The Obama Administration unveiled a new plan yesterday to deal with the genocide in Darfur. While there are no specifics yet, it seems that Hillary Clinton and others are taking an official stand on this issue with the new policy.
From descriptions, it looks similar to the incentive system used in Nigeria, where the Nigerian government has pledged to give rebels a 10% cut of oil cash in return for them to stop sabotaging pipelines and attacking government buildings and personnel.
Obama’s critics are saying exactly what I would say, namely, are we really going to pay people to stop fighting? The current administration has said that Bush’s policies were flawed in that they only included sanctions. So here is the conundrum. Do you make a bad situation worse by instituted sanctions, or do you affirm the actions of violence and revolution by instituting incentives? Cutting people off from the world doesn’t disarm these conflicts, but providing incentives is saying, “if you fight for long enough and hard enough, we will pay you to stop.” It is appeasement at it worst, because we are setting the standard to affirm violent conflict as a means to get what you want. Neither sanctions nor incentives will work.
But they seem like they would, right? According to the psychological laws of conditioning, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, the plans of Bush and Obama would both work, just from different perspectives.
The problem is, conditioning doesn’t address attitude. It only addresses action. These sanctions and incentives are responses to undesired action, and they leave the attitude of the movement to continue to fester.
Think of your most heated political argument. Maybe it was with a friend or a loved one, or maybe a total stranger. Here in America, we have some drastically opposing attitudes and many people who are not afraid to voice those perspectives. This is a wonderful thing. But imagine that political argument you had, that, in your opinion was quite fervent, and ask yourself what it would take for you to decide to buy a gun and kill the person who disagreed with you. This is the intensity of these conflicts in Darfur and Nigeria. Now imagine what it would take to diffuse that attitude. This is no small task, and it is not achieved by incentives or sanctions.
The science of psychology has another principle I should bring up. There is a theory called Cognitive Dissonance Theory posed by a man named Leon Festinger. On the surface, this theory is very simple: If you believe something that conflicts internally with another belief, you obviate this dissonance by either (1) reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, (2) adopting a new belief that outweighs and diffuses the conflict or (3) by modifying the conflicting beliefs not only in degree but in form.
If I am willing to wage war, and even kill an individual for a belief, I may have created a dissonance in this situation between two beliefs. Let’s say I believe X as a political perspective, but I also believe it is wrong to kill. I have a cognitive dissonance, and I only have a few options of how to deal with it (according to the theory)
I can either:
Under possibility (1) of the theory,
-decrease my belief in X, and face the guilt that I killed someone (guilt being cognitively uncomfortable but not dissonant)
-decrease my belief that killing someone is wrong (this will probably lead to more violence)
Under possibility (2) of the theory,
-adopt a new belief that killing is permitted in regards to X (this will lead to more killing)
Under possibility (3) of the theory,
-change my understanding of the murder to say that I killed not for X, but for something else
-change my understanding of X to say that murder is permissible (similar to adopting a new belief)
Of course, the human mind and emotions are more complex than what I just described, but according to Festinger, one of the above options will inevitably occur in order to dispel the dissonance. (by the way, this psychological theory helps me to understand “thou shalt not kill,” and the non-violence of Christ, but that is another entry...)
It is sad to see that most of these options are noxious, and maybe even more dangerous than the original murder itself. My point is, throwing money at an intense psychological, pathological and sociological problem will not do anything to make these motives and options any different.
In the midst of this criticism, I am at a loss for what should be done in these situations. There may not be any better options, but I hope there is.
Hello fellow brother in Christ!
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine pointed me to this blog post. I'm a grad student in Middle East studies, so I found it fascinating, although the region at hand is not in my area of specialty. I had a few thoughts on it.
1. I think the limitation of your psychological framework is that you specify that violence as seen in war is always a product of hatred. While strong emotions are always present, in many conflicts there are also war aims that do matter. In Darfur its oil revenues and autonomy. Violence can be a rational means to achieve goals when there is a lack of alternative solutions (i.e. violence is not solely caused by blind hatred). This is also why conflicts can and do end--one side can achieve its goals. There is always a high cost to continuing conflict because of the risk of death and the loss of standard of living. In addition, militia leaders may opt for peace b/c it can help them to secure their gains and wartime leadership position. I think Darfurian militia leaders would certainly have that incentive at this point. Otherwise, I think under your framework it would be impossible for any conflict to end (at least in terms of violence), but many conflicts have ended one way or another.
2. Your use of cognitive dissonance in a wartime context is fascinating. However, again I think the limitation is that its based on the assumption that all people start with a belief that violence is never permissible. Many people think that violence for a just cause is permissible--hence the need for war aims to justify the conflict (we want our oil or our state). A good example of this is Palestine--Palestinians will tell you that it would be unfair for them to lay down their arms as long as Israelis occupy their land. Why, they argue, should we unilaterally stop fighting when we lost our land due to territorial aggression? How is that fair?
3. So I think that the fact that there is an underlying dispute to the Darfurian conflict makes a diplomatic solution possible. E.g., you're not really paying people to stop fighting, you're giving them some of what they set out to get via fighting in the first place (oil revenues). I like some theory I've heard that conflicts are easier to resolve when both sides have a clear understanding of their relative strength, and that conflict will continue until that balance is apparent. A diplomatic solution would hopefully forestall such an outcome by providing a compromise that would be easier for both sides than using violence to figure out whether they can achieve their goals. Its never a sure bet, and it can easily fail. But its worth at least trying.
4. I think you're right that some of these solutions reward violence. The basic problem is that justice in our world is to the advantage of the stronger. As Augustine put it, what is the state but the band of robbers who won? Diplomatic solutions can help end conflict earlier, but they will never provide real justice. That's why my hope for any real justice is not through the state but through the atonement of Christ present in His church. Only He can change hearts and deal with people's cognitive dissonance and feelings of hatred. All that the state can do is coerce/incentivize people not to kill each other. That doesn't mean I don't want to work towards solutions of international conflict--the two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, for example. But it does mean I know these deals won't end all hatred or heal all divisions or establish true justice (compromises will have to made and perpetrators will be let off). Only the grace of Christ can provide true reconciliation.
Hello Telmarine,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading! I appreciate your well-formulated response!
1. I agree with your point, violence does not always stem from blind hatred, and definitely there are some achievable goals in violent conflicts, or else I would not be addressing the issue of incentives and sanctions.
However, my point in the psychological framework is that while there are these achievable goals, one must fighting for such goals must be comfortable with the fact that killing is permissible for achieving them. In this case, hatred does not cause the actual violence, but emphasizing and complimenting a political or social goal with the power of hatred makes that violence much easier to carry out. Also, rhetorically, the hatred makes it a simpler task to "sell" the war to the population or soldiers. Hatred may not cause the violence, but it hijacks the social and political reasons for war and creates a perpetual psychological cycle of the killing.
2. I agree with you here as well, it is undeniably true that people don't always start from the assumption that violence is a last resort or never permissible. The reason I started from this perspective in the cognitive dissonance was simply to show the ease from which you can move from a mindset of "no violence" to "permitted violence." If this step is so easily made, how much more unfettered in the person who starts from a "violence is permissible" assumption!
I agree that the Palestinians feel they are fighting for a just cause, in the same way the Israelis feel they are as well. The point is, which came first, the idea that our struggle is a just cause, or the struggle itself? If it is the conflict that came first, then our conceptualization of this struggle as just is a matter formed after the fact as a rationalization of our actions. If the just cause came first, well then I guess you can say "fight on until justice is done!" I think it is clear that "just causes" are created and destroyed as it becomes convenient for meeting the goals of political or social powers. More often than not, the just cause is formulated to match the conflict at hand, not the conflict engaged in to fulfill a just cause.
3. I agree that the compromise is always worth trying even though it may fail. The problem with giving people what they started fighting for in the first place is that violence can then become the first priority because it is sure to work. "Well we can just beat them to a pulp until they meet our demands" is much easier than saying "Let's ask first, diplomatically, and keep in mind that it might not work."
4. Well put. Let us pray that the grace of Christ can be carried out through many people in the world, so his reconciliation in these situations can be displayed. I think part of the problem I have with the "Christ is the answer" answer is that it can make Christians shrug off their responsibilities to be that reconciliation as his followers. It is the "well, let's pray and Christ will take care of it" that makes present day Christianity so ignorant to many conflicts in the world. The body is us, and we must be that reconciliation ourselves. To do that requires thoughtful engagement and thorough action.
Thanks again for the responses... I look forward to more discussion.
PEACE