Fighting to Avoid Shame?

One thing I've learned through blogging this semester is that war is full of complex situations, and nothing is simple. I know that groups find many reasons for engaging in war, but I never would have thought that wars are fought out of shame or to avoid shame. "The Social Self Preservation Theory asserts that situations which threaten the 'social self' (ie, one’s social value or standing) elicit increased feelings of low social worth (eg, shame)" (Gruenewald, Kemeny, Aziz, & Faney, p. 915, 2004). Basically, an event or situation which threatens people's self-worths causes an increase in shame. If a group feels threatened, it makes sense that it would go to war in order to avoid being defeated and feeling shame. The threatened group might attack first as a way of ensuring that the other group is shamed first. It is also possible that a group that is already feeling shame would attack in order to feel better. The already ashamed group would hope to improve its social standing and therefore its social worth by getting rid of the threat they are under.

After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany fell under the latter type of group. The nation had been humiliated by losing "much of its territory, its industry, its army and its status as a powerful nation following World War I" (Armstrong, p. 35, 2006), and the people were looking to get back on top. The Nazi party offered an opportunity to do just that and regain the lost pride of the Fatherland. What ensued was a war in which the shamed Nazis "felt better about themselves when they disempowered and cruelly humiliated those over whom they had control (Armstrong, p. 36, 2006). When they gained control over others and shamed them, the Nazis were able to get rid of their own shame.

In many Middle Eastern countries, if a woman is found to be having sex with anyone besides her husband, her family is deeply dishonored. Whether she has committed adultery or been raped, the family is shamed and in need of a way to regain its honor. The result is that "the woman is sentenced to death by the men in her family" (Armstrong, p. 36, 2006). There is a great deal of importance placed on family honor, and the loss of it creates much shame within the society. It appears that it is worth sacrificing a family member's life if it means that the family as a whole can end its shame and go back to its previous social position.

The United States is not too good for shame, and its own national anthem demonstrates the importance of pride in the country. We are in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and so any threat to the freedom that the citizens are so proud of would have consequences, thanks to the brave ones fighting for it. In fact, "the American government claims to fight wars in the name of freedom and national honor" (Armstrong, p. 35, 2006). The people of the United States are so proud of their freedom and honor, that, even when its not threatened, they fight to preserve it. They fight to avoid the shame that would come from losing their social status. They fight to avoid ending up like Germany after World War I.

Everyone experiences shame, but not everyone is willing to go to war to avoid/stop that feeling. Normal shame, like letting a dark secret slip out accidentally, is usually short-lived and doesn't create a need to attack in order to feel better. Pathological shame, on the other hand, exists when the same feeling of shame is felt with every single small failure or rebuke (Goleman, 1987). Occasional shame is normal, and a well-adjusted person can get over it easily. Pathological shame is relentless, and a person under it needs to turn the tables in order to feel better.

It is very common to say that one is fighting for pride or honor, and it is understood that a defeat would cause a loss of pride, in the form of humiliation and shame. Is it not the same thing, then, to say that one is fighting to avoid shame? I am not suggesting that shame is the sole factor in a conflict, but according to the Social Self Preservation Theory, when a threat to the social self is present, so is shame.

References:

Armstrong, M. K. (2006). The connection between shame and war. The Journal of psychohistory. 34(1), 35-42.

Goleman, D. (1987). "Shame Steps Out of Hiding and Into Sharper Focus", The New York Times, Tuesday, September 15, 1987.

Gruenewald, T. L.; Kemeny, M. E.; Aziz, N.; Faney, J. L. (2004). Acute threat to the social self: Shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity. Psychosomatic medicine. 66(6), 915-924.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The United States Declaration of Independence mandates that "all men are created equal" (U.S. Congress, 1776), but the U.S. military's way of treating homosexuals does not reflect this belief. The policy for homosexuals in the U.S. military is noninterventionalist, at best, but intervention is necessary to repair the prejudiced laws and create equality. In this day of professed equality and desegregation, the amount of official prejudice in this facet of the government definitely surprises me. It suggests that homosexual military officers are not equal to their heterosexual comrades, and it is completely unfair.

The U.S. armed forces blame societal prejudices for the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which "allows gay and lesbian individuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they do not publicly engage in homosexual behavior...[, and it] also prevents military leaders from asking a service member about his or her sexual orientation" (CNN, 2008). The policy was implemented when some of the senior officers expressed fear "that homosexuals would disrupt unit cohesion and morale" (CNN, 2008). This could be interpreted in two ways. The first interpretation is that heterosexual officers would be uncomfortable (due to societal or personal prejudices) working and living in such close quarters with homosexuals. With this, the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is theoretically protecting homosexuals from prejudice. The other interpretation is that the military in general, like Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, believes that homosexuals would be "disruptive" to the unit with their "inappropriate passive/agressive actions common in the homosexual community" (CNN, 2008). This explanation is obviously based on stereotypes, and if true, it shows that the U.S. military is the prejudiced group, not society.

Let's give the majority of military officers the benefit of the doubt and say that their intentions were based off of the first interpretation. In that case, society is shown to be uncomfortable (at the least) with homosexuals. "Intolerance for the lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) community is often intensified by a lack of knowledge and understanding between heterosexuals and the LGB community" (Getz & Kirkley, p. 857, 2006). It wasn't too long ago that many United States laws operated off of this lack of understanding, too. Gay people were considered mentally disabled because of their sexual orientation, and two gay men could be arrested for having sex with each other. Recently, however, society has shown its willingness to accept gays by no longer classifying homosexuality as a mental illness and by decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults (Segal, Gade, & Johnson, p. 37, 1993). In addition, "a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 75 percent of respondents supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military, up from 62 percent in 2001 and 44 percent in 1993" (CNN, 2008). This shows that the U.S. military's assumption about society's prejudices is now inaccurate.

As time goes on, new research about homosexuality continues to bring more knowledge and understanding to the country. Prejudiced laws are being reversed, and society is looking at homosexuals more as equals than ever before. The United States armed forces are not following this trend, however, and the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy continues to force homosexuals to hide their true selves, at the threat of being discharged. The policy takes away from a homosexual officer's honor of duty, and it restricts his/her freedom to openly and honestly serve this country. It is ironic, in fact, that some of the men and women who risk their lives to fight to defend the freedom and principles that this country was built upon are not allowed their own freedom of expression while they do this fighting.

References:

CNN. (2008, July 23). House weighs overturning 'don't ask, don't tell' . CNN Politics, Retrieved December 02, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/23/dontask.donttell/

Getz, C.; Kirkley, E. (2006). Shaking Up the Status Quo: Challenging Intolerance of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community at a Private Roman Catholic University. College Student Journal. 40(4), 857-869.

Segal, D.R.; Gade, P.A.; Johnson, E.M. (1993). Homosexuals in Western Armed Forces. Society. 31(1), 37-42.

U.S. Congress. (1776). The Declaration of Independence

Women and War

In Western societies, women have been taught what is expected of them from a very young age. Girls in one kindergarten class in New York were given awards for "All-Around Sweetheart, Best Manners, Biggest Heart," and others, while boys in the same class were awarded for being "Very Best Thinker, Most Scientific, Hardest Worker," etc. (Deveny, 1994). Girls are rewarded for their cute personalities, and boys are reinforced to be intellectual. This pattern continues into adulthood, where women have been expected to be maternal, doing housework and emotionally taking care of the family, while men go to work and earn money so that they can provide financial support. Times are changing now, and women go to work and earn livings alongside men in various fields. Despite still present stereotypes, these gender roles are being broken down in several areas. Women's role during wartime, however, is still not clear.

For many women, their role in war is still domestic and maternal. They take care of their families while the men are away fighting, but they also pick up another role: to take care of their country. For the women that remain behind, they support the troops with letters and care packages, like any traditional person would expect. Women are often called upon to be emotionally strong for their families in light of war, and they tend to work more. They work extra jobs or hours in order to make up for the money that was being earned by the men (since the military does not give immediate payment), and they also need to work more in order to keep up the economy. If noone covered the jobs that are left behind by soldiers that go to war, the nation's supply would plummet, and the economy would crumble.

Recently, many American women have started seeing their role in war shift. Instead of staying home and offering support, these women are shipping out. Since the 1970's, "the number of women in the Armed Forces has increased dramatically, from 7,000 in Vietnam (mostly medical personnel) to over 40,000 in the Persian Gulf War to one in seven of our troops in Iraq today" (Vlahos, 2008). When the first women were allowed to enlist in the military, their positions were limited to the stereotypical nurse and other caretaker responsibilities. It was a great achievement for feminists that women were allowed in warzones at all, even if it was only the green zone. That was not enough for long, and women continued to fight for a more integral role in the military.

In the 1990's, there was another change in women's wartime role. "Formerly all-male military academies and basic training programs turned co-ed. Today, tens of thousands of women are flying combat aircraft and serving as military police, gunners operating MK19 grenade launchers, interrogators, and prison guards" (Vlahos, 2008). Women are no longer only kept in the green zone, but they are actively engaged in fighting the enemy. These women, like "the female Chinook pilot, for example, who flew night missions under fire to rescue teams in the mountains of Afghanistan" (Vlahos, 2008), are performing acts of bravery and sacrifice that rival some of the greatest heroism stories of men.

Women are still not officially on the front lines of combat, however. Critics of full military integration believe that women physically and emotionally can not keep up with men. They say that putting women "into armored cavalry squadrons or rifle platoons will threaten unit cohesion, weaken standards, and increase injuries, hurting overall force strength" (Vlahos, 2008). I do not know if these accusations are true, but women have come a long way in establishing their wartime role. It is no longer expected that women have to be "sweethearts" that stay home and keep everything nice for when the men get home. In today's America, women can guard war prisoners, rescue comrades, and bomb enemy camps. They may not be able to stand on the front lines with rifles during attacks, but they can, and are expected to, do a whole lot more than they could 100, or even 20, years ago.

References:

Deveny, K. (1994). Chart of kindergarten awards. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Vlahos, K.B. (2008). Women at War. The American Conservative, Retrieved November 06, 2008, from http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/apr/07/00014/.

Psychology of Peace

It is generally agreed upon that war and peace can not coexist in the same place, but the absence of war does not necessarily guarantee peace. Governmental genocide, for example, is not typically thought of as war, but peace is definitely not present in the midst of mass killings. Consider the genocides of Rwanda and Sudan, and try to find peace in those conflicts. "It has been estimated that over 210 million people were killed during the 20th century by governmental genocidal policies and that 170 million of these casualties were civilian deaths" (Cohen, 2008). It seems that cooperatively working together for peace is the best way to ensure that it will come to pass, but where do we start in our efforts to bring peace?

Peace psychology starts with the idea that "violence...can be the result of social conditions and culture at a particular place at a particular time, or due to instigation and actions by outside groups" (Staub, 334). Ideally, violence and conflict should be eliminated. Four potential ways to reduce conflict and achieve this ideal are "consideration of future consequences, independent leadership, outgroup empathy, and coordination" (Cohen & Insko, 87).

Consideration of future consequences involves the expectations that are held about future interactions and knowing that they may or may not become reality. Once that is accepted, the concept of turn taking allows "for groups to think beyond the immediate situation and instead focus on the long-term consequences of their behavior" (Cohen & Insko, 88), by letting each group see what the other party is doing and what the consequences are. Taking turns in decision making allows participants to recognize the potential costs of mutual non-cooperation and be more likely to participate. Considering future consequences also causes potential aggressors to think about the possible widespread cost of reciprocal competition, economically, militarily, and in several other ways.

Leadership in today's world is always political, and with politics comes self interest. Many politicians work to benefit themselves and small interests groups that they represent. Unfortunately, this leaves the rest of the population at odds with the decisions made. Groups are at least contenders against opposing groups, where individuals that oppose a group would be outnumbered and defeated. Either way, a group fighting against others usually has some chance of victory, which could make groups more willing to act aggressively than individuals when trying to get what they want. In Darfur, for example, the Sudanese government is destroying tribe after tribe, one at a time. If leaders would carefully consider the advice given to them and only act on the policies that they firmly believe would be best for the entire population they represent, peace would be a more attainable goal. Leaders would have stopped trying to please their ingroups so much, and hopefully they would be more cooperative and less aggressive toward the rest of the population they represent and even the world as a whole.

Outgroup empathy refers to "feelings of concern directed at an outgroup" (Cohen & Insko, 91). Empathizing with an outgroup would create an understanding between the two groups, where they could relate to each other. Hopefully this would lead one to cast less blame on the other. The new understanding could decrease violence between the two groups and increase rational approaches to solving problems, through cooperative intergroup relations.

Another way to implement peace is through common goals. When common goals can be established between separate, and even opposing, groups, situations are created "in which outcomes can be maximized through coordination" (Cohen & Insko, 92). If two groups share a superordinate goal, they can combine their resources and efforts and therefore are more likely to reach their goals than if they were working separately. This way, they minimize their cost and maximize their benefits. This is an efficient business strategy that leaders can use while still maintaining peace.

With these four methods of reducing conflicts, cooperation is the common thread. Peace psychology focuses on divided groups coming together to increase the benefits of everyone. It emphasizes collaboration for the common good, and most importantly, it demonstrates where we can start in our efforts to bring peace.

References:

Cohen, T. R.; Insko, C.A. (2008). War and peace: Possible approaches to reducing intergroup conflict. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 3(2), 87-93.

Staub, E. (2007). Preventing violence and terrorism and promoting positive relations between Dutch and Muslim communities in Amsterdam. Peace and Conflict. 13(3), 333-360.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

If you spend months on end in a traumatizing situation, your belief system will probably be altered due to that experience. It is that easy to fall victim to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which is an anxiety disorder triggered by a traumatic outside event. What is trauma, and why does it sometimes lead to stress? Well, "the very nature of trauma is such that it attacks our basic beliefs and challenges our processes of accommodation and assimilation" (Decker, 2008). Accommodation is the process where separate groups or persons come together to adapt, often by way of compromise. Assimilation refers to the merging of previously distinct cultural traits, sometimes to the point where there is no longer a clear distinction between the cultures. Both terms are used to describe a mutual agreement and meshing of ideas, so it follows that trauma challenges our need to come together. People suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, then, isolate themselves in their refusal of accommodation and assimilation, but they also create a need to figure out meaning. I believe that people who find positive meaning from their trauma have a higher recovery rate from PTSD than people who remain searching for meaning.

As far as war goes, many soldiers that come back from battle suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This trend is becoming increasingly apparent, and it seems that I am constantly hearing about veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan that are diagnosed with this disorder. It is easy to understand how soldiers attain the mindsets that fit into PTSD. When they enlist in the military, it is drilled into their heads that in war, other people are trying to kill them and it is their job to kill those other people. Experience in battle only backs up this claim, and the soldiers learn that the only people they can trust are their comrades fighting with them. This experience in itself gives meaning to soldiers overseas, and so it is difficult to simply forget the meaning that you have been taught and trained to accept. If the soldiers retain this mindset when they return home, they become antisocial, depressed, and altogether socially awkward. They strive to avoid anything that might remind them of a time when they felt at their best, because now they are being told that it was their worst. It is then that we label them as having a disorder, but how can they be cured of this 'disorder?'

It is beneficial for survivors of traumatic experiences to search for meaning because it causes them to stop and digest what happened to them. "Searching for meaning often involves seeking answers to questions such as, 'Why did this event happen to me?' Bereavement studies, for example, have shown that anywhere from one quarter to more than two thirds of individuals report actively searching for meaning in their losses" (Updegraff, 2008). Although the experience of war itself can be given meaning, it is a destructive meaning that keeps people caught in PTSD. In coming back from war, we ask soldiers to give up the meaningfulness they felt on the battlefield. We want them to trade in the power and glory of battle for the boring world of materialism they return to. Instead of identifying negatively with war, we should help soldiers discover a positive reason for what has happened. Finding positive meaning, a reason for their struggle and trauma, can help to bring soldiers out of this disorder.

In the material world, "exposure to violence challenges beliefs of living in a benevolent, predictable world. Accordingly, one of the major tasks that traumatized individuals face is reconciling the harsh reality of adversity with previously held, more benign assumptions about oneself and the world" (Updegraff, 2008). If the material world is no longer satisfying, the next step is to look at the transcendent world: that which is beyond our physical limits. Spirituality, the acts of prayer and meditation involves an acceptance of our fallible human nature and that there is a higher power who is not fallible. This perspective, for veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, implies that this omniscient being makes everything happen for a reason, and therefore, even if you can't see why something is happening, it will work out in the end. This realization would obviously be helpful for veterans trying to work out the trauma they suffered and move past PTSD, because it offers a reason for not only why they suffered trauma in the war, but also for why they are having difficulty dealing with it afterward. Having a spiritual outlet also allows veterans to feel like they have regained control over something, in that they can determine the style and frequency of how they pray and meditate.

For those with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder who don't find meaning, they remain feeling uneasy, depressed, angry, emotionally numb, and anxious. They keep their low self-esteem, intrusive thoughts, fear of loss of control, and nightmares (Decker, 2008). They continue to struggle with a longing to go back to war, because their lives were meaningful there, but they feel guilty for feeling that meaning. Instead, they search for a new meaning to explain civilian life but also to incorporate their experiences of trauma. Finding meaning allows people to make sense of the traumatic events, which "can rob them of their emotional impact" (Updegraff, 2008). In an experiment where participants were exposed to an unexpected positive event (receiving a $1 gift) and the experimenter manipulated whether participants were offered an explanation for it. "Participants who were given an explanation felt less excited about the gift than those who were given none. Thus, in the case of positive events, the process of making sense may come at some emotional cost. However, in the context of negative events, having an explanation should lessen the emotional impact and facilitate long-term adaptation" (Updegraff, 2008).

References:

Decker, L. R. (2007). Combat trauma: Treatment from a mystical/spiritual perspective. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(1), 30-53.

Updegraff, J. A. (2008). Searching for and finding meaning in collective trauma: Results from a national longitudinal study of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95(3), 709-722.