In his blog, Eric posted a set of links about ‘New World vs. New Europe’ that made me scratch my non-existent goatee. In recent days, i’ve been having increasingly more conversations about gendered behavior concerning power management, or more precisely, about how marginalized individuals have different schemes for acquiring and maintaining power through subtle and subversive ways. The articles on Europe made me think about a previous article that i posted and about the differences in power between Europe and the US. But more fundamentally, in combination, they made think about how my thoughts on power management don’t just apply to individuals, but to systems. Europe, having been dwarfted in power by the US in recent years has to be much more subversive, subtle and organized in how it acquires power; brute force no longer works. Conversely, the US continues to just simply carry a big stick in world politics. Of course, this beckons the question: are such alternate forms of negotiation destined to be far more successful or will they always be marginalized by brute force?

I often wonder how my grandfather must have felt knowing he had killed thousands of innocent people in the line of duty. But i know not to ask. I learned that long ago. Not all questions are to be asked. Some are simply to be forgotten. One answer will suffice: for God and country.

These thoughts have been more present in my mind in recent months. I remember being asked how i could be anti-war and pro-soldier, as though these ideas were completely contradictory. My response was always simple: Stanley Milgram. On a listserv today, someone noted that they would never participate in killing others, that they would rather risk jail than participate in the military, that the only justifiable option is conscientious objector. I wish i could live in a world where that option was available to everyone. Instead, i wrote:

This is a privilege that is currently afforded to you, yes. But it is not something that is afforded to all people everywhere, nor does it guarantee that you will never be situated in a kill-or-be-killed environment.

In many places in the world, you are required to serve in the armed forces. In many places, war is on your front step. Sure, you can say that anyone could rebel for moral reasons, but obedience to authority runs very deep. Are you familiar with Stanley Milgram’s work (mostly stemming from Obedience to Authority)?

Of course, the most interesting analysis of how stress will motivate “good” people to do “bad” things is Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment…

One well established perspective is that people’s moral values and practices are highly context-dependent. Put people in a position of fear, stress or anxiety and some of the worst characteristics of humanity are bound to emerge, even if they are the most altruistic and well-demeanored people in everyday life.

This research is very interesting in light of most war-vets PTSD. Needless to say, both Milgram and Zimbardo induced PTSD on their subjects (and they are the reason that we have the IRB today). Anyone who has been to war will articulate the conflicting feelings of not wanting to kill and yet doing so. It’s hard to make sense of and it tears at the fabric of your self-perception.

It’s also really important to note that we live in a very individualistic society. Most societies are more driven by community and family pressures and norms than personal beliefs. Rebellion is an act of dishonoring your family/community, a cultural force that most people don’t overcome. Also (best noted by Milgram), the values of an individual and the values of a group are often very different.

While we have the privilege to sit in (mostly) American cities and voice our dissent towards military participation, the forces that operate in most places would push any (even educated) member of society towards participation. Also, for the most part, we have education, jobs (or job potential), and lack family responsibilities, all of which affords us a lot of mobility and freedom. Most of the US’s military force is comprised of the poorest and least mobile individuals. Most signed up to get out of their home environment and never expected to have to participate. I would guess that most are not motivated by murder, but then put in that context…

I would love to believe that i would never kill. I would love to believe that if i were drafted, i would have the strength to rebel. Yet, i imagine that instinct would kick in and if i weren’t so privileged, so would need to conform.

Given this perspective, my personal view is that it is the responsibility of those of us with privilege to create a worldwide context where the worst in humanity doesn’t need to emerge. How can we reduce the tension so that the instinct to kill out of fear does not need to be considered? How do we increase communication so that the worst-case-scenario is never realized?

Of course, i realize that this is not the perspective that most people have. My grandfather came back from war to a culture that realized that whatever happened in wartime stayed in wartime. It was not to be discussed; simply honor the vets. In Vietnam, vets came back from their harrowing experiences to a country of people who hated them for doing what they didn’t see as representative. Anti-war activists took a stance that any conscientious person would object to the war and thus our own people were criminals. This divided our country unnecessarily and we saw the ramifications very recently. People still cannot separate between anti-war and anti-soldiers. The public sees the two as synonymous and it always saddens me to hear people validate that. To believe that soldiers are evil and immoral people is to be so steeped in privilege that you’ve lost touch of humanity.

Shortly following the WTC attacks, i remember reading about a young girl who turned to her mother and pointed to the TV and remarked at how pretty the images were. This was a reminder of how attuned we are to seeing the TV as fiction and disassociating from the images we see there. Stories become fiction easily, and we have to mentally work at making them real.

Of course, we have learned to treat the web in the same fashion. If you read something really moving online, you are to assume that it is a hoax. It was with this vantage point that i read Jason Halperin’s (Doctors Without Borders) account of life inside the Patriot Act. Of course, this is absolutely horrifying and of course i desperately want this to be true, to magnify my frustration with our current system. Yet, i had these intense doubts; conveniently, they were relieved by source checking with Doctors Without Borders (via email from the webmaster).

This experience makes me think strongly about my motivations. I actively want reasons to hate our system because i see it as oppressive and colonialist. Yet, how much are the lens through which i am observing and experiencing clouding the magnitude in which i disagree with our system?

Secondly, why do we live in a system where we cannot trust what we read or hear? How easily is it to get swept up in social movements? At the same time, it frustrates me that anti-governmental rhetoric can be easily invalidated by those in power, yet the public has no way of checking the facts that the government presents. This lack of equality is my primary source of frustration – power begets power and marginalizes those who disagree. This immediately brings out my childish tendencies to scream “it’s not fair!”

The lack of equality is why i crave systemic transparency. I just simply cannot believe that universal transparency is desireable (unless you are libertarian and have lots of privilege). Universal transparency disempowers individuals while not actually requiring checks upon the government. How can transparency be used to more actively even the playing fields? And how can it be used to allow me to build trust in humanity? ::sigh::

I have to admit that it makes me really really happy that V-Day is providing a voice on the war issue. Certainly, i see the relationship between ending violence against women and girls but i’m regularly amazed at how many members of our audience do not. Given the negative feedback we got on the first time, i was *very* happily pleased when Eve decided to open letter to the President.

When the US invaded Iraq, officials seemed to think that they would be welcomed with open arms. Needless to say, they haven’t been. This has outraged many and turned our goal of freeing the Iraqis to one of destroying them. People in Iraq are fighting back in the limited ways that they can. Fair? All is fair in war. And besides, we invaded.

To appreciate the intensity of the situation, here’s an article depicting the atrocities of war and how hatred mounts. This only furthers my deep belief that our troops need to come home.

Today, i received my first FAIR Media Action Item, asking me to write to the AP and express my anger over their conflation of pro-troops and pro-war issues. I have to say that i’m excited to write these letters, mostly because i feel like i’m back in school writing me 3 paragraph reflection on something that i’ve recently read. I get to try to be articulate and succinct and voice my opinion. And just like in school, no one will ever read anything that i’ve written.

Anyhow, after the whole freeping situation with the Dixie Chicks, i’m glad to be doing my part to voice my opinion against our dictator and the media that supports him. I also think that move-on’s media initiative is *fabulous* and everyone should sign up.

Oh, and if you’re really bored, i’ve included my never to be read email inside.

Continue reading →

While my intellectual curiousity drives me to read quantities of text about issues surrounding the war, i also recognize the power of visual imagery as an effective tool for reflection. Images appeal to my heart more than my mind, but that effect is so necessary in order to stay grounded. For that reason, i really appreciated this simple flash animation (anti-war propaganda).

There is only one thing that i like about wartime: it makes people think. Intellectuals are focused on developing theories to explain contemporary situations, how people react, how science operates, etc. Engaged individuals are reading vociforously, trying to redevelop their shattered notion of the meaning of life. And thanks to technology, everyone is trying to inform one another.

On today’s reading list:

America, Europe and their relationship to power is the topic of a fascinating article about the emerging cultural gap due to a divergent view of power and control in post nuclear modernity

When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History – a great detailed comparison of the US and Germany through the lens of Hitler’s actions. My favorite is the definition of fascism:

“fas-cism (fbsh’iz’em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”

When can we declare ourselves a fascist nation? Or must we rely on outside forces to do it for us?

I’ve been very cranky with the whole proposed TIA/Capps II/Patriot II (surprise). One of my main frustrations with this proposed legislation is that most actions will not actually provide security, but will simply eliminate privacy in a way that it will never be returned. We will continue our path towards the Panopticon like a skateboard out of control – faster and faster with no comfortable way to halt.

So, while i still feel useless in making change within this very disturbing government, i support the ACLU in doing so in any way that i can. Today’s action: write your representatives about the CAPPS II Airline Profiling system (as terrorists have figured out how to avoid it while regular citizens are banned from flying).