways of life displaced by the expansion of is ignorantly brushed aside, and ultimately, heavily criticized in hindsight.  Since the creation of this work, there have been many parallels questioning the motives of expansion, and many references to the attitude of “Manifest Destiny.”  Is it the American imperative to spread ourselves first nationally, then globally?  “American Progress” views this country as divinely inspired, the land of liberty and the light of modern democracy in the modern era.

Our big ideas are of course, worthy of sharing with our neighbors.  However, history will determine whether our goodwill is viewed as an imposition or accepted graciously.  We must remember that the eyes of the world are upon us, and they expect better of our motives and implementations.  They ask us to question:  Have all the big words taken on different meanings?  Has our ideology been corrupted, all in the name of “American Progress?”

A Dab of Social Media: Fake Revolutions

Leave a reply

Alchemy of the “Twitter Revolutions”
TV-Twitter1-1024x655

Humans enjoy an unprecedented connectivity and ability to reach others.  This is now coupled with the infrastructure for a rapid, open flow of information: images, video, voice; by anyone, anywhere, online. This has the power educate, to promote peace, to expose injustice (indeed, it is hoped it will).  It also has the power to divert attention from particulars in a story, as well as outright misinform, using glitz, sales pitch and other coercive approaches.  It has been these strategies which have been consistently employed by Western Media since their foray into New Media.  And not only has this coverage been packaged for consumption (even subconscious source and ‘brand loyalty’), it has a bias, which reflects in the final product to the Viewer.  Summed up in a phrase simplification of a larger issue, but “what you need to know” and “what you remember,” sometimes making credulous leaps with repeated ‘truths’ the like of WMD’s, distortions of Al Qaeda or even declarations of “Revolution.”

Peabody award winning journalist/producer, Reese Erlich makes the argument that the 2009 Iranian “Twitter Revolution” was mostly a Western Media machination, set during a blackout of disputed election results. Erlich has covered civil uprisings in numerous countries in the Arab and Asia Minor regions and has critiqued the portrayal of these events by the Western Media in numerous publications. He observed that during the media blackout that followed the disputed victory of Ahmadinejad over Mousavi for the Iranian Presidency, correspondents, who were forbidden to cover the demonstrations, turned to New Media sources Twitter and YouTube for their information.  Without a doubt, this informed the West of electoral fraud accusations, demonstrations and a media crackdown in the country of Iran, but it was the Media that declared it a ‘revolution’ to the world. Ahmadinejad, declared pariah by the Western Media, now had a challenger, who would become a Media buzz-name and ‘Anti-Ahmadinejad’ in Mousavi. Even though the two politicians were not far off in platform; Center-Right and consistent with the mandates of Theocratic Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei rendering the election results generally moot in terms of progressive outcomes.

The limited coverage available to the West, from the ‘Twitter Class’, those being able to afford internet devices and such connectivity, which in 2009 was limited to an upwardly mobile segment of Iranian society, presented a very channeled picture: the grievances of the rich and upper-middle class; not necessarily the democratic will or demands of the people at-Large.  The Media blackout was modus operandi for the Iranian Government, ad arbitrium for journalists; catalyst enough for a Western Media story, with prepared suggested talking points to sell Western Consumers.  The substance of Mousavi, the ‘contested elections’ and demonstrations were largely unimportant and glossed over in Western Media outlets; being only the requisite points to justify or purport a revolution to the world.  It is only in that Western Media outlets were getting their material sourced from New Media that it became a self-titled “Twitter Revolution.”  Perhaps sounding too slick or cliché, a less radical catchphrase, the “Green Revolution”—revolution, nonetheless—was settled upon by Western Media consensus to encapsulate ‘coverage’ after the initial term was challenged.

So the question is: did a ‘revolution’ occur, or has the Western Media mischaracterized (valid) demonstrations, intentionally or unintentionally? I would posit that the action was intentional, considering that Iran is an oft mentioned foreign power, and ‘enemy’ by definition by our Military-Industrial-Congressional-Media complex.  I support the notion that media outlets capitalized both on the availability of new media footage and the chic nature of a Twitter ‘story’ to manufacture a narrative for their audiences. This narrative is a psychological attempt, firstly, to erode the validity of the Twitter ‘tool’ in general America, and predominantly, to solicit support for a course of action parroted by candidates and talking heads: Regime Change.  I hope to see the failure of the theocracy, which came to power after years of United States intelligence involvement, undermining democratically elected Iranian governments.  I do not want another puppet (or kindly, someone more malleable) as Mousavi has been characterized, rather, legitimate candidates, participating in free and fair and safe elections.  We only get to that point, yes, with regime change, which comes by revolution. But it must be a legitimate revolution, an overpowering display of the will of the people.  For the Western Media to claim one for their audience is coverage to what end?

Video: “Iran not a Twitter Revolution.” (Real News) June 2009.>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFGSplRR7oI&feature=related
“Iran’s ‘Twitter revolution’ was exaggerated, says editor” (Guardian UK) June 2010.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/iran-twitter-revolution-protests

Primed To Understand: Psychoanalysis

Leave a reply

This paper discusses the Freudian definition of narcissism, and the idea that this is a normal behavior in childhood which the adult ego reverts back to following trauma.  Viewed as an act of recovery by Freud, this regression, when used in conjunction with psychoanalytic priming, can help those affected to work through their mental disorders by allowing the patient to realize their condition.  

8462853_orig

Narcissism, as defined by Freud, is “the attitude of a person who treats his own body in the same way…a sexual object is ordinarily treated.” Narcissists typically lack empathy, generally showing concern for just themselves.  However, this may be a part of “the regular course of human sexual development,” as Freud suggests that there is a period of narcissism that is normal in early childhood.  This early child hood narcissism develops into the “real ego” and the “ego ideal,” which he regards as an attempt to maintain the “narcissistic perfection of one’s childhood.”  When this perfection can no long be retained, one may unconsciously seek “to recover it in the new form of an ego ideal.”  This new ego ideal is a delusion in a sense, and “the substitute for the lost narcissism of (one’s) childhood.”  According to Freud, these delusions can be “part of an attempt at recovery” (Freud, 1914/1986).  Along with self-introspection and psychoanalytic technique, they can help to assist in recovery by drawing the malignant behaviors to the surface; where, no longer part of the unconscious, they can be ‘worked on’ proactively instead of continually ignored, repressed or ruminated upon.

Donald Capps, in his work “John Nash’s Post-delusional Period: A Case of Transformed Narcissism,” suggests that delusion, narcissism, and other correlative disorders can be overcome by actualization or mentalizing, much like the case of the Nobel Prizewinning mathematical genius he has studied.  Capps hypothesizes the root of Nash’s dysfunction as being from many possible traumas, including inconsistency in parenting, denial as a family habit, a childhood accident in which a friend was killed, awkwardness as a “bookish” young boy, and apathetic behavior towards school in his teenage years.  Nash’s adult trauma’s are also detailed, which included ridicule from colleagues and failure to live up to his (and his mothers) expectations of brilliance.  Capps believed that the delusional state that Nash went into, which included bouts of extreme paranoia, alcoholism, and a dangerous obsession with numerology, signified an unconscious attempt at recovery, much along the line of Freud’s belief.  Although Nash was forced to leave his career for some time, he was able to overcome his delusions.  Capps believes that “the process by which Nash was able to liberate himself from the control of his delusions was the transformation of his narcissistic self” (Capps, 2004).  By using creativity, humor and wisdom on top of his ability to think abstractly about his condition, Nash was able to self-actualize his way to controlling his disorder.

Dr. Michael Ermann also believes that narcissism stems from an unsatisfied ego-state, based an ideal-self created by perceptions made in childhood.   He finds that “archaic” feelings can be “activated,” and ultimately worked through, using psychoanalysis.  Much like the case of John Nash, Ermann believes that patients can be primed to achieve ‘mentalization,’ or the ability to understand one’s own mental state.  He suggests that this activity could prove therapeutic in allowing patients to move beyond the issues they face.  During a specific analytic encounter with ‘Paul,’ who he describes as narcissistic, he attempts to awaken buried “feelings of not being wanted, not being welcome, not being loved, not being cared for, of being abandoned and being done harm.” Ermann describes Paul as outwardly “successful,” but also as someone dealing with “diverse identity problems…associated with depressive feelings.” Paul suffered from persistent dreams and waking ideation regarding the safety of his son in fanciful situations in which, contrary to his idealized protective role as a father, he was unable to save or rescue him.  By priming him on these issues, Dr. Ermann was able to coax further information about Paul’s father’s infidelity, and abandonment of him as a child.  Ermann also found that Paul cheated on his wife and had unresolved parental distrust, believing that his mother risked his life during her pregnancy “because of her hate for her husband.”  Eventually, Paul learns that he was born seven weeks premature; that his mother didn’t risk his life out of spite.  Paul was able to mentalize this and overcome his own infidelities and patterns of indignation.  Ermann believes that by “going through the preverbal states of (Paul’s) earliest existence where he had the unconscious feeling of not being born into his own life,” Paul was able to find peace (Ermann, 2007).

A study by Hunyady, Joesephs and Jost also uses psychoanalytic priming techniques to understand narcissism in their patients.  The three researchers share the Freudian belief “that reminders of…the child’s real or imagined perception of the parents’ sexual relationship—as well as the child’s knowledge of their parents’ own sexual infidelity—can activate unconscious conflict around sexual infidelity in adulthood.”   In their study of 316 people, Hunyady et al. asked primed questions in an attempt to activate “the Oedipal situation.”  They hoped to lead these people, who they described as having narcissistic traits, “to become more prohibitive towards sexual infidelity.”  The researchers conducted their study in three parts, first with questionnaires to measure the degree of narcissism in each individual.  The participants then “read a paragraph that contained the priming manipulation,” which asked them to “identify with the protagonist of the story by writing down what that person may have been feeling or thinking.”  The participants were then asked about their attitudes towards relationships and infidelity, as well as other demographic information and further questions regarding behavioral history.  The evidence the researchers gathered confirmed a correlation between narcissism, infidelity, and parental infidelity.  Hunyady et al. felt that “narcissistic people defend against painful and angry feelings by disidentifying with the victim.” They did find a positive outcome in that when participants were “led to identify and empathize with the victim of betrayal, they became disapproving” of their patterns of behavior (Hunyady, Josephs & Jost, 2008).

The analysis of how primed, but self guided treatment for issues such as narcissism must be explored further.  Successful examples of narcissistic regression, mentalization, and disorder transformation such as that of ‘Paul’ or John Nash’s should be analyzed for the benefit brought to both the patient and scientific community.  The techniques used in the study by Hunyady et al. provide a reasonable ground in which to start from.  Participants were asked to self-rate themselves on 29 different items, and then asked to respond to primed paragraphs, crafted to explore the depths of the respondents’ attitudes towards infidelity (Hunyady, Josephs & Jost, 2008).  This type of questioning could be useful far beyond the just study of the correlation of narcissism to infidelity.

An appropriate size gender segregated sampling of more than 100 people would be ideal to test.  The ideal age group would be individuals aged 28-45, because of the increased likelihood of post childhood traumas in which to study.  Ethnicities, though not outwardly important, should be catalogued, in case surprising data is revealed upon that basis.  The first part of the study should be a self-response questionnaire to gauge personality traits.  The Millon Multi-Axis Personality Measure should be used in which respondents will be asked questions and instructed to offer their level of disagreement (1) or agreement (6) on a number scale.  The participants will then be asked primed paragraph length sample stories with clear victims and villains; afterwards they shall discuss the characters they associated with positively and for what reasons.  The primed questions should reveal the participants’ attitudes about the types of narratives presented (benevolence, infidelity, etc.).  The final part of the study should include other data to assist in the analytic process, such as, but not limited to: history of sleep disturbances, indignation or spite, co-dependency, heightened self awareness, protective instincts, indecisiveness, fixation on past relationships, depression, body image, outlook on relationships, addiction, family history of mental disorders, sexual history, academic performance, recollection of childhood, living situation, socioeconomic circumstances; all based on short answer response or satisfaction indices.  It is likely that a number of these factors correlate, as witnessed in the case of John Nash or ‘Paul.’  As an extension of this project, hormone levels can also be monitored to determine the physiological impact of age.

The development of a narcissistic personality may come as compensation for a shattered self image, but channeled positively, those afflicted can (and do) go on to live healthy lives.  The psychological scar can be worked though with self reporting, testing, primed questioning, and psychoanalytic analysis. Whereby previously, “the frequent causation of paranoia by an injury to the ego, by frustration of satisfaction” could once lead to “the possible transformation of ideals in paraphrenic (schizophrenic) disorders,” (Freud, 1914/1986) many individuals may be able to come out of the psychoanalytic process with a healthy realization of self worth.   Knowing and understanding oneself could possibly be the best treatment for those with these types of mental disorders.

References

Capps, D. (2004). John Nash’s Postdelusional Period: A Case of Transformed Narcissism. Pastoral Psychology, 52(4), 289-313. Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.

Ermann, M. (2007). “You touched my heart”: Modes of memory and psychoanalytic technique. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 16(4), 222-227. Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.

Freud, S. (1914/1986). On narcissism: An introduction. In Morrison, A. P. (Ed.). Essential papers on

narcissism (pp. 17–43). New York: New York University Press.

Hunyady, O., Josephs, L., & Jost, J. (2008). Priming the Primal Scene: Betrayal Trauma, Narcissism, and Attitudes Toward Sexual Infidelity. Self & Identity, 7(3), 278-294. Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.

Image: http://psychapprentice.weebly.com/

Know Yourself: Understand Your World

1 Reply
Psychoanalysis can change a person.

Psychoanalysis can change a person.

Potentials of Psychoanalysis (for better or for worse):

Sigmund Freud, perhaps the most recognized psychologist ever, had a radical idea for his time. He thought that what went on in the mind was “mostly hidden” from conscious awareness.  Freud considered this hidden section, the unconscious, to be a vast area “containing thoughts, wishes, feelings, and memories.” Freud assumed that the unconscious manifested itself occasionally in what we say or do. and that the meaning of our actions could be analyzed and found to represent these primal thoughts. We keep them repressed; “forcibly blocking them from our consciousness because they would be too unsettling to acknowledge.”  He used a certain technique called free association, otherwise, capturing and recording his patients’ spontaneity of thought.  The thoughts would then be analyzed and interpreted in an attempt to map the subconscious.  Freud felt that these techniques could help in “treating psychological disorders by seeking to expose and interpret unconscious tensions.” (Myers, 422) From his ideas, the field of psychoanalysis was born. His techniques would be expanded upon by others and eventually put into practice on a wider scale.

Freud’s personality theories and psychoanalysis would come into pressing need, according to Adam Curtis, producer of the BBC documentary series, The Century of the Self.   He tells how an increase in mental instability had occurred after the depravity of World War 2.  Prominent psychologists and world leaders felt that Nazism had created irrational individuals, and that violent nationalistic tendencies could escalate worldwide.  American soldiers faced “an extraordinary number of mental breakdowns” (Curtis, 2:08) and “forty-nine percent of all soldiers evacuated from combat were sent back because they suffered from mental problems.” The Army began to use psychoanalysis and found that the stress of combat had triggered repressed violent feelings and desires, proving Freudian theory “that underneath, humans are driven by primitive irrational forces.” (Curtis, 5:00) In an interview, Ellen Herman, Historian of American Psychology, states that politicians believed that because of what was witnessed in the war, “that human beings could act very irrationally because of this sort of teeming and raw and unpredictable emotionality…the kind of chaos that lived at the base of human personality could in fact infect the society social institutions to such a point that the society itself would become sick…that’s what they believe happened in Germany in which the irrational, the anti-democratic went wild.” (Curtis, 6:45) It was felt that the use of psychoanalytic principles held hope in erasing these irrational emotions. Freud’s daughter, Anna, expanded on his techniques and led the psychoanalytic movement after his death.  She thought it was possible for people to learn how to manage these dark “inner forces.” (Curtis, 9:45)

In 1946, The National Mental Health Act would be signed into law to raise awareness of mental illness.  Brothers Carl and Will Menninger, who led psychiatry efforts for the Army,  would train hundreds of new psychoanalysts.  They hoped to, according to Curtis, implement Anna Freud’s psychoanalysis techniques on a wider scale.  Robert Wallerstein, Psychoanalyst for the Menninger Clinic from 1949-1966, described the Menningers’ belief that “psychoanalytic thinking could make for the betterment of society…because you could change the way the mind functioned; and you could take the ways in which people did hurtful things to themselves and others and alter them by enlarging their understanding… this was the vision psychoanalysis brought…that you could really change people…and you could change them almost in limitless ways.” (Curtis, 12:38-14:45) Dr. Harold Blum, found that a person who went through the psychoanalytic process became “more insightful, much more understanding, and a much better regulated person…the regulatory aspects of the human mind would really be in charge, instead of being overwhelmed by our passions and our darker impulses.” (Curtis 16:37)

In The Century of the Self, interviews were conducted with many people closely linked to Freud and the Menningers, as well as leading psychoanalysts.  Its credibility as a product of the BBC makes it a trustworthy source.  The information was presented attractively and the language used in the film easily accessible to the average viewer.  The use of historical video footage strongly supported the narration and interview material.  It is impressive to watch footage of 1930s and 40s irrationality, especially during the segments on Nazism.  The video captures the nationalistic fervor and unjustified violence of the time, as shown in one segment with pro-Hitler Austrians chasing Jewish people down the streets. (Curtis, 6:30) The irrationality of their behavior is clearly obvious when shown in context with the historical narrative.  I understand the Army’s concern about combat veterans returning home disturbed.  It is still a concern today, which makes me wonder why we keep “corrupting” humans with darker repressed thoughts and emotions by going to war.  Being at ease with this dark imagery and creating a well rounded individual by looking inside oneself seems purely beneficial; not only for war veterans, but every human being.  I agree with Anna Freud in that through introspection and discussion one can “conquer their inner demons.”

Even though I am certain of the hope that psychoanalysis poses, I have to agree with Dr. Owen Renik, former editor in chief of the American Psychoanalytic Association. He believes that “the profession is in a great decline” and concedes that “the decline will continue.” Renick feels that the failure of its lies in the fact that it “took on a self-perpetuating guild mentality.”  This could be because of the glut of psychoanalysts after the passing of the National Mental Health Act. I theorize that the broadened market of psychoanalysts was probably one of lesser quality or training than the “masters” that had worked in the field decades earlier.  Renick feels that psychoanalysis has lost its “spirit of open-ended inquiry (and)…orientation above all to be helpful to the patient.” I agree with him about the importance of the field and I am just as optimistic about its ability to bounce back.  Renick says it’s possible to mitigate and “reverse the decline, but it will be necessary to escape the clutches of an establishment that, unhappily, has increasingly gotten away from the original scientific enterprise…it means applying concepts scientifically to better understand patients. (Carey)

Psychoanalyst Lucy Holmes is less cynical about the field in her article Wrestling with Destiny: the Promise of Psychoanalysis. She asks, “Can knowledge save us from malevolent destiny? If we can be courageous enough to confront what we don’t know or…what we don’t want to know, can we win control over our own destiny?” Holmes believes this is the type of therapeutic potential that psychoanalysis offers.   She makes the claim that destiny exists and calls is “repetition compulsion”—a “dark power in every human being that unchecked can propel a person against his will to a tragic end.” Holmes mentions the work of LaPlanche and Pontalis, who describe this “as an ungovernable process originating in the unconscious” in which “the subject deliberately puts himself in distressing situations, thereby repeating an old experience that he does not consciously remember.” She also recalls Freud, who stated, “What is not remembered will be repeated.” Holmes believes that if left unchecked, “our fate becomes an automatic and impulsive repetition of unpleasurable situations.”  (Holmes, 44)

Holmes then transitions to the ideas of Bollas, who she felt looked at destiny in a positive manner.  Bollas believed destiny as being the “urge to articulate our true selves…the creative potential in a person’s life.”  Holmes feels that psychoanalysis exists to help an individual meet “with his destiny, to articulate his true nature.” Holmes views psychoanalysis as “a corrective emotional experience…therapeutic in its simple essence—spending time with a person who is completely focused on understanding you.” (Holmes 46-47)  Aiding in this process is a modern comprehension about the evolution of the human brain.  She describes neuroscientist Paul MacLean’s studies of brain as consisting of “three basic structures…each with “its own way of perceiving and responding to the world”…the “three brains” have evolved methods of communicating with each other.”  The more primitive brain governs mechanical and unconscious behaviors, otherwise called instinct. The second brain, or the limbic system, developed next and allowed for the senses to “operate together and create a primitive memory system.”  Holmes feels that “emotions are generated but do not become conscious here.” The relatively modern third brain, called the cerebral cortex, developed over the last one hundred thousand years as the “center of thinking and reasoning… where consciousness resides.”

The hope with psychoanalysis is that patients can “convert into language the electrical impulses pulsing up from the primitive brain.” These impulses pass through circuits in the second brain as feelings and eventually manifest themselves in the consciousness in our repetitive compulsions.  With the psychoanalytic process, “we are inviting access by the cerebral cortex to…the lower brains.”  Holmes believes the process fortifies “the young and often overpowered upper brain against the instincts and primitive feelings.”  When these impulses from the lower brain are articulated, “instincts lose their primitive power…and feelings can be felt and verbalized.” She feels that as individual analysis progresses, “communication from the lower two brains gradually becomes data, not commands…the patient can evaluate this data and then decide how she wants to deal with it…at this point, the patient takes charge of her own destiny.” (Holmes, 48)

References

Carey, Benedict. (2006, October 10). An Analyst questions the self-perpetuating side of therapy. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/health/psychology/10conv.html?pagewanted=all

Curtis, Adam. (Director). (2002). The Century of the self episode two [Video]. Retrieved from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151#docid=-678466363224520614

Holmes, Lucy. (2007). Wrestling with destiny: the promise of psychoanalysis. Modern Psychoanalysis, 32(1). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=6&hid=8&sid=0992032c-d42d-41f6-bbed-a1b91f9ed2b9%40sessionmgr14

Myers, David G. (2008). Exploring psychology. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

neat cover image found here.

Galileo: Beyond the Dogma

Leave a reply
A detail from Cristiano Banti's Galileo Before the Inquisition (1857).

A detail from Cristiano Banti’s Galileo Before the Inquisition (1857).

In 1616, when it was formally declared heretical, it didn’t matter that heliocentricity was true and could be proven.  The scientific community of the time was biased by popular opinion, and did little to challenge archaic beliefs with persistent scientific inquiry.  Galileo believed that science reconciled with the Bible; that facts should be discovered, and then analyzed and interpreted based upon observation.  A devout follower of Christianity, Galileo felt that “the Bible shows the ways to go to Heaven, not the way the heavens go.”[1]  He thought that the facts of what he had seen through the telescope could not be denied, and expressed the challenges his ideas faced in a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany in 1615. He shows regret at the controversy his observations had caused when writing about the trouble he had “stirred” amongst other professors, proclaiming “as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands to upset nature and overturn the sciences.”  Galileo felt that scientists showed “a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth” and felt that if they had just “cared to look for themselves” truth would be discovered “by their own senses.”[2]

 

There was a tendency for rational argument to be dismissed in Galileo’s era, in favor of old beliefs which clung to Aristotelian ideas and a “sprinkling” of church dogma.  Galileo felt that his critics brought “vain arguments” against him, mixing in passages from the Bible “which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill suited to their purposes.” He points out that “these men have resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of pretend religion and the authority of the Bible.” These poor arguments won debates because they did little to challenge the power system of the Catholic Church.  Instead of adequately countering his viewpoint and critique on Aristotle and Ptolemy, Galileo’s scientific contemporaries, as well as those of the Church, polarize themselves, spitefully, against “arguments that they do not understand and have not even listened to.”  His ideas were hardly given a chance, and “for deceitful purposes,” they were proclaimed as being contrary to the bible. He felt that his idea would live on, because it was the truth, and that truth would have “adherents,” contrary to what his critics believed.  For the issue to be effectively erased, the Church would have to “ban the whole science of astronomy” and “forbid men to look at the heavens, in order that they might not see Mars and Venus” while they changed positions in the sky.[3] As a pious man, he felt that “the Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.”[4]  He was not out to disprove Christianity, he was seeking to share with those around him, the discoveries that reaffirmed his faith.

 

Galileo did not see his work as besmirching that of God, who wasn’t “any less excellently revealed in Nature’s actions[5] than in the sacred statements of the Bible.”[6]  Centuries later, Pope John Paul II would echo the idea that “science and religion are both gifts from God” when issuing a posthumous apology for the treatment of Galileo during the Inquisition.  Unlike Popes of an earlier time, John Paul II believed, much as Galileo did, that faith can coexist alongside discoveries in the natural world.  He labeled the “Galileo case” a “regrettable past event of history” that “undermined the good understanding between the Church and the scientific community.  The Pope called for an “objective review” of the past controversy in that it could “do honor to the truth of the faith and of science and open the doors for future collaboration.”[7]  Seeing both as essential, he stated “that science and religion are at the service of the human community.” Both, in his opinion, would do well to shed the mutual suspicion while aspiring “to establish a constructive and cordial relationship.” The Pope believed that “the light of reason, which made science possible, and the light of Revelation, which makes faith possible, both emanate from a single source.” He sees them as harmonizing and by their “very nature,” he claims, they are designed to coexist, “never on a collision course.”  He saw science as a “gift,” a precious tool which helps “the natural capacity of the mind to grasp reality by means of rigorous and logical procedures.”  John Paul II makes the claim that any time the two are in discord, it is because of “an unfortunate pathological condition,”[8] as can be assumed the case in Galileo’s time.

 

The concern in the 1600s was that ideas such as Galileo’s were “dangerous,” and they can be.  The evolutionary tract of humanity’s awareness of the natural world has led to sinister creations like the atomic bomb, the dangers of which John Paul II addressed. Just as dangerous is the adherence to dogmatic biases, and although humanity is far removed from executions by burning, strict convictions continue to blind many, stifling the John Paul II’s natural “trajectory” of both science and faith.  The work of natural philosophers such as Galileo and today’s scientists, according to John Paul II, is meant to go together with the work of theologians and priests for the protection of all and the benefit of both; both science and faith, he expressed “must take on a precise ethical responsibility in regard to their relationships and applications…the stakes are too high to be taken lightly.”  He saw it as “necessary to be tireless in promoting a scientific culture capable…of serving the universal good.”[9]  Past shortsightedness and the failure to understand science should be learned from, the former Pope believed. Critical observation and reason, along with faith, in their proper dosages, fosters and nurtures a sound and happy society, while dogmatic subscription sets back and stifles the natural order of existence.

Bibliography

Coffin, Judith and Robert Stacey. Western Civilization, Volume Two.  15th ed. New York:  W.W. Norton & Company, 2005.

Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615.  Hosted at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html (accessed January 5, 2010)

Pope John Paul II.  The Resolution: Science and Faith are both Gifts from God.  1993.  Hosted at: http://mycommnet.blackboard.com/webct/urw/lc1419885091071.tp1566710861121//RelativeResourceManager?contentID=1666442825081 (accessed January 5, 2010)

 

[1] Judith Coffin and Robert Stacey. Western Civilization, Volume Two.  15th ed  (New York:  W.W. Norton & Company, 2005), 584.

[2] Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615. Hosted at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html (accessed January 5, 2010)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] The study of “nature’s actions,” being Galileo’s life’s work.

[6] Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo.

[7] Pope John Paul II.  The Resolution: Science and Faith are both Gifts from God.  1993.  Hosted at: http://mycommnet.blackboard.com/webct/urw/lc1419885091071.tp1566710861121//RelativeResourceManager?contentID=1666442825081 (accessed January 5, 2010)

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

Daniel Malo

Western Civ 2

01/05/2010

 

Westinghouse: The Riveter

Leave a reply

We_Can_Do_It!
More people in the modern era have seen the iconic “Rosie the Riveter” poster, than when it was originally released. Although the image now carries a feminist connotation, Dr. Gwen Sharp, in her review of “Visual Rhetoric Representing Rosie the Riveter: Myth and Misconception” conveys that the origin of the image was as an internal Westinghouse propaganda piece. Its beginning, according James Kimble and Lester Olson, was in a commissioned series of images and messages, shared in production facilities to soften labor issues. The 1940’s labor unions struggled with the controversies of communism, discrimination and red-baiting. Kimble and Olson feel that the posters were created to stabilize the mood of the workforce from those disruptive sentiments. They find that the modern understanding of the image is grounded in myth, and that the poster’s purpose wasn’t necessarily to reflect women’s empowerment, or to encourage women into the workforce.
“The image is widely seen as a symbol of women’s empowerment and a sign of major gender transformations that occurred during the 1940s. The assumption of current viewers of the image is usually that it was meant to recruit women into the workforce, or to rally women in general — an early example of girl power marketing, if you will — and was widely displayed. But the audience was actually only Westinghouse employees.” (Sharp)
“Events and process are often more important for what is expressed than for what is produced.” (Bolman, p. 253) Although the intention of the image was not for mass dissemination, nor was it produced with the aim of aiding women’s issues, the poster has had a second life in modern times, where it is widely disseminated and perceived as a gender equality icon.
“The company commissioned artists to create posters to be hung in Westinghouse plants for specific periods of time” (Sharp)
“Culture forms the superglue that bonds an organization, unites people, and helps an enterprise accomplish desired ends.” (Bolman, p. 253) Culture, rather, the creation of culture by Westinghouse propaganda, worked, it appears, to allay labor issues during the war effort. It also seems that it reflected something underlying and subconscious in their workforce, perhaps the mindset of equality, and it reinforced the idea—an unintentional, self-fulfilled prophecy—to give the poster it’s modern interpretation.
“Westinghouse workers would have seen it in a different context, as one of a series of posters displayed in the plant, with similar imagery and text. When seen as just one in a series, rather than a unique image, Kimble and Olson argue that the collective “we” in “We can do it!” wouldn’t have been women, but Westinghouse employees, who were used to seeing such statements posted in employee-access-only areas of the plant. By addressing workers as “we,” the pronoun obfuscated sharp controversies within labor over communism, red-baiting, discrimination, and other heartfelt sources of divisiveness.” (Kimble, p. 550)
“Facing uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, find direction, and anchor hope and faith.” (Bolman, p. 253) The War Committee was faced with the potentiality of extreme labor issues and discontent, at a time when they needed certain output. ‘We’ is a strong pronoun, which could be argued to have an effect on the mind, and individuals’ willingness to participate in a group endeavor. It is commonly used in propaganda campaigns, and its use within the context of the Westinghouse posters, gives validity to the notion that the image was created with propagandist intent, rather benevolence or specific concern to gender. Rosie, in many respects was a cardboard stock image, a “default” warehouse employee in a marketing campaign.
“One of the major functions of corporate war committees was to manage labor and discourage any type of labor disputes that might disrupt production. From this perspective, images of happy workers expressing support for the war effort and/or workers’ abilities served as propaganda that encouraged workers to identify with one another and management as a team; “patriotism could be invoked to circumvent strikes.”(Kimble, p. 562).
“In collective bargaining, labor and management meet and confer to forge divisive standoffs into workable agreements. The process typically pits two sets of interests against each other.” (Bolman, p. 253) To avoid work stoppages during a critical time, the Westinghouse Company attempted to minimize the friction of the competing interests by working a patriotic angle and incorporating teambuilding imagery and language into art.
“Of course, today the “We Can Do It!” poster is seen as a feminist icon, adorning coffee cups, t-shirts, calendars, and refrigerator magnets (I have one). Kimble and Olson don’t explain when and how this shift occurred — when the image went from an obscure piece of corporate war-time propaganda, similar to many others, to a widely-recognized pop cultural image of female empowerment.” (Sharp)
“What is most important is not what happens, but what it means.” (Bolman, p. 253) Ultimately, the image has acquired its modern connotation, which differs from its roots. The current interpretation is noble, and as Dr. Sharp discusses, it is an effective and empowering symbol, that will mean different things to different people. Seventy years into the future, it may have yet more meanings, but it remains a good exercise to understand and gain insight from its origin.

Works Cited:
Bolman, Lee G, and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Print. Page 253.
Kimble, James and Lester Olson. “Visual Rhetoric Representing Rosie The Riveter.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs. 9.4 (2006): 533-569. Print. <Excerpts: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/04/myth-making-and-the-we-can-do-it-poster/>.
Sharp, Gwen. “Myth-Making and the “We Can Do It” Poster.” Society Pages 4 January 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/04/myth-making-and-the-we-can-do-it-poster/>.

“Genocide” – Still a Crime w/out a Name

9 Replies

centurys-first-genocide-2

“The aggressor … retaliates by the most frightful cruelties. As his Armies advance, whole districts are being exterminated. Scores of thousands – literally scores of thousands – of executions in cold blood are being perpetrated … there has never been methodical, merciless butchery on such a scale, or approaching such a scale.

And this is but the beginning. Famine and pestilence have yet to follow … We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”

***

On August 24, 1941, Winston Churchill broadcast the atrocities being committed against Jews and Jewish Bolsheviks in Eastern Russia by Nazi forces.  The worst of the Holocaust was still to come, and post-war, name would be invented to describe these crimes. [1] “The crime of … deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world,” Rafael Lemkin would say in 1945.  “It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.” Setting out to label these crimes, he formed the word “genocide,” combining words “genes” for race or tribe, and the Latin ending “–cide” for killing.[2]  This simple term and its subsequent use and non-use would eventually be the subject of great debate.  For the interracial courts to prosecute someone for genocide, the charges would have to be clear.  Sometimes, even the most heinous human rights abuses never obtain the label.  Recent situations, such as the crisis in Sudan highlight the frustrations of the word, and how it is used.  In his autobiographical account, “What is the What,” ‘Lost Boy’ Achak Deng witnesses many of the atrocities that the United Nations (UN) considers genocide — yet the crisis still fails to receive the official designation.  The UN and the rest of the world, in its dalliance upon the issue, are cold in their consideration of the separated families, uprooted lives, and merciless, cold blooded death since the beginning of the conflict.

The United Nations would define the term at the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” Adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948, the nine articles call genocide “a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world.”  Article II of the convention names a series of acts that are prosecutable offenses when “committed with intent to destroy … a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, such as:  a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[3]  The events that Deng witnessed amount to ‘acts of genocide’ and seem fit the definition, but lack the term officially. In his time in south Sudan, he recalls experiences similar to the listed Article II items, in much more descriptive and harrowing language.

When the murahaleen entered his hometown of Marial Bai, Deng recalled, first, the “crack of gunfire.” There were easily two hundred, three hundred or more.”  Thinking the men were there only to steal the cattle, soon the “sky broke open with gunfire.”  The invaders would burn down the church, and kill indiscriminately taking slaves when it suited them.  “Those who ran were shot.  Those women and children who stood still were herded onto the soccer field. A grown man made the mistake of joining this herd, and was shot … He was tied by the feet and dragged by a pair of horses” [4]  Indiscriminate killing would seem to be an act of genocide, if “killing members of the group” is literally interpreted. But here it is not.  Situations like this were not mere isolated incidents, they occurred throughout southern Sudan, and the Dinka people were the common victims to Moslem raiding parties of the north.  Wells were poisoned, with the bodies of family members.  Houses, if not burnt initially, would be burnt in the next invasion, causing further depravity and bodily harm.   Those who managed to run a distance were picked off by long range rifle. As prerequisite of Article II, if the case of bodily harm was dismissed, surely the psychological harm should be noticed–these were acts of terror and extermination.

Deng’s time in the desert with the Lost Boys, also fits genocide criteria on paper.  A forced walk in the desert, surviving the ferocity of African wildlife and limited food resources, for weeks on end, could be argued as “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”  To expect children to survive such a march is improbable.[5] Another Article II item, the prevention of births, occurred from the start, with the kidnapping of girls and women into slavery.  With the deaths and capture of young men and women, such as Deng’s childhood friend Moses and future potential mothers like his boyhood crush, Amath, a generation or more … perhaps the entire Dinka existence, is left in limbo. With no women left free to reproduce and populate the tribe, the tribe would in essence, cease to exist.

Lemkin notes “the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that. More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight.”[6] Was Deng’s experience not considered coordinated enough to be called genocide?  The definition given by the UN is too vague and problematic to serve these modern unnamed crimes. Is not murder, rape, and enslavement a crime against humanity? Perhaps the term ‘genocide’ has lost its effectiveness, or become a shell of its former meaning.   Could it be that genocide is specific word that only properly defines the events of the Holocaust?  Lemkin concedes that “genocide is too disastrous a phenomenon to be left to fragmentary regulation. There must be an adequate mechanism for international cooperation in the punishment of the offenders.” There needs to be a new way of classifying these atrocities, one that can’t be debated in the midst of crisis and for years afterwards.  “Genocide” still can’t define these “crimes with no name.” A new term, broader in its application and less tangled in bureaucracy, is needed[7]: ‘Genocide’ still doesn’t adequately define these “crimes without a name.”

Works Cited

Eggers, Dave (2006). “What is the What.”  Vintage Books, New York. p. 91-93

Fussell, James T. “A crime without a name.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/crimewithoutaname.htm  (accessed April 30, 2009)

Lemkin, Rafael. “Genocide-a modern crime.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/freeworld1945.html  (accessed April 30, 2009)

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Geneva, Switzerland.  Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm  (accessed April 30, 2009)

[1] Fussell, James T. “A crime without a name.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/crimewithoutaname.htm  (accessed April 30, 2009)

[2] Lemkin, Rafael. “Genocide-a modern crime.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/freeworld1945.html  (accessed April 30, 2009)

[3] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Geneva, Switzerland.  Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm  (accessed April 30, 2009)

[4] Eggers, Dave (2006). “What is the What.”  Vintage Books, New York. p. 91-93

[5] It is in this author’s opinion, that if the murahaleen had the resources to find and exterminate the Lost Boys, they would have.

[6] Lemkin, Rafael. “Genocide-a modern crime.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/freeworld1945.html  (accessed April 30, 2009)

[7] The author’s suggestion is simply “Human Rights Abuse,” but as with the term ‘genocide,’ even that phrase is tangled in red tape.