A Common Thread
Today, a friend of mine just sent me the following in response to a quote I had emailed her from Scott Atran’s book, Talking to the Enemy Faith, Brotherhood, and the (un)Making of Terrorists:
“Guess I just don't have faith to believe that when children are trained from birth to hate especially backed up with their religion that they can be "unmade". I don't know what the answer is. I rely on prayer and giving over to a merciful God to do what I cannot wrap my mind around.”
What if she is right! What if there is no possibility of we humans changing the thinking of those who have been taught to hate from birth; a hate which is “justified” or backed up by their religion. If they cannot be changed, is the only answer to respond to violence or threats of violence with more violence? This is seemingly the most common response on an individual and on a community/national/tribal level. Yet, most would agree that long term violence does not seem to be working. It could be argued by some that in times past responding to violence with violence did bring about periods of peace. When the group or the tribe was confined to a limited geographical area and transportation was less available and slower, possibly violently defeating an “enemy” was more successful for a longer period of time although even that assertion can be debated.
As a person trained in Clinical Psychology who has worked in prisons, community mental health centers, and state hospitals there certainly does seem to be people whose thinking seems immune to any approach we now use when we invite people to change thinking. Sadly, the research on this is somewhat limited since our approach is often punishment. On the other hand, I have witnessed seeming miracles in changes of thinking. If one wants to experience dramatic changes in thinking one only has to attend an open speaker meeting of one of the 12-step programs, especially NA or AA, to hear of folks who, before and during active addiction , have been unable to consider the rights of others. They often talk about violent behavior, including killing, without feeling any remorse. Sometimes, we could explain this thinking as a direct effect of the drugs they were using. Sometimes it was attributed to a way of thinking developed long before active drug use.
I have also read about and talked with people who have mindfully/intentionally met with those who had formerly been labeled as enemies. They claim that both sided are able to come to see that they shared common hopes and dreams.
Anyone who has been in a combat situation or spent time with those who have been in combat know that combatants are taught to dehumanize the person(s) they are going to fight as the enemy. In training, especially for those who will be directly dealing with “the enemy,” men and women are taught to think of those people as “japs,” “gooks,” “insurgents,” or any label which does not stimulate thoughts of someone who is like them. The combatant will also tell you that one of the toughest times is finding a family photo on the body of someone one has just killed. If someone is a person with a partner and children, it is more difficult to think of them as human.
In previous blogs, I have talked about going to a men’s retreat with “strangers” and not being allowed to share status, education, titles, sexual orientation, nationality or other common labels as a way of getting to know each other. What we found was that we had a lot in common. Groups of “enemies” such as Israeli and Palestine people who have met together with the stated objective of looking for qualities they share, found that they had very similar hopes, dreams, feelings and goals.
What authors/social scientists such as Scott Atran are inviting the reader to do is to get to know the hopes, dreams, and background of those we label as terrorists. He is also suggesting that we reacquaint ourselves with the history of our relationship and our role in creating the current conditions. Although it may be convenient and simpler to assume that current behavior for all of us comes out of a vacuum, I do not believe that this way of thinking is helpful or accurate.
It is convenient and more comfortable to think of those we label as Terrorists or Insurgents as very different from us, just as it is convenient and more comfortable for those who label us as the infidels as very different. The truth is that we are not very different. Although I have often been chided and criticized as naive , inaccurate, simplistic, and even non-thinking, I fail to see a distinction between those of us who are willing to die for democracy/our way of life, to protect future generations of those in the United States and those who are willing to become martyrs to fulfill their holy mission. Christian history is filled with examples of the justification of killing and dying for the good of the whole or to do God’s will. One might argue that the suicide bombers are less respectful of the life of civilians. Really. We are forever rationalizing collateral damage although allegedly we do not target civilian populations. If, on the other hand, we know or suspect that a terrorist leader is in some building along with others, we do not seem to hesitate to target the building. My point is not to justify the behavior of the suicide bomber or our targeted killings. My point is that there may not be the chasm between the two behaviors which we would like believe there is. If the basic feelings, desires, hopes and dreams of “the other” is more similar than dissimilar to ours then we have a starting point to explore our brotherhood/sisterhood. My Buddhist teacher reminds me that when I allow myself to feel joy, hope, pain, sadness, grief, passion or peace I am feeling what all other humans feel. If I am thinking of wanting a good life for myself and my family, I am thinking of what every person wants. The specifics of what we want or think our family needs may be different but the goal is the same. If I am wanting to live a meaningful life, then I am thinking the same things which the suicide bomber is thinking. If I believe that one of the most significant gifts I can give or leave is to give my life so that others may have a better life, then I am thinking the same as the Terrorist. We may passionately disagree about methods or means of achieving that goal, but we share the goal.
If I am at all accurate in these assumptions, then one would think that it is theoretically possible for we humans to come together to create a more loving and just world. Yet, there are those who maintain such thinking as I am proposing is unrealistic at best and unpatriotic as worse. Just this morning of Wednesday, December 10, 2014, I read in the Tampa Tribune, page 15 an editorial by James Waurishuk, a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel who served for nearly 30 years as a senior intelligence and political –military affairs officer. He writes of Hilary Clinton:
Her illogical position on “smart power” and the need to respect and empathize with our enemy is naïve, Utopian and irrational, at best. In all actuality, such thinking is no more than a strategy of capitulation and disarmament, which, by the way, has been the goal of the far left and orchestrated through all its tentacles of influence for decades.
Now the challenge as I read this, if I believe what I wrote, is to have respect for and empathy towards Colonel Waurishuk; to actively listen to him with an open mind. I have to assume, not knowing this man, that he wants a peaceful world for he and his family as much as I do. We have that in common which can be a starting point to a conversation. Now, one might say that, given the tone of his editorial, there is no way that man is going to be able to agree to engage in a dialogue. That may be true, but I have the power to refuse to treat him with anything other than love and respect; to not accept an invitation to exchange “sound bites” or throw accusations back and forth. I am going to assume that he is a very good man whose point of view is arrived at through study, experience and a loving heart. I have nothing to lose by thinking that although some might say that no matter what I say or how much I offer to embrace him he is not going to allow me to engage him in a dialogue. That may be true although the basic laws of physics inform me of a different truth. One of the basic laws of physics, as I understand it, is that all systems must balance. If a person is in an angry, judgmental space and I am in a loving space then the system of he and I is in a state of unbalance. It can be balanced by my jointing his angry, judgmental space, by him joining my loving space or by the two of us each compromising and agreeing to a different, common space. In my experience if I refuse to respond to verbal or physical violence with violence and instead respond with love, either the person will join me in a more loving space or one of us will leave. The system cannot tolerate the dissonance of imbalance for any length of time.
Now, it is possible that the person’s mind is so unable to think logically because of acute mental illness, the effect of some drug or other condition that they will get more violent no matter what I do. Certainly that is possible, but I am going to maintain that it is (1) not very likely or (2) is worth the risk. As Bigger Thomas in Richard Wright’s novel Native Son tells us when he is being threatened by the police person, You cannot do anything to me except kill me and that aint’t nothing. (not exact quote). As with the Christian who is willing to join the military service knowing that she/she may die or as it is with the suicide bomber, Bigger knows that no matter what, life is very short and all we really own is the integrity with which we live our few minutes of life. Thus, one can assert the seeming contraction that life is sacred and dying is nothing. Both can be simultaneously true. All major religions and spiritual belief systems have maintained that all life has a sacred person. A fish might be killed for food but it is to be killed with reverence and gratitude. This is very different than doing so with hate and the goal of punishment Humans do not generally kill each other because we love them as a sacred part of creation. The exception might be those who believe that assisted suicide at the end stage of life is moral.
For that person who because of mental illness or some other condition is unable to think or act logically, we can still respond with love. Locking someone up in a protective space out of love is going to look and feel much different than locking them up to punish them.
The challenge is to look beyond those labels and “neat little boxes” which too often determine our thinking and behavior toward “the other” and instead look for our commonality . This might lead us to be more open and honest with some of our unkind thoughts, desires, or past actions; to face that part of us which is not attractive or what we would like to know about ourselves; to face the fact that even in some unattractive ways we have some qualities or thoughts in common with the person we have labeled as the enemy or the bad person or …
It will also lead us to allow for the possibility that both of us have some very admirable thoughts or feelings. It is not uncommon for the stereotypical mafia person to be very loving and kind to a member of his family or to an animal. Tony in the show “The Sopranos” was a wonderful example of the seeming inconsistencies we humans are capable of. He was, at times, very cruel and, at other times, extremely loving and kind. Which one was Tony? Both were equally him as is the case with all of we humans who ae not disabled because of an illness or condition affecting our brain.
It is my personal commitment to continue to use my personal daily spiritual time to challenge myself to find that common thread within myself which links me to all other humans.
Today, a friend of mine just sent me the following in response to a quote I had emailed her from Scott Atran’s book, Talking to the Enemy Faith, Brotherhood, and the (un)Making of Terrorists:
“Guess I just don't have faith to believe that when children are trained from birth to hate especially backed up with their religion that they can be "unmade". I don't know what the answer is. I rely on prayer and giving over to a merciful God to do what I cannot wrap my mind around.”
What if she is right! What if there is no possibility of we humans changing the thinking of those who have been taught to hate from birth; a hate which is “justified” or backed up by their religion. If they cannot be changed, is the only answer to respond to violence or threats of violence with more violence? This is seemingly the most common response on an individual and on a community/national/tribal level. Yet, most would agree that long term violence does not seem to be working. It could be argued by some that in times past responding to violence with violence did bring about periods of peace. When the group or the tribe was confined to a limited geographical area and transportation was less available and slower, possibly violently defeating an “enemy” was more successful for a longer period of time although even that assertion can be debated.
As a person trained in Clinical Psychology who has worked in prisons, community mental health centers, and state hospitals there certainly does seem to be people whose thinking seems immune to any approach we now use when we invite people to change thinking. Sadly, the research on this is somewhat limited since our approach is often punishment. On the other hand, I have witnessed seeming miracles in changes of thinking. If one wants to experience dramatic changes in thinking one only has to attend an open speaker meeting of one of the 12-step programs, especially NA or AA, to hear of folks who, before and during active addiction , have been unable to consider the rights of others. They often talk about violent behavior, including killing, without feeling any remorse. Sometimes, we could explain this thinking as a direct effect of the drugs they were using. Sometimes it was attributed to a way of thinking developed long before active drug use.
I have also read about and talked with people who have mindfully/intentionally met with those who had formerly been labeled as enemies. They claim that both sided are able to come to see that they shared common hopes and dreams.
Anyone who has been in a combat situation or spent time with those who have been in combat know that combatants are taught to dehumanize the person(s) they are going to fight as the enemy. In training, especially for those who will be directly dealing with “the enemy,” men and women are taught to think of those people as “japs,” “gooks,” “insurgents,” or any label which does not stimulate thoughts of someone who is like them. The combatant will also tell you that one of the toughest times is finding a family photo on the body of someone one has just killed. If someone is a person with a partner and children, it is more difficult to think of them as human.
In previous blogs, I have talked about going to a men’s retreat with “strangers” and not being allowed to share status, education, titles, sexual orientation, nationality or other common labels as a way of getting to know each other. What we found was that we had a lot in common. Groups of “enemies” such as Israeli and Palestine people who have met together with the stated objective of looking for qualities they share, found that they had very similar hopes, dreams, feelings and goals.
What authors/social scientists such as Scott Atran are inviting the reader to do is to get to know the hopes, dreams, and background of those we label as terrorists. He is also suggesting that we reacquaint ourselves with the history of our relationship and our role in creating the current conditions. Although it may be convenient and simpler to assume that current behavior for all of us comes out of a vacuum, I do not believe that this way of thinking is helpful or accurate.
It is convenient and more comfortable to think of those we label as Terrorists or Insurgents as very different from us, just as it is convenient and more comfortable for those who label us as the infidels as very different. The truth is that we are not very different. Although I have often been chided and criticized as naive , inaccurate, simplistic, and even non-thinking, I fail to see a distinction between those of us who are willing to die for democracy/our way of life, to protect future generations of those in the United States and those who are willing to become martyrs to fulfill their holy mission. Christian history is filled with examples of the justification of killing and dying for the good of the whole or to do God’s will. One might argue that the suicide bombers are less respectful of the life of civilians. Really. We are forever rationalizing collateral damage although allegedly we do not target civilian populations. If, on the other hand, we know or suspect that a terrorist leader is in some building along with others, we do not seem to hesitate to target the building. My point is not to justify the behavior of the suicide bomber or our targeted killings. My point is that there may not be the chasm between the two behaviors which we would like believe there is. If the basic feelings, desires, hopes and dreams of “the other” is more similar than dissimilar to ours then we have a starting point to explore our brotherhood/sisterhood. My Buddhist teacher reminds me that when I allow myself to feel joy, hope, pain, sadness, grief, passion or peace I am feeling what all other humans feel. If I am thinking of wanting a good life for myself and my family, I am thinking of what every person wants. The specifics of what we want or think our family needs may be different but the goal is the same. If I am wanting to live a meaningful life, then I am thinking the same things which the suicide bomber is thinking. If I believe that one of the most significant gifts I can give or leave is to give my life so that others may have a better life, then I am thinking the same as the Terrorist. We may passionately disagree about methods or means of achieving that goal, but we share the goal.
If I am at all accurate in these assumptions, then one would think that it is theoretically possible for we humans to come together to create a more loving and just world. Yet, there are those who maintain such thinking as I am proposing is unrealistic at best and unpatriotic as worse. Just this morning of Wednesday, December 10, 2014, I read in the Tampa Tribune, page 15 an editorial by James Waurishuk, a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel who served for nearly 30 years as a senior intelligence and political –military affairs officer. He writes of Hilary Clinton:
Her illogical position on “smart power” and the need to respect and empathize with our enemy is naïve, Utopian and irrational, at best. In all actuality, such thinking is no more than a strategy of capitulation and disarmament, which, by the way, has been the goal of the far left and orchestrated through all its tentacles of influence for decades.
Now the challenge as I read this, if I believe what I wrote, is to have respect for and empathy towards Colonel Waurishuk; to actively listen to him with an open mind. I have to assume, not knowing this man, that he wants a peaceful world for he and his family as much as I do. We have that in common which can be a starting point to a conversation. Now, one might say that, given the tone of his editorial, there is no way that man is going to be able to agree to engage in a dialogue. That may be true, but I have the power to refuse to treat him with anything other than love and respect; to not accept an invitation to exchange “sound bites” or throw accusations back and forth. I am going to assume that he is a very good man whose point of view is arrived at through study, experience and a loving heart. I have nothing to lose by thinking that although some might say that no matter what I say or how much I offer to embrace him he is not going to allow me to engage him in a dialogue. That may be true although the basic laws of physics inform me of a different truth. One of the basic laws of physics, as I understand it, is that all systems must balance. If a person is in an angry, judgmental space and I am in a loving space then the system of he and I is in a state of unbalance. It can be balanced by my jointing his angry, judgmental space, by him joining my loving space or by the two of us each compromising and agreeing to a different, common space. In my experience if I refuse to respond to verbal or physical violence with violence and instead respond with love, either the person will join me in a more loving space or one of us will leave. The system cannot tolerate the dissonance of imbalance for any length of time.
Now, it is possible that the person’s mind is so unable to think logically because of acute mental illness, the effect of some drug or other condition that they will get more violent no matter what I do. Certainly that is possible, but I am going to maintain that it is (1) not very likely or (2) is worth the risk. As Bigger Thomas in Richard Wright’s novel Native Son tells us when he is being threatened by the police person, You cannot do anything to me except kill me and that aint’t nothing. (not exact quote). As with the Christian who is willing to join the military service knowing that she/she may die or as it is with the suicide bomber, Bigger knows that no matter what, life is very short and all we really own is the integrity with which we live our few minutes of life. Thus, one can assert the seeming contraction that life is sacred and dying is nothing. Both can be simultaneously true. All major religions and spiritual belief systems have maintained that all life has a sacred person. A fish might be killed for food but it is to be killed with reverence and gratitude. This is very different than doing so with hate and the goal of punishment Humans do not generally kill each other because we love them as a sacred part of creation. The exception might be those who believe that assisted suicide at the end stage of life is moral.
For that person who because of mental illness or some other condition is unable to think or act logically, we can still respond with love. Locking someone up in a protective space out of love is going to look and feel much different than locking them up to punish them.
The challenge is to look beyond those labels and “neat little boxes” which too often determine our thinking and behavior toward “the other” and instead look for our commonality . This might lead us to be more open and honest with some of our unkind thoughts, desires, or past actions; to face that part of us which is not attractive or what we would like to know about ourselves; to face the fact that even in some unattractive ways we have some qualities or thoughts in common with the person we have labeled as the enemy or the bad person or …
It will also lead us to allow for the possibility that both of us have some very admirable thoughts or feelings. It is not uncommon for the stereotypical mafia person to be very loving and kind to a member of his family or to an animal. Tony in the show “The Sopranos” was a wonderful example of the seeming inconsistencies we humans are capable of. He was, at times, very cruel and, at other times, extremely loving and kind. Which one was Tony? Both were equally him as is the case with all of we humans who ae not disabled because of an illness or condition affecting our brain.
It is my personal commitment to continue to use my personal daily spiritual time to challenge myself to find that common thread within myself which links me to all other humans.
RSS Feed