The Challenge of Intolerance - Essay Example

Intolerance One of the most daunting challenges the world faces today is intolerance, euphemism to bigotry, prejudice, fanaticism, racism and so on, is inherently a human instinct and hedonistic in approach that is functional in consolidating the resources of the group and transforming it into a cohesive working group or team. Our motivation is egoistic and our value commitments are hedonistic. We encounter intolerance in a world increasingly split between majority and minority, haves and have not’s, powerful and powerless. People tend to view their in-group, social, and political affiliations as an articulations of chosen values, stemming from ideological roots, inclined to shun or disdain other groups or ideas that espouse contrary values and ideals. It is, in a sense, a human nature. This behavior is nicely captioned in the phrase “Us and Them”. Our tendency to think and feel in terms of “Us and Them” may have arisen early in human evolution, since it has adaptive consequences and universal presence. Although human beings have continually adapted to overcome adverse and potentially dangerous conditions during the course of evolution as we are not the naive servants of biology, however, we are still unmindful of the deleterious consequence of intolerance. Ideologies, alliances, and partners are built on the foundation of this structural division. The above reflections raise a wider issue about our motivations, posit a law of our psychological nature, or a necessary truth about all conceptually, or logically possible worlds. The preemptive immediate challenge is to accommodate with respect, justice, and good feeling to our diversity of national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, and gender etc., at a time when the world is faced with charged geo-political climate and dwindling economic resources. We can’t afford to have the luxury of any hedonistic outcomes such as tribal loyalty, jingoism, in group ‘Us’ aggrandizement, and out group, ‘Them’ disdain. It is important to understand how individuals respond to and adopt the principles of coexistence and evolve into a dynamic and vibrant society like brothers, or else will perish like fools as aptly said by, Martin Luther King, “We must live together as brothers, or perish together as fools.” The essay describes through two articles, observation and findings that demonstrate the intolerance towards a group or individual, ’us’ and ‘them’, with appropriate citation and reference. It will also explore similarity and differences with the Bennett article on transition shock. And demonstrate symptoms, responses, stages and resolution that occur in each of the two articles. Milton J Bennett (1977, P.45-52) in ‘Transition Shock: Putting Culture Shock in Perspective proposed that cultural shock is but a variation and subset of reactions by significant change across a broad spectrum of circumstances. In a more interdependent world, survival depends more on cooperation than on competition, with the realization that countries with the highest disparity in wealth have the greatest incidence of stress, violence, and crime (Albee 2000, P.845-53). The powerful have been more impacted socially, and economically, from the consequences of intolerance; with the result have greater responsibility to exercise tolerance and justice. One does not have to look elsewhere to see the effects of oppression as in the United States itself has many of different kinds. Article1-The Stanford Prison Experiment Black men, though constitute less than 6% of the general U.S. population, they account for 48% of the state prison population (Haney & Zimbardo 1998, P. 709-22), the authors reflect on the lessons of their Stanford Prison Experiment, some 25 years after conducting it. They had put a few young, healthy people into prison like environment, after six days of the mock imprisonment the out come was shocking for the researchers as well as the general public, as within a short period, otherwise healthy, emotionally strong young persons begged to be released, due to mistreatment by the authorities, however, a few became obedient to unjust authority of the guards. The chosen staff of the mock exercise appeared to be docile initially started behaving very harshly and treated the young prisoners with sadistic approach. Most of the ill treatments were observed in the night shift, when the guards thought, they could avoid surveillance and objections by the research team during night. Although the researchers had planned to conduct the experiment for 2 weeks, had to be aborted within 6 days, because of extremely harsh treatment that the young ones underwent and the painful transformation observed in them in very short time, as the prisoner could not bear it. The shocking experience had a lot of public outcry and media attention. The authors on the 25th anniversary, of their experiment wanted to give the message of prevalent contemporary prison condition and coercive nature of legal institution that had tremendous outcome on the psychology of the inmates. This study has been one of the eye openers for every one across the world. The authors concluded from the studies as to how the social context can influence, alter, shape and transform human behavior. The study reflected the general opinion about the prevailing appalling condition of the prisons in the United States. Stanford Prison Experiment impacted a lot on the general psyche, and made many changes in criminal justice due to correctional policies that has transpired since then based on their reform-oriented proposals. The article has all the ingredients of “us and them”, that is shock, empathy, correction and change Even if most of whites today are not racist, they are benefited from being privileged and thus are primarily responsible for fixing the problem (McIntosh 1994). And because of their greater power, whites are more able to effect such change. Article 2- Jihad vs. McWorld According to Benjamin Barber in Jihad vs. McWorld (1996), Jihad is the term to denote the increasing radicalism and conflict in the world, much of it within the United States. McWorld is his term used for the globalization. One may not agree with all of Barber’s views, but the book has been extremely popular for its coverage of issues vital to our time. According to him many Muslims fear the encroachment of western culture, i.e. a cultural genocide and emphasize that the West to be sensitive to the fears of Muslims. Since the September 11, 2001, “war against terrorism”, we have seen that multinational military intervention, profiling, intelligence gathering, preempting arrest and encouragement on civil liberties. The tension in the United States between concerns about protecting domestic security and respecting civil liberties has increased. However, the pendulum has swung away from civil liberties toward the maintenance of internal security. No doubt, diplomacy and administrative reform play an essential role in countering the risk of terrorism. But it needs introspection and analyses of the cause and effect. Some track II diplomacy relies directly upon psychological research (Rouhana & Kelman, 1994, P. 157-222). Reich (1998) points out that psychological research has an important role in the understanding of terrorism: “Most important for psychological researchers is the need to remember that terrorism is a complicated, diverse, and multi-determined phenomenon that resists simple definition, undermines all efforts at objectivity, forces upon all researchers moral riddles of confounding complexity, and is as challenging to our intellectual efforts to understand it as it is to our collective efforts to control it.” However, in applying social science to the understanding of terrorism, we must be cautious, since terrorism is essentially a political phenomenon. Given the commonly reported tendency of violence to externalize blame to the target group, split good and bad into ‘us’ and “them” respectively, to justify their actions, and to dehumanize ‘them’, it makes sense to draw upon the body of research which has addressed such intergroup tendencies, i.e. prejudice and intergroup conflict studies. Conclusion Social theories assume that group members have a basic need for a positive social identity and that conflict between groups arises from the inevitable comparisons between them. Most minority group members will try to assimilate into the majority by empathizing with them. Indeed that has worked as showed by many related studies (Helm and Morelli 1979). “Us and Them” thinking concerns at all levels, from family to nation or tribe, and covers individuals, whether powerful persons or common citizens, and it is there in the contemporary society and was present in our ancestors. Conceived in this manner, this divide predates contents, opinions, and ideologies, and becomes impulsive and unconscious in character. In this division that defines ’Us’, as a source of closeness and sharing, and ‘Them’, as different, negative and potential enemy, reinforces a tendency among members of the same society to polarize into two opposing groups. It is desirable, to live peacefully and utilize the resources without any bigotry. And should have empathy for one and all, otherwise we all will perish like fools. Work Cited Albee, G.W. Commentary on Prevention and Counseling Psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 28, 2000. 845-853. Bennett, Janet M. “Transition Shock: Putting Culture Shock in Perspective.” International and Intercultural Communication Annual 4:1977.45–52. Barber, B. Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Re-Shaping the World. New York: Ballantine Books. I996. Haney, C. & Zimbardo, P. The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy. American Psychologist, 53, 1998. 709-727. Helm, C. & Morelli, M. Stanley Milgrim and the Obedience Experiment: Authority, Legitimacy, and Human Action. Political Theory, 7, 1979. 321-346. McIntosh, P. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Hungry Mind Review. 1994. Reich, W. (Ed.). Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind. Washington, D.C.: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press. 1998 Rouhana, N. & Kelman, H. Promoting Joint Thinking in International Conflicts: An Israeli-Palestinian Continuing Workshop. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 1994. 157-178. Read More