Accidental Racism

Throughout the course of history, race has become a focal point in political and social discussions. In today’s world, especially in the United States, an almost absurd obsession with being “politically correct” in all race-related matters has developed. However, the desire to be politically correct and remain entirely unbiased has ironically resulted in being less partial towards non-ethnic groups.
According to Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, intention is typically the most accurate predictor of behavior. Behavioral beliefs (including an assessment of the outcome of a given situation), normative beliefs (social influences and how one expects his or her identifying group to react), and perceived control beliefs (success of similar maneuvers in the past) all influence one’s intentions. As I mentioned in my first and second blog entries, social influence on an individual’s beliefs is monumental and almost unrivaled—that is, the concerns of a given group at a given time are often transferred to the individual without him or her ever noticing.
With the recent election of the first African-American President of the United States, race has become a point of contention in American society. Society has rightfully demanded racial equality and an end to discrimination, and as such, these issues have become priorities for the individual as well. Although institutions of the past such as slavery are extremely unfortunate and regrettable, we as a society have made an effort to progress. The Civil Rights movement achieved legal equality for African-Americans, but racism is still prevalent in today’s society. The predicament, however, is that ridding society of racism against blacks should not mean instilling racism for whites.
Because society so greatly influences the individual’s behavior and because each member of the group tends to seek approval of the group, the desire to appear impartial often makes one biased. For instance, a recent study that entailed selecting hypothetical candidates for college acceptance revealed that attempting to appear “colorblind” influenced the participants’ selections significantly. Whites especially were less likely to acknowledge race as a factor in their selection of the candidates and were actually more likely to accept more diverse candidates with less “specific qualifications.” This suggests that, because society is so obsessed with remaining colorblind, preference is sometimes subconsciously given to the more ethnic candidates, especially if a Caucasian is making the decision. Because being racist is appropriately taboo, whites are often afraid of appearing racist and make decisions accordingly (Norton, Vandello, Biga, Darley).
Because society is so focused on adhering to remaining “colorblind,” the individual often evaluates potential employees, college applicants, etc. based on race without actually acknowledging it. As such, preference is often given to the more diverse candidate, negating the initial attempt to remain unbiased.

Sources:
Norton, Michael, et al. "Colorblind and diversity: conflicting goals in decisions influenced by race." Social Cognition 26.1 (2008): 102-111. PsycINFO. EBSCO. 3 Dec. 2008 .

http://www.12manage.com/methods_ajzen_theory_planned_behaviour.html

Post-traumatic Stress in War Veterans

Most of the time when soldiers are featured in magazines and newspapers after being wounded, the main form of disability that is featured is physical wounds. Why is it that there is no real spotlight on those that are victims to post-traumatic stress caused by war? While all of those who are injured (whether it be physically or psychologically) are victims to the cruel realities of war, my impression is that the media focuses on the physical aspect.

I’ve been interested in the effects of the war on an individual’s mind since I was younger, when my aunt told me about my biological grandfather. She said that he was a good man, a good husband, and a good father. He left home to fight in the Korea War, and my aunt said that when he came home he was a completely different person than the father she had known before. His whole personality had shaped into that of a stranger, and he allowed his life to be consumed with drugs. The war had messed him up, she told me, and he never returned to his normal self.
Now I know that my grandfather isn’t the only case of this happening. I have heard of several accounts of people transforming into different versions of themselves after involvement in war. It has been noticed that post-traumatic stress disorder is fairly common among those who have been subjected to the atrocities of war. It has been stated that “considerable evidence suggests that some Vietnam veterans have suffered long-term mental health problems as a result of their experiences while in the military.[1]”

More focus needs to be put on this aspect of victimization in war. Rather than focusing solely on physical wounds, attention needs to be paid to the mental wellness of war veterans. When looking back to the Vietnam era, one can find that the suicide rates were higher for those who were eligible for the draft as opposed to those who were not, and it was determined that the actual events of the war were the cause of this as opposed to the eligibility itself (Norman).
The trauma that many of these vets face is a sad fact of war. Many people don’t think of individuals, but rather see war veterans as statistics. They look at the news and are able to see how many are dead or injured. But each veteran who is faced with post-traumatic stress should be given attention as well. They have suffered just as those physically wounded, though in a different form. However, this does not diminish the importance of each veteran’s victimization.

[1] Hearst, Norman, and Thomas B. Newman. ". Proving Cause and Effect in Traumatic Stress: The Draft Lottery as a Natural Experiment ." Journal of Traumatic Stress 1.2 (1988). Psych Info. 3 Dec. 2008.

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.

War is Hell

Certainly everyone has heard of the phrase, “War is Hell”. It is used in describing war and what goes on during armed combat. There are so many different things that go on during war it is nearly impossible to imagine the intensity of that sort of situation without having experienced it firsthand. Just because they leave the battlefield though doesn’t mean they’re problems stop. Often they come home to a public that is unhappy with the war and they don’t get the welcoming that they deserve. Now, similar to Vietnam, soldiers returning from duty get far less than they deserve. Especially considering that they’ve spent so much time training to fight and are now forced to live a civilian life.
Re-acclimating to this new lifestyle is a challenge since soldiers are forced to experience all kinds of extremely violent and stressful situations. Along with physical reactions to these different sights there are also psychological reactions, some that can affect a person months and years after the causal experience occurred. Sometimes these experiences can cause serious psychological damage which can be classified at post-traumatic stress disorder. This is a person suffers long term effects from a stressful situation, such as combat or seeing someone get killed. People who suffer from PTSD end up re-experiencing the traumatic event or events and will try to avoid places, people, or other things that remind them of the event. Soldiers affected by this will show symptoms for a long period of time and considerable damage can be done.
In the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are a total of 40,000 reported cases of PTSD between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007. The number increased following the move to increase soldiers in the area and to increase the lengths of tours. As of May 2008 there had been 4,759 American deaths and over 32,000 wounded (Morgan). All of these soldiers eventually come home back to the states, where they have to deal with the PTSD as well as face a public that is unhappy about the war, with Bush having an approval rating of 31 % (Steinhauser). One of the best methods for helping a person to deal with PTSD is using exposure therapy. This is where the person is exposed to situations that caused the disorder in a controlled way so that they are not overwhelmed, with the exposure eventually reaching a point where the subject is no longer affected by it. This was shown when Dr. Keane conducted clinical trials with Vietnam veterans and concluded that exposure therapy was very successful at limiting things like flashbacks, irritability and nightmares (Keane).
Exposure therapy works though because of it being done in a controlled manner. When veterans are subjected to scenes from the war which they just recently returned from a public source, especially when the coverage has a high chance of being negative, it will affect them negatively. Though not nearly as bad as with the Vietnam war where soldiers were termed “baby-killers” among other things, veterans from the middle east often have less than grateful experiences while trying to adjust to civilian life. All the while dealing with PTSD and mass images they are confronted with on the news and nearly every other media outlet. There are programs currently in place that work through the Veteran’s Affairs, but not very much attention is paid to PTSD as it isn’t the easiest thing to diagnose. A change is needed to help those soldiers returning to be able to live a normal life in the suburbs, so to speak.

Keane, T. M. & Kaloupek, D. G. (1982). “Imaginal flooding in the treatment of a posttraumatic stress disorder”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Morgan, David. “Post-traumatic stress soars in U.S. troops”. 27 May, 2008. Reuters. Dec 2, 2008 www.reuters.com

“National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet”. United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Dec 2, 2008 < http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_what_is_ptsd.html>

Steinhauser, Paul. “Poll: Bush’s popularity hits new low”. 19 Mar, 2008. CNN. Dec 2, 2008 <>

Propaganda and War

During war propaganda is used to promote and even to protest war. It is used to sway the general populous to their side. “The “good guys” and the “bad guys” can often both be guilty of misleading their people with distortions, exaggerations, subjectivity, inaccuracy and even fabrications, in order to receive support and a sense of legitimacy.” (Shah) But even knowing all these distortions one cannot help but think of the appealing nature that the media uses to portray their side of the conflict. This propaganda can be seen in just about every war this world has seen, from the Cold War to World War II, and even the current war in Iraq.

“The first casualty when war comes is Truth.” These words spoken by U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917 couldn’t be more right. (qtd. In Shah) Every day an American turns the television on they are bombarded with all sorts of propaganda. Take the past presidential election for instance. Everybody knows that each candidate won’t be able to fulfil all the promises they make during the campaign, but each American likes to think they will be able to. Promises regarding the current War on Terrorism and the Iraqi War that can’t be solved overnight that will take years to complete. “Probably every conflict is fought on at least two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people via propaganda.” (Shah)

Common ways of using propaganda are using selective stories, partial facts, reinforcing reasons and motivations, and demonizing the other side. The point of all these varying ways is because each person will be sway more one way after seeing a particular message, ad, or article. Some people may base a decision on partial facts given by the media, and other people may sway at the media demonizing the other side. The Prime Minister of Britain during World War II once said that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” (qtd. In Shah)

When National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was interviewed on Monday
[Oct. 15th 2001] on the Arab-language channel Al-Jazzeera, she explained that
she did not want American Networks to air Osama bin Laden tapes because they
were “propaganda.”

“[A] 15-minute or 20-minute tape... that sat there and did nothing but
incite hatred and, ultimately, attacks against innocent American was not a
matter of news, it was a matter of propaganda...,” (Gillin)

An award-winning investigative journalist, Phillip Knightly once pointed out that while some stories may be lies, not everything is a lie, and some of the stories could be true. (Shah) But the dilemma here? How do we know what is true and what is a lie? Even if you look up information on the other side chances are you are just looking up more propaganda. The media portrays its information through an already distorted lens.

The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as
well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency to protect those
who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the units and
are, in effect, captives. (Hedges)

During wartime, the public opinion is very important, because without supporters, without propaganda, war isn’t as effective. As Adolf Hitler once said about propaganda:

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even
the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it...
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see
paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched
sort of life as paradise. (qtd. in Shah)

As most can imagine and reflect on the images and messages that the media has put out to influence the populous to sway. Media is an effective way of using propaganda to make people believe that their particular cause is important. The people determine the success of a war. Even General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II once said about the general populous:

Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England,
nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter
to drag the people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack
of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country. (qtd in Shah)

Propaganda will always come hand-in-hand with war. The world cannot help that fact, but the only way we can fight the general masses is by being aware that the media is very much biased and that most of what we see is propaganda. Research is always effective in determining the truthfulness of an ideal or message, but knowing that whatever source you use is biased is a key determining factor. In this Age of Information with the vast usage of media such as television, radio, and the ever growing Internet, it’s hard to tell who’s who and what’s biased or not.


Works Citied:
Grillin, Beth. “U.S. Intensifies the War of Words” Global Issues 21, October 2001 http://www.globalissues.org/article/283/us-intensifies-the-war-of-words
Hedges, Chris. “War: Realites and Myths” Anitwar.com 11 June 2005 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hedges.php?articleid=6294
Shah, Anup. “War, Propaganda and the Media” Global Issues. 31 March 2005 http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda-and-the-media

Death and Desire

The recent slump in the economy has seen a significant decrease of consumer demand. The government is attempting many strategies to provoke the economy to be more active. Many of these involve increasing consumer demand. Some have proposed stimulus packages and tax breaks would accomplish this goal, but recent studies in mortality salience, however, reveal a much less costly possible alternative. These studies demonstrate how awareness of mortality affects peoples’ desires to consume and gain resources.

Terror management theory, TMT, describes how people react when confronted with their own mortality. TMT suggests that people cope with mortality salience by believing “in cultural worldviews that help them feel that they have meaningful lives and are worthy members of their culture.” (Kasser and Sheldon 348) This means that people will act in a way they feel reinforces their role in society. This has been supported through experiments demonstrating that those confronted with mortality salience are more likely to punish individuals that have a different world view. (Kasser and Sheldon 348) Similar experiments have also demonstrated that people are less likely to use symbols of society in a manner less than respectful when confronted with mortality salience. (Kasser and Sheldon 348) Using this evidence, psychologist hypothesized that those in a consumer dependant society like America would increase their desire for accumulation of wealth when confronted with their mortality. (Kasser and Sheldon 348)

Volunteers filled out a survey weeks before the experiment describing their current desires and expected wealth. On the day of the experiment, volunteers completed several filler surveys, along with two surveys for the experiment. Half of the group was given a survey that asked questions pertaining to their death. The other half had a separate survey. The last survey the volunteers completed asked them to rate their expected income and spending in fifteen years. The psychologists then took the data from the surveys to determine if mortality salience had an effect. The test found that overall, volunteers exposed to mortality salience expected to have more wealth and spend more money on pleasure items in the future. (Kasser and Sheldon 348-349)

This experiment was reinforced by another similar experiment. Volunteers were given surveys, half of which caused the volunteers to address their mortality. Afterwards all the volunteers conducted a forest management exercise. They were to act as the head of a company making bids on how much of a forest to harvest. They were informed how bids too high could cause the forest to deplete and bids to low could cause their company to lose money. The volunteers were asked to make first year bids and evaluate their expected profits versus their competitors. The results demonstrated that those who were exposed to mortality salience demonstrated a greater inclination to greed in their profits and a first year bids on average 12 to 13 acres larger than the control group. ((Kasser and Sheldon 350)

These experiments demonstrate how mortality salience can affect greed and consumption. We live in a capitalist society that emphasizes the individual as a consumer. When exposed to mortality salience, we reinforce this societal view through consumption. It may be that mortality salience could be an effective means of stimulating the economy. Certainly, there are ethical and other issues involved, but the solution to America’s spending problems may lie in mortality salience.

Sources
Kasser, Tim and Sheldon, Kennon. “Of Wealth and Death: Materialism, Mortality Salience, and Consumption Behavior”. Psychological Science. 2000.

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