Even men as great as George Clooney are offenders:
And
it’s more than that. The consequences of how we think about individuals, are
far reaching— they determine how we act towards them and ultimately who they
are relative to ourselves. And often times we don’t recognize this, but these
thoughts ultimately end up as a self fulfilling prophecy.
Let’s look at an example:
Let’s say Timmy is a fourth grader and
accidentally bumped into a fifth grader in the lunch line. Now Timmy thinks
that this big bad fifth grader is going to retaliate because that’s what fifth
graders do. So he turns around and gives the fifth grader a good taste of his
fist to land the first hit, which obviously angers the older child who returns
the favor, a punch he wouldn’t have thrown had Timmy not preempted a nonexistent
fight.
Now, Timmy
constructed the threat that this individual posed, based off of his assumption
that retaliation would be inevitable, actually leading to what he feared. Now it
sounds ridiculous, but it happens more often that you’d think. And on a global
scale— countries do this too, and often the conflict involves more than a few
scratches and bruises, they risk war.
Let’s think
about the enemies that our country has. The first that comes to mind are
terrorists— a threat that’s driven our nation to an economic quagmire and
military overstretch. But are they really everything that we make them out to
be, do they really meet the constructed image that we've portrayed them as?
Look at Iraq. We invaded to prevent
the development and usage of Weapons of Mass Destruction by terrorist groups, which
by the way we still haven’t found today. And our military presence has actually
incited more opposition in the region. Christopher Layne, a national editor of
the Atlantic, wrote in his study, “Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived” that
“The US presence on the ground in the Middle East also
incites terrorists to attack American interests…‘what
nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a…goal: to compel modern
democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists
consider to be their homeland’
An even
better example is the Cold war. Construction of threats is literally the reason
that an arms race began. Our country made the Soviets an “other”, assuming that
they would develop arms to harm the good people of the United States, in turn
justifying their development of nuclear weapons, which just incited further justification
for the Soviets to develop their weapons of which we pointed to and said we had
to keep increasing our arsenal for. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
The moral of the story is, be careful
how you think and how you group and “otherwise” different groups of people,
because it’s not just a thought, it affects much, much, more.
Interesting post, Alex. To address your point regarding stereotypes, I think many people jump to conclusions about others due to their race, and as you explained, this can be a huge problem, even on the global stage. This reminded me of an article written for the GBS newspaper about racist jokes and stereotypes within the halls of my high school. Here's a link to the article in case you want to take a look:
ReplyDeletehttp://theoracle.glenbrook225.org/opinions/2012/12/21/south-not-immune-from-racist-jokes-stereotypes/
Absolutely- that's a good point you make regarding the domestic otherization that occurs even as close as Glenview or Northbrook, it's certainly prevalent. But what's more is the connection there is between the two- the stereotypes that we maintain about different ethnic groups here, I believe are in many ways, just extensions of foreign views. Look at World War 2- the detainment of the Japanese in the U.S was a result of fear and hysteria abroad.
ReplyDeleteAlex you have a good take on the topic. However I would like to make a distinction. Our minds are constructed to categorize, it's how we process everything that we take in. Thus we group people. But the problem comes when we add prejudices and negative opinions into our groups to create stereotypes. But in addressing the problem you first proposed, is it wrong to preempt action to prevent greater conflict? I'm sure there are cases of people or a nation taking steps to avoid war, or economic harm or such. So how do these reconcile?
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good point to make and sets up a distinction that should be made when it comes to theory regarding the construction of threats. Certainly, many threats are posed to a nation and I don't believe that it's wrong in any sense to protect against them-- however the problem comes when a threat is constructed that doesn't exist. When justifications are contrived for an invasion or a war or the rearmament of a nation's nuclear stockpile. And honestly, it's difficult to tell when a threat is constructed or not until after the conflict, but in theory, making that distinction and being able to apply defenses when the threat is "real" is very important.
ReplyDelete