The Virus of Dehumanization: Radical Change in Prevention of Prejudice and Conflict
Introduction
Friends and Colleagues in the field of Peace and War studies, I discovered Blind Areas in social cognition, without which self-justification of dehumanized attitudes would be impossible. This discovery could change the world of conflict.
Blind Areas cover the fact that we all are alive as human individuals among all other human individuals in the world, including, of course, one’s adversaries and enemies. Blindness to human reality was found to be the psychological mechanism of dehumanization, such as the phenomena of inter-group hatred, prejudice, racism, ethnocentrism, fanaticism and any conflict orientation. I shall present to you the Theory of Dehumanization, which is based on the discovery of Blind Areas, and suggest its practical application, including application in the mediation of Ethnic and Religious Conflict and Peacebuilding, which is the main interest of this conference.
The Proper Approach to Conflict Resolution and "Peacebuilding"
I was able to make the discovery of Blind Areas taking the Direct Causation Approach, in contrast to the predominant Multiple Causation Approach. The Direct Causation Approach is the approach of any natural science. For example/After all, what would be the chances of survival for people infected with AIDS if researchers were satisfied with discovering the indirect causes, like infection through sexual contact, poor sanitation, poor nutrition, a polluted environment, etc.? The chances of healing people depends on focusing research on direct causes, the virus or whatever it is inside the person’s organism that ruins the immunization system. Why hasn’t Social Science taken such an approach to socially spread, contagious diseases like Fanaticism and Racism? I had to struggle with the embarrassing notion “why me”? Why do I have to reinvent that wheel? – So I feel I need to tell you how it occurred to me that the Direct Causation Approach must be followed if we ever want to help healing sociopolitical epidemics.
I happen to be a Holocaust survivor, the only one of my family to survive. That childhood experience set me on a course to oppose racism and prejudice, to ensure such things would never happen again to anyone. However, I adopted the Direct Causation Approach only many years later, as a result of a war trauma. Again, I was the only survivor, in an army ambulance hit by a missile. My colleagues were torn to pieces around me, on me, and even in me. I realized that I would not be able to recover from that trauma and live on, unless I made sense of it and understood, but really understood, why that happened to us that afternoon. I was over my trauma when the Real Cause, with a capital R, presented itself in my mind. The Real Cause was the Syrian gunner on the other side who received an order to shoot, aimed well and pulled the trigger. If he had not wished to hit his target, he could have avoided doing so. This revelation was a total turnaround of the concepts I had learned earlier about the causes of war. And I have never doubted it since, that the Real cause of wars are warriors. The links in the endless chain of causal factors leading to wars are all abstract and past. If there is one link that we can touch in order to cut that chain, it is the living individual link.
Please see and feel the difference the Direct Causation Approach makes in responding to acts of politically motivated violence. Taking this approach, we will not ask why the 9/11 arch-terrorist attack occurred or, what caused it— the causes were perfectly clear from the beginning: the perpetrators did it because they believed it was the right, just, moral and Godly thing to do. But mainstream public thinking and scientific inquiry into that event was focused on the indirect, circumstantial causes. I am therefore asking you as scholars to consider the possibility, that the predominant multiple-causation approach could contain a fatal methodological error in disregarding the cardinal difference between indirect and direct causes. Without focusing on the Direct contagions of socially spread epidemics, we are able to suggest only sanitation and prevention measures, but remain unable to heal people when the agents of disease have already been transmitted into a living person’s mind.
My later research work followed that realization. The basic research question was, “How exactly do normal people manage to justify, in their own eyes, even the most fantastically erroneous ideas about other humans; and the most inhuman acts of mass-destruction – without running into an intolerable Cognitive Dissonance with their own highest values of Sanity, Truth, Morality and Justice?» An extension of that question occurred to me with the passing of time and that is, “How exactly they are different from you and me?” I am really asking each one of you to consider that question for yourselves.
The answer, my friends, is no longer blowing in the wind. It is Blind Areas on one’s cognitive map of social orientation. Blind Areas make self-justification possible by DEHUMANIZATION of both self and others who are then excluded from one’s moral consideration. Without Blind Areas, dehumanization would not be possible.
And frankly, I did not invent the Blind Areas. They are the clear symptoms by which dehumanization can be identified and diagnosed as accurately or more than any mental disorder. Blind Areas in the thinking and expression of people are as inseparable from wars as guns and bombs. So I believe any conscientious person needs to look into that reality closely before judging my discovery. And this I see as the strongest argument in my plea for your attention. My greatest hope is that at least some of you, who have more resources and ability than I do, will adopt this approach and accomplish enough to make a real difference in the world, beyond the contributions of our field so far.
Research Process
My way to the Theory of Dehumanization began by looking at war directly, straight into the eyes of warriors, attempting to learn how their minds operate. I systematically analyzed conflict related texts in the Israeli public media, later comparing them with patterns of reasoning and moral justification in other war arenas past and present. I found the same patterns everywhere. They conformed to the general but, alas, fantastic idea of “WE ARE ALWAYS GOOD AND RIGHT – THEY ARE ALWAYS BAD OR GUILTY”. That was not new. However, at some point, when I compared those patterns of belief to my own and to other peoples’ whom I judged as normal, moral and rational, and trying to fathom the differences, I made a discovery that shocked me. I found that leaders, public opinion leaders and common people who consistently expressed their views about the conflict in terms that conformed to the “WE ARE GOOD AND RIGHT, THEY ARE BAD AND GUILTY” idea, never-ever (sic!) gave expression to the most fundamental facts of human reality.
Imagine what a shocking realization for an Israeli patriot, like I was. Not one of the national consensus leaders had ever, not even once in the 20 years of systematic monitoring of the Israeli media 1979-1999, spontaneously expressed a view that the repressive measures against the Palestinian population could be excessive, and that a more lenient policy could be more effective in preventing terrorist attacks and riots. And no leader of the Israeli consensus in those 20 years had spontaneously expressed a concern over the moral standing of the Israelis, so intimately involved in living with, fighting with, and ruling over a hostile, defenseless population. And none of the leading political and media leaders had ever, not once, spontaneously uttered an expression of sympathy, sorrow, compassion, or human understanding in the face of the suffering and death inflicted on the Palestinian population, among them many thousands of innocent civilians, women and children. In a reality of many reported violations of human rights and mounting international criticism, no consensus (based) source proposed having a state agency for protecting the human rights of the oppressed population, or even expressed understanding, let alone support, for the voluntary civil groups that assumed that role, etc.
I found that the people under study were blind to see their own individuality and humanness that entails an awareness that we could be as wrong as any human, and therefore we need to acknowledge that possibility and take care to avoid errors. They were equally blind to the individual humanness of “Them” – that they are not all the same; of their human qualities, their pain and suffering, their possible good intentions. War-oriented persons were found dehumanized both ways, dehumanizing themselves as if they were superhuman and dehumanizing others as if they were subhuman. In areas other than conflict politics, fanatics can be perfectly normal, moral people who are nice, and loving to those they do not regard as them—their enemies.
The Theory of Dehumanization
The definite answer to the research question, “How could they—without clashing with their own supreme values?” – was found in the Blind Areas and their political orientation system. Reality that does not conform to the absolute “We Good, Them Bad” conclusion is swept under a Blind Area. Stimuli are automatically molded into patterned beliefs that conform to the self-righteous scheme and so interpreted as “Yes, in this instance too we did what was right and it was their guilt!” It works easily every time.
The end product of analyzing war related patterns of thinking and beliefs is the Theory of Dehumanization—a detailed mapping of the inner system of orientation in war and conflict, by which the dehumanized fanatics find their ways in reality. The discovered Blind Areas and the corresponding patterned beliefs are the actual symptoms of dehumanization. They are organized in an inventory called the Dehumanization Syndrome under 10 headings that represent the reality of any social conflict: WE, THEM, BLEEDING HEARTS, CAPTIVES, DEVIANTS, LEADER, OTHER NATIONS, STRATEGY, MORALITY and TIME. This syndrome serves as the analytical and diagnostic tool for the Theory of Dehumanization. A dehumanized personality or a “fanatic” would be any person who, over a length of time, expressed views only in line with a pattern belief, and not once demonstrating awareness of any Blind Area. In the attached PowerPoint presentation, you can see parts of the Dehumanization Syndrome, which may be used in analyzing conflict-related texts of the people you are working with.
Application in Education and Public Discourse
Introduction of the concept: When children are old enough to learn that there are, and always have been, WE and THEM, wars, villains and heroes, perpetrators and victims of genocide, etc., they will be old enough to learn that there has always been, and still is, dehumanization (perhaps, in simple language, “social evil”). They should be alerted to the danger that we, as humans, may be unfair when we judge, hate, condemn and fight other people or nations, and that are able to do onto others that which we would not have done unto us.
The Tool to work with: The Dehumanization Syndrome – a list of definite symptoms in conflict-related texts (dehumanization defined operationally as any mental disorder in the DSM). The Syndrome serves as a tool for analyzing conflict-related expression. The technique makes the general condition of Prejudice or Fanatic Orientation identifiable practically and definable by clear criteria in any specific expression, including our own.
Application: In teaching historical, literary, and relevant contemporary texts, an analysis with the purpose of identifying the patterned beliefs would be introduced. For example, students may be asked to identify the expressions that fit the pattern “THEY cause our troubles“; or the racist “THEY are inferior/bad by nature/culture.” The instructor could move gradually from analyzing texts of other cultures to one’s own, and to students’ own opinions and beliefs.
When responding to personal views, disagreeing and arguing, must be avoided at the first identified symptom of dehumanization. Reasoning with a person affected with Dehumanization would be like arguing with a well-programmed computer, in which the basic data—the reality of self and all people being human—is not programmed in it. The result is fully predictable: the person’s responses will be limited to any of the patterned beliefs of the Dehumanization Syndrome.
Rather than arguing with those with dehumanized opinions, educators may provide feedback by fitting the students’ expression into the corresponding patterned belief. For example, if a student has expressed an idea in conformity with that patterned belief, the educator would respond, “What you just said fits the dehumanized pattern ‘They Understand Nothing but Force.’ Would you like to respond to that?” Such feedback suffices for making the person aware, rather than mentally blind, of their personal attitude in relation to a symptom of dehumanization they had learned to recognize.
Consciousness Raising: Bringing human reality to the person’s awareness, by asking open questions about realities covered in Blind Areas, is the single most important and useful technique for helping to heal dehumanization. This technique circumvents resistance, since we do not challenge the dehumanized beliefs directly. Instead, we intentionally guide persons to see the realities that they do not see. Awareness of human reality that Blind Areas cover will undermine the self-justification system of dehumanized orientation.
Application in Mediation & Peacemaking
In the dire reality of intergroup conflict, clients of mediators have already made the crucial, most important step on the way to ending the conflict by consenting to participate in the negotiation process with the other (s). They have agreed to stop shooting and start talking. However, the fact that they have agreed to enter negotiations does not necessarily mean that they wish to make peace. They could well be engaging in fighting their war against each other by diplomatic means.
The Theory of Dehumanization allows us to make accurate predictions about the political actors in conflict and so it can affect, indeed radically improve, conflict resolution. For example, for nearly 40 years now, practically the whole world has believed that some “peace process” has been going on between my country, Israel and the Palestinians. However, knowing the symptoms of dehumanization as they are evident in the political public discourse, I have been able to diagnose the actors as being dehumanized. By that I could be sure that their being engaged in a peace process, which require making real concessions, is impossible in the context of dehumanization.
Blind Areas leave only mistrust and the use of force as logical strategic means to apply in conflict. “If we do not prevent them from destroying us by deterring them or destroying them, they’d destroy us.” That is the only logical basis of strategy to follow as long as the actors are dehumanized in their beliefs about themselves and others.
Tragically for me and my country, I began to consider myself as the world’s leading expert on the “peace process” in the Middle East, because in Israel practically everybody else, every commentator, every medium of public communication in its headlines, has been engaged and indeed enthralled, in the last 40 years or so, by the diplomatic mediation and negotiations under the direction of the biggest superpower, the United States. Its uninterrupted line of dedicated Secretaries of State: Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Kaspar Weinberger, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice – all the way to the present John Kerry (and forgive me if I have forgotten someone) has shuttled in and out the Middle East non-stop. To the best of my knowledge, I was the only one who said, and wrote to everyone who cared to listen, that nothing could come out of that. Once I even published a newspaper article challenging my readers to bet me 10:1 that Israel would not concede one inch of the occupied territories as long as the government at that time was in power. Today I’m willing to bet you 20:1… I trust in the Theory of Dehumanization: as long as the stronger actor in conflict is talking dehumanized it cannot physically make peace.
That contention may seem an overstatement, but it is not. Indeed, we cannot physically see the “virus” of dehumanization under a microscope. However, like computer programming, it is real and it is there, and it determines the functioning of the system that, in our case, is the human mind in conflict. As long as the leaders of nations’ talk are dehumanized, you can spare yourself the commonly shared illusions about peace processes and peace intentions.
So blessed be you, peacemakers! In many ways your position as mediators between adversaries and enemies, who at least agree to show-up for the negotiations, already puts you in a kind of heaven in comparison with us, who are killing one another in war. But you must promote and achieve humanization of the dehumanized attitudes of both parties in order not to find yourselves in, what in literal translation from Hebrew is “fools’ paradise,” becoming part of the travesty that has been going on in my life for nearly half a century now.
Tools and Procedures to facilitate Humanization
I wish to suggest to you a number of procedures in the mediation process that could, indeed should, be applied on all levels of negotiations between parties in conflict (interpersonal as well as international). Upon beginning facilitation of parties in conflict toward a resolution, the mediator should specifically declare that prior to negotiating the content issues—the positions, demands and claims of each party—they will be facilitated through a process, a “humanization workshop,” with the goal of eliminating dehumanized attitudes and prejudices, and building trust. It would be explained to them that without a conscious effort of all to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce, dehumanized-prejudiced attitudes, and without building a degree of mutual commitment to human values of peace and human equal rights, including those of one’s adversaries, agreement cannot be reached. I believe that agreement of the parties on that should be part of the working contract without which peacemakers should not agree to operate as facilitators of the process.
- Personal Commitment to Peaceful Resolution of the Conflict
Whether facilitating negotiations in presence of one or both parties, one could start this process by presenting a document entitled ‘Personal Commitment to Peaceful Resolution of Conflict,’ which must be signed prior to negotiation on content issues. That would be the necessary precondition for facilitation to continue. That Commitment could contain items such as:
“I commit myself to the belief, that my enemies are human individuals, each different and unique like me/us. I do not deny them the human rights and just universal rights that I claim for myself and my people—to be free, to live in peace and be treated as equals”.
“I do not wish or intend to destroy the other party as an enemy or manipulate them into submission. I am committed to reach a resolution of the conflict that will do equal justice to their claims and ours.”
“I commit myself to change any of my present attitudes toward the other party and the issues in conflict if, in the process of these negotiations, a better, fairer and more just solution to the problems emerges.”
- In the context of signing this Personal Commitment, participants might be facilitated through a series of structured experiences such as the following:
a) Telling personal stories. For example, “When and how did I first learn, as a child, that we were in conflict/war with some other people?” For example, “How, if ever, did I try to argue with fanatic extremists in my camp?”
b) Active listening. No one would be allowed to express their thoughts before summarizing what the other person had said, and obtaining agreement from the other confirmation that they had been well understood (the “If I understood you correctly….” exercise of real listening and empathy).
c) Structured experiences such as “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”—games in which the only way to win is taking a risk of trusting the other, and competition inevitably leads to failure.
d) Personal trust-building experiences between persons of opposing sides, such as “Leading the Blind” (one is blindfolded, the other one has to lead that person verbally over a physical distance, then the roles are reversed).
- Practical Learning about Dehumanization
Participants should be given texts relating to the conflict, from their own and their adversaries’ perspectives, and analyze them for Blind Areas and their corresponding patterned beliefs. For example, looking for instances of awareness of a Blind Area, like expressions of compassion or sorrow for the innocent victims on another parties’ “side,”; or examples of views that favor peaceful-conciliatory means of managing the conflict rather than force.
Theory of Change / Prognosis
If awareness of dehumanization were integrated into the basic coordinates of people’s identity and social orientation at the age of identity-formation, would society be freed from prejudices and ethnic discrimination? To what extent would war be regarded as an option for resolving conflicts in a society well informed and accustomed to detecting characteristic Blind Areas and patterned beliefs of dehumanized irrationality? Experimental evidence indicates that significant societal change would occur with dehumanization training/awareness. I do not have the means to demonstrate this, but you do. Take it, and try it out in your capacity as peacemakers. I am fully committed to respond, assist and advise all who would contact me for that purpose. Thank you for listening.
Olek Netzer, Ph.D., is a Holocaust Survivor, Military Veteran and Reservist. He has Ph.D. in Applied Behavioral Science from the Union Institute University, and is a Political Activist against the occupation of Palestinian territories. He is also the Author of: “The Virus of Dehumanization: Deciphering the Political Code on the Background of Israel 1979-1999”, and “Breaking the Power Corrupts Cycle: A Humanistic Program for Political Organization.”
This paper was presented at the International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation’s 1st Annual International Conference on Ethnic and Religious Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding held in New York City, USA, on October 1, 2014.
Title: “The Virus of Dehumanization: Radical Change in Prevention of Prejudice and Conflict”
Presenter: Presented by Jillian Post on behalf of Olek Netzer, Ph.D.
Moderator: Elayne E. Greenberg, Ph.D., Professor of Legal Practice, Assistant Dean of Dispute Resolution Programs, and Director, Hugh L. Carey Center for Dispute Resolution, St. John’s University School of Law, New York.
