Chapter 16 focuses on ethno-political conflict and how there seems to be an underlying psychological theme that can explain it. Chapter 16 also discusses the possible alternative answers to the questions of how we can explain the mounting evidence of violence, and why every step towards peace has led to bitter violence. Possible answers to these kinds of questions are the Terror Management Theory (TMT), and the link between mortality concerns and ethno-political violence. I was actually really interested in reading this chapter, even though it really doesn’t have anything to do with my expert topic, elder abuse. It is somewhat hard to watch the news and try to make some sense of what exactly is going on in the Middle East, but this chapter seems to help me understand it a little more.
What I found to be the most interesting section in the chapter was the definition of the Terror Management Theory (TMT). I have heard of the theory before, but not in this perspective. TMT is defined as the “instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror; effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that this potential for terror be effectively managed.” The terror is managed by a cultural worldview, self-esteem, and close interpersonal relationships. What I got from this definition is that people are instinctly afraid of death, and that they act out in order to protect themselves, being their self-esteem, their cultural worldview or close interpersonal relationships. If a person feels threatened by another person who doesn’t share the same beliefs then they are more likely to act out. Also, TMT seems to relate to the superiority theory as well. By this I mean that you think that your culture is superior to everyone else’s therefore you think that the other person’s worldview is incorrect. Of course this can explain why there is ethno-political conflict. Besides money and political issues, this could explain why there is so much in the world, even though I think there are more than one reason why there is conflict and violence.
Another thing that I found to be interesting was how they have done studies to show how other cultures besides Israelis and Palestinians feel like they are superior to other cultures. It is refreshing to see studies focusing on such powerful and somewhat cocky cultures such as Americans and Italians. It was shown that American college students behave more aggressively towards those who have different political views and that Italians view their country as superior to other European countries. Another form of violence was examined in this chapter as well, which is self-violence or suicide bombers. I have known of suicide bombers and the reasons as to why they do commit such acts of violence, but I did not know all of them. I was really surprised when I read that the Palestinian suicide bombers faces are posted on walls and buildings for others to admire, and that children really do view them as role models. Also, if they were to commit the act then they would gain honor, adoration, fame, and several afterlife virgins...? According to the Terror Management Theory, this is because it provides a sense of symbolic immortality.
Justice and how it relates to ethno-political conflict was also examined. When death is salient, it is known that justice could be that there is a greater presence of violence. Both utility reasons and justice reasons were compared, but it was shown in a study that when participants are given the opportunity to endorse both justice and utility items, MS (mortality salience) has a significant effect on justice items rather than utility items.
What I liked about this chapter is that it gives a semi-solution to the problem. The text discusses that we need to achieve peace in the Middle East by making painful compromises, even if they contradict your ego, self-esteem, cultural worldview, or interpersonal relationships. I believe in this because I think that you have to give a little in order to gain a lot. You have to confront yourself in order to change. The text also offers another option for compromising, which is that policies should aim toward changing the psychological forces that promote hatred rather than denying them. I think that it is nice to be optimistic like this; but it is easier said than done.
Chapter 16: An Existential Perspective on Violent Solutions to Ethno-political Conflict, is one of the more interesting chapters we have read thus far in the semester. At the beginning of the chapter the authors pose some interesting questions: “How can we explain that despite mounting evidence of the futility of violence…there seems to be no end in sight to perpetual warfare?” (p.298). Hirschberger and Pyszczynski contend that the powerful psychological forces underlying ethno-political conflict actually impede the ability to achieve peace. They base their analysis on terror management theory. The authors define/describe terror management theory as being an “instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror; effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that this potential for terror be effectively managed” (p.298). Terror management defenses are socially constructed and therefore require ongoing validation from others. Thus, social thought and behavior is oriented toward maintaining these defenses and worldviews against threats. Evidence supporting TMT comes from studies in which thoughts of death are primed and cultural worldview defenses are examined. The priming of thoughts of death are seen as heightening mortality salience (MS). According to the authors, MS increases the motivation to invest in one’s worldview. MS also leads to avoidance, derogation, and aggression against those who pose a threat to one’s worldview. The main focus of TMT involves intergroup conflict. Studies have demonstrated that brief, unobtrusive reminders of mortality lead people to view their in-group in a more positive light, while viewing the outgroup in a negative light. Doing so opens the opportunity to derogate and even aggress against to those out-groups. Hirschberger and Pyszczynski are quick to point out however, that TMT views the effects of mortality salience on intergroup attitudes as complex and not dichotomous. There are personal and situational differences that will make individuals react differently to mortality salience. When it comes to political conflict for instance, there are additional variables that further complicate the effect of existential concerns on violent inclinations in which MS may lead to support violent solutions in some cases and not others.
In this chapter, the authors state that death concerns and violent outcomes depend on (a) social and national consensus (or perceived consensus) on the use of violence, (b) a sense that violence is justified and necessary, and (c) a sense that violence is imminent and unavoidable. As our authors point out, organized forms of violence largely depend on support of the population for whom these actions are purportedly undertaken. Case in point: the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of us can recall where we were and what we were doing the morning of Tuesday, September 11th 2001. There was an overwhelming sense of shock, sadness, and anger which made it easy for George W. Bush to carry out a full-scale war on Afghanistan and later Iraq. In order for consensus to be established and maintained it is necessary for members of the society to believe that a threat is of such magnitude that violence is the only effective response. Hirschberger and Pyszczynski claim that there is empirical support for the idea that MS elicits more consensus regarding violent responses during conflict in addition to the idea that consensus is a necessary precondition for MS to elicit support for ethno-political violence. For example, a study by Landau and colleagues (2004) demonstrated that reminders of death increased support for George Dubya and his counterterrorist policies. After consensus comes justice. They could to a certain extent go hand in hand. Consensus can be obtained when people feel that they are fighting for a just cause. However, as the authors point out, although a cause seems just and noble it does not necessarily mean that it should be achieved through violent means or that violence will prove to be effective. Often times the decision to use violence in intergroup conflict is driven by powerful emotions such as anger, revenge, and the need to restore a sense of justice that render individuals of a society blind to the utilitarian considerations of war. Furthermore, in terms of TMT, when death is salient, these emotions or justice motives supersede any rational analysis of violent conflict. The authors provide readers with four different studies to support these ideas.
Hirschberger and Pyszczynski also discuss conditions that may disrupt the link between death concerns and support for violent solutions to conflict. These conditions include: (a) perceived personal vulnerability to conflict-related injury or death is high, (b) adversary rhetoric raises the possibility of a nonviolent solution, (c) experts advise that violence is counterproductive, and (d) people are induced to think rationally (p.308).
Lastly, the authors argue that emphasizing basic human values and human similarities promote more peaceful motives even when death is salient. I find this curious given the fact that one of the first stages of genocide involves depersonalization. Psychologically and socially speaking, portraying individuals from the outgroup as sub-human or second class citizens make it far easier to justify the extermination of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Perhaps reminding societies that members who comprise an outgroup are human and do have human similarities could stop or prevent intergroup violence such as genocide. It remains to be seen if doing so is enough to solve such a complex and fatal dilemma.
I agree with the above blogs that Chapter 16 was much more interesting and appeared more applicable to further my understanding of violence. Although this chapter is focused on ethno-political conflict, I feel that the information presented can be beneficial in understanding violence overall and could be applicable on an individual basis as well, I will ellaborate more on this thought throughout the chapter.
The text identifies two main concepts throughout the chapter, the Terror Management Theory and MS- heightenig mortality salience. The information presented throughout this chapter identified the relationship to violence regarding these concepts and offered insight to understanding these concepts as a means to further the readers overall understanding of ethno-political conflict.
The Terror Management theory is conceptualized as "the instinctive animal desire for continuued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror; effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that this potential for terror be effectively managed." The text continues to identify ways to manage this terror and provide security by developing a consistent, secure worldview that all can live up to, self-esteem to live up to this worldview and engaging in healthy interpersonal relationships. The text suggests that to reduce the perceived felt terror, ongoing validation from others is essential and the perceived felt terror tends to increase when faced by individuals who have a different system of values and beliefs that are threatening your own. It continues by summarizing that violence tends to increase when a groups sense of superiority and worldview is challenged by others.
There were several important key factors indentified throughout the text to better understand TMT and MS and the relationship with violence. One point that I found very interesting and applicable was the identified links between death concerns and violent outcomes. The text indicated that three major conditions would need to be applied including; social and national consensus on the use of violence, a sense that violence is justified and necessary and a sense that violence is imminent and unavoidable. By considering these conditions when analyzing ethno-political violence, it provides a clear understanding of the motivation of violence and can provide the opportunity to develop clear interventions in attempts to reduce violent outcomes. I feel that this concept can also increase our understanding of violence on an individual level as well. We could begin by analyzing the societal view on violence. For example, how does society react to intimate personal violence such as spousal abuse. Then identify the individuals thought process regarding their values and beliefs about the use of violence, their perception about violence may be significantly impacted on what they have been exposed to throughout their life, their individual perception may impact what they believe is appropriate and what is not, for example, the use of corporal punishment for children. Next you can determine if the individual believes that violence was unavoidable or imminent. An example of this could possibly be a women involved in a violent relationshihp eventually retaliates. They may perceive that the violence with unavoidable and immenent, but were going to be in control of who the next victim was going to be, themselves or the persistent perpetrator.
There were several more key elements outlined in this chapter, but the concept I presented above was the most interesting and thought provoking for me. The text concludes by suggesting ways to analyze TMT and MS and apply the information to better enhance our understanding of violence overall. One of the suggestions presented was developing policies that focus on changing the psychological forces that promote hatred and enhance peace making policies. I feel this suggestion is very insightful and could be used in a positive manner to address appropriate interventions to address and decrease the prevalence of violence overall.
Chapter 16 is all about ethno-political conflict, so it fits really well with this week’s topic. The chapter focuses on a theory called Terror Management Theory (TMT) to explain some of the conflicts that are ongoing in the world, as well as some of the past conflicts. Of course, no one theory will solve everything, as the authors acknowledge, but they do a convincing job of using TMT.
The authors start by defining TMT as an explanation for why people support violence. People are more likely to support violence is they feel that their lives are at stake (MS, or mortality salience). It would seem that death is the only thing that makes people feel that violence is a viable option at the ethno-political level…differences in politics or religion alone are not likely to produce feelings of mass violence (war), although they may produce some lower level of aggression. After someone has been exposed to MS, there are three other factors that greatly increase the chance that they will endorse war: consensus (or the thought that there is consensus), justice, and a feeling that violence is inevitable anyway. By contrast, if someone believes that there is not consensus, that the war is not justifiable or necessary, or feels that there is a more peaceful way to solve the problem; they are much more likely to not support war, even if they have been exposed to MS. There are some other things that will reduce support of war as well, and those are: having a lot of secure attachments, using your brain instead of your feelings, and having a higher potential of being hurt or killed. It would seem that if you live in the area where the fighting will take place, you are less likely to want fighting there. (That was not a surprise to me. Anyone else?) Also, the motto “follow your heart” is not something people should live by. Feelings are often wrong and following your feelings can very well have bad consequences. Of course, like anything else, that’s not 100% true 100% of the time…there are times when your instincts are correct and your feelings can save your life. Usually, though, it’s much better to look at all the facts and try look for all solutions first. Finally, if someone has secure relationships, there are going to be more likely to look at the costs and benefits rather than someone who doesn’t have anything or anyone to lose. At the end of the chapter, the authors discussed a few ways to try to end violence: ensuring secure attachments, focusing on humanity rather than groups, and teaching compassionate religious values. Since I’ve already discussed the secure attachments, I’ll leave it at that except to say that that’s not exactly something that can just be taught in school. It’s something that really starts with parents. As for focusing on humanity rather than groups, it’s a great idea and can be taught a little easier than secure attachments. There are differences, every person is unique, but we don’t want to teach that those differences are bad. Also, focusing on your group as the best group is stupid. Especially in America, where we’ve got such a rich, vibrant culture because of all the different people influencing it, we should know better. There is no one person that is better than another, and that goes for groups as well. It’s incredibly important to teach this. As for teaching compassionate religious values, that’s a good idea too. Every religion teaches compassion. I consider myself to be a pretty religious person, and I would say that the vast majority of the Bible teaches that you need to be compassionate, that God loves everybody equally, that He made us all, and that if someone doesn’t believe in Him as you may do, you still need to love them and treat them with respect and empathy. Since Christianity flows from Judaism, Judaism obviously teaches the same things. I took a world religions class at Hawkeye, and know that the Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc) while not necessarily teaching the same things about God, do teach compassion. Islam does as well, and is considered to be a Western religion like Christianity and Judaism. They call God by a different name, but He is considered to be the same God.
I liked this chapter, even though it has nothing to do with my expert topic of sadistic rapists. Probably the most interesting part was reading about TMT (in other words, the whole chapter). I had never heard of the theory before and it makes sense, not to mention that it has some good evidence backing it. The saddest part was when I read that suicide bombers are considered to be good role models for a lot of Middle Eastern children. I feel incredibly sorry for those children who are being told that hate and violence are things to value and that in order to be respected and get to heaven, they should sacrifice themselves. However, a culture of violence isn’t exactly a Middle Eastern thing… in America, we tell our kids that violence is cool. The second biggest movie this last weekend was Scream 4, which is all about killing people. While we certainly need to stop ethno-political violence, I have a feeling we won’t be able to unless we stop glorifying violence at both an individual and a cultural level.
Chapter 16 was a refreshing change from last week’s reading. The focus of this chapter involved ethno-political conflict, but I felt much of the information was informative in the aspects of violence in any group setting. The chapter consisted of many ideas and themes related to this area of violence specifically focusing on terror management theory and how it relates to intergroup conflict. Also, discussion regarding conditions relating the link between intergroup violence and mortality such as consensus, justice, and the inevitability of conflict were discussed.
The initial quote that caught my attention in reading the chapter was “Every round of violence ends with a new shaky agreement that differs ever so slightly from the shaky agreement that preceded the most recent violent outbreak.” Being someone who does not support the idea of war as any kind of progressive movement for the people of a country, I found this quote to make a lot of sense. This chapter did a nice job of discussing the psychological factors of ethno-political conflict and how these conflicts persist even though many people feel this kind of violence is wrong.
Terror management theory is a new theory to me. It posits that terror is managed when individuals hold a worldview that gives an explanation for our existence, individuals have self-esteem gained by believing that worldview and meeting those standards, and individuals having close interpersonal relationships. Therefore, when a perceived threat is felt against one’s worldview or their values, they are more likely to become defensive which can progress to anger or negative feelings towards those who are doing the threatening. The chapter often gives examples of religious groups fighting against one another, as well as the 9/11 attacks.
The idea of mortality salience was discussed in depth and that the link between death and violent outcomes depended on consensus, justice, and inevitability of conflict. Having a sense of “death awareness” allows for the dichotomy of thinking us versus them. In discussing the condition of consensus as it relates to violence, the book explains how it can be two sided. On one side, consensus initially can then change to frustration or anger or disappointment if the outcome was not what was initially anticipated. On the other side, consensus can be positive as it can lessen anxiety. It is discussed that for consensus to be maintained, the belief that a threat is so severe that it requires violent force allows for consensus to be appropriately established. For example, during war times the president and government prefer for the majority of the country to be on board for going to war. If it is portrayed that the other country is of such threat, than it only makes sense for us to go bomb the heck out of them…and the country will approve of it. Can we say weapons of mass destruction???
The second condition explains how justice relates to approval of violence. If it is thought that the cause is noble or worthy enough to fight for or against, and the consensus is that it is then the acceptance of violence may be more tolerated. The expected utility theory is discussed and described as a way political scientists are able to analyze reasons of war by describing the costs and benefits. Analyzing war in a way that explains what those in favor of it see as beneficial and those who are against it see as costly, can allow for a more broad understanding of the issue.
The condition of the inevitability of violence explains that while consensus and justice assist in thinking more positively about war, it also helps if people feel there is no other option and war is the only way. For example, after 9/11 many people who did not favor the idea of war felt it was inevitable because we were attacked on our territory, the attack was so severe, or whatever their definition of inevitable fit in to.
This chapter provided a lot of information that I felt was relevant to group thinking and collective violence. The conditions of consensus, justice, and inevitability can often be changed or deterred by what or how others are thinking or feeling about an issue. When it comes to war, feelings and energies can be extremely tense and anxious and often any way to escape or avoid the sense of chaos is favored.
Chapter 16, An Existential Perspective on Violent Solutions to Ethno-political Conflict, concerned the issue of obtaining peace in a seemingly violent method of conflict resolution. The author's begin by arguing that there are psychological forces beneath ethno-political conflict, that hinder the ability to make the rational choice of gaining and maintaining peace.
The chapter focuses on Terror Mangagement Theory, which I have never been acquainted with. The premise of this theory is that the instinctive desire for life paired with the awareness of having to eventually die creates terror, and this terror must be managed through regulating behaviors. The authors name several ways this terror is managed, but the main point is that they all require validation from others in order to effectively function. When others differ in beliefs that cause contridiction between persons, it creates a threat to anothers views, culture, and beliefs. This causes group conflict. The overall conclusion is that when one feels their life is in danger (the authors call is MS or morality salience), they are more likely to support violence to resolve conflict.
Three conditions either aleviate or support MS: perceived consensus, justice, and inevitablity of conflict. The authors cite several studies to demonstrate the presence and strength of these three factors plays a role in the use of violence between groups of people. As the degree of these three conditions heightens, acceptance of violence also raises.
I thought the next section of how MS can lead to less violence was very interesting. The different factors are perceived personal vulnerability to conflict-related injury or death is high, adversary rhetoric raises the possiblity of a nonviolent solution, experts advise that violence is counterproductive, and people are induced to think rationally. This all makes sense and can be applied in real-life exampes. All of these factors play a role in decisions we make, not only about violence but in other areas of life as well. These factors suggest we are rational actors who make decisions based on cost and benefit. While this may not always be true, I can see how it would affect ethno-political decisions about violence.
This chapter really did not apply to my expert topic but it was very interesting to read and I learned a lot about ethno-political violence.
After reading chapter 16, I have to agree with Angela's post in that many of the base concepts in this chapter really can be applied to a variety of different types of violence. I feel as though with the political climate as it is, wars raging in various parts of the world, it is important to understand motives for violence from an educational viewpoint and also to find better ways to stifle further violence as a society. The text says "..humans are defensive violence-prone creatures in one way or another." I like that. on a personal level we all feel we are rational well behaved individuals, we are right in our beliefs and standards, and the others just need to see it our way. The problem is when "the others" are in the same mind set and the conflict is big enough to bring about damages on an unbelievably large scale. This may be a gross simplification but I feel like this is one of the points the chapter was trying to get across to the reader.
Terror management theory (TMT) was not a new concept for me, but I feel as if the author made the entire concept more accessable. I liked the way TMT was broken down and examples given for how it can be applied to the various concepts such as justice, self protection, and intergroup conflict in general. I think I have a better understanding of TMT now than I did before reading the chapter.
I thought alot of the research on how TMT and mortality salience (MS) interact with eachother in various scenarios was really interesting. I like to think about the application of the research to help reduce the amount of violence going on in various politically charged regions today. I know it is much easier said than done, and peoples minds cannot be swayed so easily when it comes to core belief systems, but as an optimist I would hope that someday we can make those global comprimises that will reduce if not eliminate violence of such a large scale, if only for a small bit of time. while world peace is still just a whimsical hope for us die hard optimists at least I can sleep better at night knowing that there are researchers out there working to find out why the human race is such an angry violent group. We may not be curable but maybe someday we can subdue our violent nature.
Chapter 16 focuses on ethno-political conflict which definitely relates to this week’s topic. It was also one of the more interesting chapter to read—I didn’t feel like pulling my hair out trying to get my way through it! The authors argue that powerful psychological forces underlie ethno-political conflict and become somewhat of an obstacle in achieving peace even in situations where achieving peace seems like the rational decision. The author’s base their argument on research done demonstrating the Terror Management Theory (TMT). The TMT states that the “instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror.” Most research focused on TMT typically looks at intergroup relations which goes right along with this week’s topic of genocide. TMT also argues that the potential for terror must be effectively managed by 1. a cultural worldview that promotes personal value by following set standards and provides why people exist; 2. self esteem which is obtained by believing in the cultural worldview and following its standards, and 3. having closing interpersonal relationships. The authors then discuss how terror management studies have used a process of priming thoughts of death, or increasing mortality salience (MS), and looking at cultural worldview defenses. Findings from these studies suggest that MS increases a person’s motivation to invest in their worldview and avoid and/or behave aggressively against people who threaten their worldview. I thought it was interesting that these effects only appeared when thoughts of death were primed. The chapter moves on to talk about three conditions that, after people are exposed to MS, will increase the chance that those people will support war: 1. consensus (of the nation’s population); 2. justice; and 3. inevitability of conflict. The text discusses a study in which results suggest that for MS to elicit support for war (in this case suicidal terrorism), participants had to think or feel that there was a consensus of all the participants in supporting that type of violence. Justice is established when people feel they are fighting for a good, just, and noble cause. The authors suggest that, in accordance with the TMT, when death is relevant, motives for justice become most important and may overlook utilitartian considerations to the point that engaging in violence may occur even when it is ‘counter to the rational self-interest.” The chapter continues on with discussion about how, in order to obtain support for a war, it partially requires the nation’s population to believe that going to war is the only option and that war is unavoidable. The chapter gives the example of 9/11 and how after the attack the American public believed violence against Islamic radicals and terrorists was going to happen whether they wanted it to or not. Going along with the inevitability of violence, the chapter states that recent research supports the idea that when violence is seen as something that is unavoidable/inevitable, MS leads to greater support for violent solutions to conflict.
Chapter sixteen in our handbook discusses different ethno-political conflict and genocide. The chapter begins by citing the events of 2009 between Israel and Hamas. This, to me, was a really interesting and logical way to start a discussion about genocide. The author of this particular chapter then goes on to discuss what they call the 'Terror Management Theory'. This theory states that, "...the instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror, effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that this potential terror be effectively managed." This terror, (according to the chapter) can be managed by; a cultural world view that provides an explanation for existence, higher self-esteem, and closer interpersonal relationships.
The handbook then goes on to relate terror management with intergroup conflict. The article sites studies that have shown how people tend to regard their own group(s) as more superior than other groups. This, in turn, encourages them to initiate conflict when they feel their views and ideas are being challenged. More specifically, the article mentions that intergroup violence is linked to three things; perceived consensus, justice, and inevitability of conflict.
The article concludes by talking about how self-protection helps to moderate political violence. This theory states that, deep down, people are more concerned with their own protection and safety than getting revenge on another person or group of people. If we bring this concern to the surface and make it more immediate, then they will be less likely to want to participate in acts of intergroup violence.
To me, this chapter was really interesting and a very great lead in to our discussion on genocide. The most interesting part of this chapter was where they discussed the different factors that lead to intergroup violence. I never thought that perceived consensus would have been a factor. It always seemed that one group didn't need consensus before they went and acted violently towards another group. For example, with the Holocaust. The Germans most definitely did not have permission from the Jewish community to pack them all up and ship them off to concentration camps. The only reason they did that was because the Nazis were spreading propoganda saying that the Jews were "horrible" people and "less than human". Of course, the Holocaust is just one example of genocide and ethno-political violence.
However, it was still interesting to think that there had to be some sort of perceived consensus that the two groups both felt that violence would occur and was almost necessary. It makes me want to reserach other reported acts of genocide and entho-political violence and see how it stacks up to what the book said.
Sadly, this chapter did not help me at all with my expert topic. I do not think it would make much sense to relate bullying to intergroup violence. Bullying is much more personal and far less violent than any intergroup violence or genocide.
Even though this chapter did not relate to my specific expert topic and other topics I have been interested in looking at in regards to violence, it was still very interesting and made me think of genocide and ethno-political violence in a very different light.
Chapter 16 has to do with why ethno-political violence happens and how to resolve it. A big part of this chapter is terror management theory. TMT says that people have an instinctive desire to stay alive but also have the awareness that death is inevitable. This can create terror. This terror must be managed to regulate behavior. This terror is managed by having an explanation for existence, self-esteem, and close interpersonal relationships. If these things are challenged, violent defense may ensue. Heightening mortality salience (MS) is used in many studies cited in this chapter. It has been shown to lead to “avoidance, derogation, and aggression against worldview-threatening others.” There is a definite link between MS and support of intergroup violence depending on perceived consensus, justice, and inevitability of conflict.
When leaders and others feel the right move to make is a violent one, it is more likely that one will support that decision. Consensus is malleable and can change because of many different factors such as doubts to legitimacy or fear of costs associated. For consensus to maintain, the threat must be large enough to warrant force as the only effective response. Consensus is one of the necessary factors for MS to evoke support for intergroup (ethno-political) violence.
Another factor is justice. Regaining justice by war may overpower other more rational routes because of the associated anger and fear. In studies, the presence of a desire for justice increased support for ethno-political violence when paired with MS. Inevitability of violence is also important. When this inevitability is felt, MS leads to greater support for violent solutions.
There are also instances where MS will lead to a lessened desire for ethno-political violence. These instances include when there is a personal risk with the violence, there is an alternative to violence, experts advise against violence, or when people are induced to think rationally. These conclusions were found through studies which the text references. All of these situations are important for preventing ethno-political violence. With these, we must focus on compassion and tolerance for others. This includes focusing on common humanity. It was also shown that feelings of security in close relationships reduce the support for violence. This is probably the only part of this chapter I can relate to my expert topic of familial influence. If children are raised to feel secure, they may be less likely as adults to support ethno-political violence when confronted with MS.
I think this chapter is important because in telling us why ethno-violence occurs, we are given the knowledge to reduce it or prevent it. My question is why are world leaders not presented with this information? Why, if we can prevent ethno-political violence, do people not know how? This information should be known and used. We should make the public aware of the possible personal risks involved in war. We should provide knowledge on what some alternatives to war are. We should start with the world leaders so that they will influence their people against violent acts. We should also use strategies to promote rational thinking among the public and leaders. These strategies are important to actually put to use to reduce ethno-political violence.
Chapter 16 involved violence in relation to ethno-political conflicts and the solutions that were created from the situations. The chapter discussed intergroup conflict and what increased violence and also what made violence more acceptable between two conflicting groups. I found the two new terms listed in the chapter quite interesting and integral to how intergroup violence is assessed. The first term mentioned is Terror management theory (also known as TMT), which overall states two opposing thoughts of humanity (an instinctive desire to live paired with a human awareness of inevitable death) create paralyzing terror which needs to be effectively managed. The fact that one thought was completely instinctive (also referred to as “animal” according to the book) and the other was a purely human awareness, which is what makes this topic so interesting. The idea of a unique human thought process creating such violence is so surprising. I would think the human aspect would be what makes the more negative aspects go into retreat; however, it appears to only be a hindrance in promoting peace. Perhaps the human aspect is only considered negative when paired with the instinctive behavior.
The other term mentioned is mortality salience, which is not given an actual definition in the chapter, but is mentioned quite often. Overall, it appears to mean priming thoughts of death. When reading, it seemed mortality salience was considered a neutral term. There were many references in which a reminder of mortality would lead to more negative views of one’s outgroup, along with possibly aggressive acts. However, this appears to only happen in instances when only mortality salience was involved, along with the appearance of a strong and successful (but ultimately separate from others) ingroup. In situations that involve thinking of the deaths of loved ones (for example), whether justice is “needed”, or whether people think war is avoidable or not. It is surprising the small differences between one’s thoughts for peace and violence are.
People are much more interested in violence when the public shows support for said violence. This sort of support is the easiest to see, and it can tie in with the other reasons for a heightened support of violence. Having an enormous public opinion always seems to be an influencing factor in people’s position on violence. This is actually something we see quite often, an example of this would be during the Bush administration in our nation’s association with war. Many of us were under the impression of everyone else viewing war as positive (which may or may not be true) and led to the public’s further acceptance of participating in war. Also, the events from 9/11 led our nation to feel a need for justification from such attacks, which leads me to my next point.
It also appears people are much more willing to engage and support violence when they feel justified in their cause. This is often is intertwined with revenge, which seems to discard the rational sense. And as mentioned in the chapter, when affected by emotions and intuition often raises instances of violence and thoughts in mortality salience.
This chapter can tie in very well with the issue of genocide. The fact of the ingroup believing they are strong and successful (as mentioned earlier), leads to an unjustified belief in becoming aggressive towards another group. Certain groups might actually feel justified when these atrocities are committed (such as with the mother of a soldier mentioned in the chapter), which can often lead to support for violence if there is no actual involvement in the aggressive acts. Overall, the issue of genocide comes from violent solutions stemming from ethno-political disagreements.
Chapter 16 is a very interesting chapter. I, personally, have never been into politics or tried understanding them, so I was not looking forward to reading this chapter. However, I was thoroughly surprised by how this chapter was easy to understand and helped me not be so frustrated at trying to understand politics and war. This chapter begins by discussing Terror Management Theory (TMT). TMT states that the combination of the instinct desire to live and the awareness of inevitable death creates a terror that must be managed. They continue to discuss how this terror is the root of ethno-political war and violence. In order for terror to be managed, there must be an explanation of existence, self-esteem, and close interpersonal relationships. Studies of TMT use what they call Mortality Salience (MS). This is the priming of thoughts of death. They would use MS and look at the cultural worldview defenses.
I thought one of the most interesting things in the chapter was the 3 conditions they believe are necessary to promote ethno-political violence. In order for this violence to occur, there must be 1) consensus, 2) justice, and 3) inevitability of violence. In event, such as the war after 9/11, violence will be much more likely if there is a consensus of national support for it. In studies, after MS activities, they found that there was much more support for violence against nations if there was a perceived consensus of the action. If the goal of the act is justice, which is giving the persons what they deserve, there will be much more support of violence after MS than if the goal is utility, or trying to get the other party to stop or refrain from doing it again. Lastly, if it is perceived that violence and conflict is inevitable, the support will be much higher after MS than if there are other options available.
I thought this was very useful in examining the war that has ensued after 9/11. Immediately after the attacks, anger, betrayal, justice, and other emotions were extremely heightened. There was a large consensus that we needed to bring justice upon the persons responsible. Because of our high emotions, we did not see any alternative to bring that justice. It was inevitable that more conflict and violence would ensue. The combination of these three factors and the fact that our cultural worldviews were being attacked fueled violence instead of peace. One thing the chapter says will help alleviate this violence is when people feel they are personally, or their families, are in mortal danger. We have the drive to live. In studies conducted with the MS activities, giving people the perception that they were personally in danger or that their families were, reduced support of violence. There was also a reduction if the subjects were primed with thoughts of close interpersonal relationships after MS. If these theories hold true, at least to me, it seems as though our part in the war should be easing up. There is much less consensus today about the effects of the war. People are seeing the negative deathly costs. People are now realizing that the ones they love and they are in mortal danger. They are being more rational, which is another thing the chapter says should alleviate violence. The problem is that there has not been success in finding alternatives. Countries fail to achieve peace because of this. They still feel that their cultural worldviews are threatened and therefore they are defensive, creating violence.
It seems to me that if there is such evidence for TMT and ways to control such violence, why is nothing being done to go towards the end of it? Why are the world leaders not aware of this theory and evidence, and if they are, why are they not listening? It seems to me that this would be very valuable in ending a lot of hurt going on at the moment. “Knowledge is power”, so why aren’t we using it?
The Terror Management Theory was what I found most interesting. The way I interpreted it was that people protecting themselves can in reality can add to the terror. But also how it goes into the standards we choose to live by cause us to feel superior over a certain group rather it is political, religious, sexual preference, ethnicity, and countless more. It isn't uncommon for us as humans to feel that our way of thinking/living is the correct way and no other way. Religious views are a perfect example of this. We are taught a religion and with that we believe that no other religion is correct and is wrong. It states how American college students can tend to behave more aggressively toward other students with different political views than their own, and I could definitely see signs of this when Obama ran for President. Like stated earlier, people tend to view their "group" in a more positive light and any other group that is not theres or different in a more negative light.
This chapter helps out a lot with giving a better understanding of how genocide can come about. It's a well known fact that a lot of people view their "group" in a brighter light than other groups. Unfortunately in some cases this leads to violence, and a lot of times people feel like the only way to protect themselves from violence is by fighting back with violence. Death leads to long term security, or so people may tend to think. In most cases it leads to most violence. Death leading to long term security and satisfaction is what lead to genocide situations like the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazis had a mission to acquire what they desired and they felt the necessary move to make was the Holocaust. Killing off the group they felt stood in the way freeing up space for them to take over without interference.
I thing that is shocking to me is how people really let anger, revenge, or the need for justice cause interethnic conflict. Not all people of certain ethnic groups are the same, therefore they ALL shouldn't be treated the same. Punish the deserving. Guilty by association should be something that is left for the law to use, but not humanity because it's not fair and never leads to a good outcome. This is commonly seen where some African Americans are bitter toward all whites because of slavery, segregation, and racism. I think that is so stupid being an African American male myself! I've heard a story from a teacher who's father despised her from dating black guys simply because he had ONE altercation with a black man in the military. Holding grudges over an entire ethnic group because of an altercation with ONE person is definitely not the answer. In this chapter the TMT theory provides alternatives for situations like these, and that's why this chapter is a great chapter to read.
This chapter doesn't fit in with my topic of expertise at all, but it is very informative none the less.
I thought that this chapter provided a lot of quality information, even if it wasn’t the most exciting material to read. There were a lot of political aspects of Terrorism that had never really occurred to me before, much of which I found difficult to concentrate on. The chapter starts off by discussing the Terror Management Theory, much of which went way over my head. The definition that the text provides; “the instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror; effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that terror managed and security is provided by…” I had to reread this statement over and over again to really understand it. What I gathered is that the role of cultural worldview and interpersonal relationships plays a large part in the motivations behind terrorism. So much so, that it goes against the natural desire to want to stay alive. I addition, the cultural norms that are present in societies that have terrorism present is that living up to a name or a certain standards is very important.
I also thought that it was interesting that the chapter decided to break up the organization of terrorism; it was really helpful to think about the politics behind terrorism in separate functions. The consensus section of the chapter had a lot to do with the support and functioning of terrorist groups and organizations. In a switch of topic, the justice portion of the chapter talks more about the motivations and causes for their actions. I thought that this portion made a lot more sense, and was much easier to follow and understand. These people aren’t just fighting for their country or their beliefs; their fighting for a way of life and for what they think is right and fair. However skewed their thoughts and ways may be, it is still something that they feel very strongly about. Reading this makes terrorism seem more real and more relatable, something that almost makes me feel disgusting.
Another point that this chapter makes is the inevitability of violence. This is something that we haven’t really talked about in class, but is a very good point. Every species on earth has violence; even the most intelligent of animals. It’s a means of survival, a natural instinct. I think that the reason that humans feel as though we should rise above it is because at times our violence becomes malicious. Greed, respect, jealousy, competition, big egos and love inspire much of the violence in our human world. In the animalistic world it’s more basic aspects like survival and land ownership that generate violence. In a way, some of the terrorist attacks can reflect territory protection-as they are protecting their beliefs and in some instances their country. Some would say that our intelligence and maturity should allow us to rise above situations that lead to war and create a more peaceful way of solving problems. Unfortunately, as the chapter discusses, the issues that we care about have grown to such massive proportions, along with our egos and pride, that war is the most popular solution when it comes to conflict of major issues.
Chapter 16 focuses on ethno-political conflict and how there seems to be an underlying psychological theme that can explain it. Chapter 16 also discusses the possible alternative answers to the questions of how we can explain the mounting evidence of violence, and why every step towards peace has led to bitter violence. Possible answers to these kinds of questions are the Terror Management Theory (TMT), and the link between mortality concerns and ethno-political violence. I was actually really interested in reading this chapter, even though it really doesn’t have anything to do with my expert topic, elder abuse. It is somewhat hard to watch the news and try to make some sense of what exactly is going on in the Middle East, but this chapter seems to help me understand it a little more.
What I found to be the most interesting section in the chapter was the definition of the Terror Management Theory (TMT). I have heard of the theory before, but not in this perspective. TMT is defined as the “instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror; effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that this potential for terror be effectively managed.” The terror is managed by a cultural worldview, self-esteem, and close interpersonal relationships. What I got from this definition is that people are instinctly afraid of death, and that they act out in order to protect themselves, being their self-esteem, their cultural worldview or close interpersonal relationships. If a person feels threatened by another person who doesn’t share the same beliefs then they are more likely to act out. Also, TMT seems to relate to the superiority theory as well. By this I mean that you think that your culture is superior to everyone else’s therefore you think that the other person’s worldview is incorrect. Of course this can explain why there is ethno-political conflict. Besides money and political issues, this could explain why there is so much in the world, even though I think there are more than one reason why there is conflict and violence.
Another thing that I found to be interesting was how they have done studies to show how other cultures besides Israelis and Palestinians feel like they are superior to other cultures. It is refreshing to see studies focusing on such powerful and somewhat cocky cultures such as Americans and Italians. It was shown that American college students behave more aggressively towards those who have different political views and that Italians view their country as superior to other European countries. Another form of violence was examined in this chapter as well, which is self-violence or suicide bombers. I have known of suicide bombers and the reasons as to why they do commit such acts of violence, but I did not know all of them. I was really surprised when I read that the Palestinian suicide bombers faces are posted on walls and buildings for others to admire, and that children really do view them as role models. Also, if they were to commit the act then they would gain honor, adoration, fame, and several afterlife virgins...? According to the Terror Management Theory, this is because it provides a sense of symbolic immortality.
Justice and how it relates to ethno-political conflict was also examined. When death is salient, it is known that justice could be that there is a greater presence of violence. Both utility reasons and justice reasons were compared, but it was shown in a study that when participants are given the opportunity to endorse both justice and utility items, MS (mortality salience) has a significant effect on justice items rather than utility items.
What I liked about this chapter is that it gives a semi-solution to the problem. The text discusses that we need to achieve peace in the Middle East by making painful compromises, even if they contradict your ego, self-esteem, cultural worldview, or interpersonal relationships. I believe in this because I think that you have to give a little in order to gain a lot. You have to confront yourself in order to change. The text also offers another option for compromising, which is that policies should aim toward changing the psychological forces that promote hatred rather than denying them. I think that it is nice to be optimistic like this; but it is easier said than done.
Chapter 16: An Existential Perspective on Violent Solutions to Ethno-political Conflict, is one of the more interesting chapters we have read thus far in the semester. At the beginning of the chapter the authors pose some interesting questions: “How can we explain that despite mounting evidence of the futility of violence…there seems to be no end in sight to perpetual warfare?” (p.298). Hirschberger and Pyszczynski contend that the powerful psychological forces underlying ethno-political conflict actually impede the ability to achieve peace. They base their analysis on terror management theory. The authors define/describe terror management theory as being an “instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror; effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that this potential for terror be effectively managed” (p.298). Terror management defenses are socially constructed and therefore require ongoing validation from others. Thus, social thought and behavior is oriented toward maintaining these defenses and worldviews against threats. Evidence supporting TMT comes from studies in which thoughts of death are primed and cultural worldview defenses are examined. The priming of thoughts of death are seen as heightening mortality salience (MS). According to the authors, MS increases the motivation to invest in one’s worldview. MS also leads to avoidance, derogation, and aggression against those who pose a threat to one’s worldview. The main focus of TMT involves intergroup conflict. Studies have demonstrated that brief, unobtrusive reminders of mortality lead people to view their in-group in a more positive light, while viewing the outgroup in a negative light. Doing so opens the opportunity to derogate and even aggress against to those out-groups. Hirschberger and Pyszczynski are quick to point out however, that TMT views the effects of mortality salience on intergroup attitudes as complex and not dichotomous. There are personal and situational differences that will make individuals react differently to mortality salience. When it comes to political conflict for instance, there are additional variables that further complicate the effect of existential concerns on violent inclinations in which MS may lead to support violent solutions in some cases and not others.
In this chapter, the authors state that death concerns and violent outcomes depend on (a) social and national consensus (or perceived consensus) on the use of violence, (b) a sense that violence is justified and necessary, and (c) a sense that violence is imminent and unavoidable. As our authors point out, organized forms of violence largely depend on support of the population for whom these actions are purportedly undertaken. Case in point: the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of us can recall where we were and what we were doing the morning of Tuesday, September 11th 2001. There was an overwhelming sense of shock, sadness, and anger which made it easy for George W. Bush to carry out a full-scale war on Afghanistan and later Iraq. In order for consensus to be established and maintained it is necessary for members of the society to believe that a threat is of such magnitude that violence is the only effective response. Hirschberger and Pyszczynski claim that there is empirical support for the idea that MS elicits more consensus regarding violent responses during conflict in addition to the idea that consensus is a necessary precondition for MS to elicit support for ethno-political violence. For example, a study by Landau and colleagues (2004) demonstrated that reminders of death increased support for George Dubya and his counterterrorist policies. After consensus comes justice. They could to a certain extent go hand in hand. Consensus can be obtained when people feel that they are fighting for a just cause. However, as the authors point out, although a cause seems just and noble it does not necessarily mean that it should be achieved through violent means or that violence will prove to be effective. Often times the decision to use violence in intergroup conflict is driven by powerful emotions such as anger, revenge, and the need to restore a sense of justice that render individuals of a society blind to the utilitarian considerations of war. Furthermore, in terms of TMT, when death is salient, these emotions or justice motives supersede any rational analysis of violent conflict. The authors provide readers with four different studies to support these ideas.
Hirschberger and Pyszczynski also discuss conditions that may disrupt the link between death concerns and support for violent solutions to conflict. These conditions include: (a) perceived personal vulnerability to conflict-related injury or death is high, (b) adversary rhetoric raises the possibility of a nonviolent solution, (c) experts advise that violence is counterproductive, and (d) people are induced to think rationally (p.308).
Lastly, the authors argue that emphasizing basic human values and human similarities promote more peaceful motives even when death is salient. I find this curious given the fact that one of the first stages of genocide involves depersonalization. Psychologically and socially speaking, portraying individuals from the outgroup as sub-human or second class citizens make it far easier to justify the extermination of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Perhaps reminding societies that members who comprise an outgroup are human and do have human similarities could stop or prevent intergroup violence such as genocide. It remains to be seen if doing so is enough to solve such a complex and fatal dilemma.
I agree with the above blogs that Chapter 16 was much more interesting and appeared more applicable to further my understanding of violence. Although this chapter is focused on ethno-political conflict, I feel that the information presented can be beneficial in understanding violence overall and could be applicable on an individual basis as well, I will ellaborate more on this thought throughout the chapter.
The text identifies two main concepts throughout the chapter, the Terror Management Theory and MS- heightenig mortality salience. The information presented throughout this chapter identified the relationship to violence regarding these concepts and offered insight to understanding these concepts as a means to further the readers overall understanding of ethno-political conflict.
The Terror Management theory is conceptualized as "the instinctive animal desire for continuued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror; effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that this potential for terror be effectively managed." The text continues to identify ways to manage this terror and provide security by developing a consistent, secure worldview that all can live up to, self-esteem to live up to this worldview and engaging in healthy interpersonal relationships. The text suggests that to reduce the perceived felt terror, ongoing validation from others is essential and the perceived felt terror tends to increase when faced by individuals who have a different system of values and beliefs that are threatening your own. It continues by summarizing that violence tends to increase when a groups sense of superiority and worldview is challenged by others.
There were several important key factors indentified throughout the text to better understand TMT and MS and the relationship with violence. One point that I found very interesting and applicable was the identified links between death concerns and violent outcomes. The text indicated that three major conditions would need to be applied including; social and national consensus on the use of violence, a sense that violence is justified and necessary and a sense that violence is imminent and unavoidable. By considering these conditions when analyzing ethno-political violence, it provides a clear understanding of the motivation of violence and can provide the opportunity to develop clear interventions in attempts to reduce violent outcomes. I feel that this concept can also increase our understanding of violence on an individual level as well. We could begin by analyzing the societal view on violence. For example, how does society react to intimate personal violence such as spousal abuse. Then identify the individuals thought process regarding their values and beliefs about the use of violence, their perception about violence may be significantly impacted on what they have been exposed to throughout their life, their individual perception may impact what they believe is appropriate and what is not, for example, the use of corporal punishment for children. Next you can determine if the individual believes that violence was unavoidable or imminent. An example of this could possibly be a women involved in a violent relationshihp eventually retaliates. They may perceive that the violence with unavoidable and immenent, but were going to be in control of who the next victim was going to be, themselves or the persistent perpetrator.
There were several more key elements outlined in this chapter, but the concept I presented above was the most interesting and thought provoking for me. The text concludes by suggesting ways to analyze TMT and MS and apply the information to better enhance our understanding of violence overall. One of the suggestions presented was developing policies that focus on changing the psychological forces that promote hatred and enhance peace making policies. I feel this suggestion is very insightful and could be used in a positive manner to address appropriate interventions to address and decrease the prevalence of violence overall.
Chapter 16 is all about ethno-political conflict, so it fits really well with this week’s topic. The chapter focuses on a theory called Terror Management Theory (TMT) to explain some of the conflicts that are ongoing in the world, as well as some of the past conflicts. Of course, no one theory will solve everything, as the authors acknowledge, but they do a convincing job of using TMT.
The authors start by defining TMT as an explanation for why people support violence. People are more likely to support violence is they feel that their lives are at stake (MS, or mortality salience). It would seem that death is the only thing that makes people feel that violence is a viable option at the ethno-political level…differences in politics or religion alone are not likely to produce feelings of mass violence (war), although they may produce some lower level of aggression. After someone has been exposed to MS, there are three other factors that greatly increase the chance that they will endorse war: consensus (or the thought that there is consensus), justice, and a feeling that violence is inevitable anyway. By contrast, if someone believes that there is not consensus, that the war is not justifiable or necessary, or feels that there is a more peaceful way to solve the problem; they are much more likely to not support war, even if they have been exposed to MS. There are some other things that will reduce support of war as well, and those are: having a lot of secure attachments, using your brain instead of your feelings, and having a higher potential of being hurt or killed. It would seem that if you live in the area where the fighting will take place, you are less likely to want fighting there. (That was not a surprise to me. Anyone else?) Also, the motto “follow your heart” is not something people should live by. Feelings are often wrong and following your feelings can very well have bad consequences. Of course, like anything else, that’s not 100% true 100% of the time…there are times when your instincts are correct and your feelings can save your life. Usually, though, it’s much better to look at all the facts and try look for all solutions first. Finally, if someone has secure relationships, there are going to be more likely to look at the costs and benefits rather than someone who doesn’t have anything or anyone to lose. At the end of the chapter, the authors discussed a few ways to try to end violence: ensuring secure attachments, focusing on humanity rather than groups, and teaching compassionate religious values. Since I’ve already discussed the secure attachments, I’ll leave it at that except to say that that’s not exactly something that can just be taught in school. It’s something that really starts with parents. As for focusing on humanity rather than groups, it’s a great idea and can be taught a little easier than secure attachments. There are differences, every person is unique, but we don’t want to teach that those differences are bad. Also, focusing on your group as the best group is stupid. Especially in America, where we’ve got such a rich, vibrant culture because of all the different people influencing it, we should know better. There is no one person that is better than another, and that goes for groups as well. It’s incredibly important to teach this. As for teaching compassionate religious values, that’s a good idea too. Every religion teaches compassion. I consider myself to be a pretty religious person, and I would say that the vast majority of the Bible teaches that you need to be compassionate, that God loves everybody equally, that He made us all, and that if someone doesn’t believe in Him as you may do, you still need to love them and treat them with respect and empathy. Since Christianity flows from Judaism, Judaism obviously teaches the same things. I took a world religions class at Hawkeye, and know that the Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc) while not necessarily teaching the same things about God, do teach compassion. Islam does as well, and is considered to be a Western religion like Christianity and Judaism. They call God by a different name, but He is considered to be the same God.
I liked this chapter, even though it has nothing to do with my expert topic of sadistic rapists. Probably the most interesting part was reading about TMT (in other words, the whole chapter). I had never heard of the theory before and it makes sense, not to mention that it has some good evidence backing it. The saddest part was when I read that suicide bombers are considered to be good role models for a lot of Middle Eastern children. I feel incredibly sorry for those children who are being told that hate and violence are things to value and that in order to be respected and get to heaven, they should sacrifice themselves. However, a culture of violence isn’t exactly a Middle Eastern thing… in America, we tell our kids that violence is cool. The second biggest movie this last weekend was Scream 4, which is all about killing people. While we certainly need to stop ethno-political violence, I have a feeling we won’t be able to unless we stop glorifying violence at both an individual and a cultural level.
Chapter 16 was a refreshing change from last week’s reading. The focus of this chapter involved ethno-political conflict, but I felt much of the information was informative in the aspects of violence in any group setting. The chapter consisted of many ideas and themes related to this area of violence specifically focusing on terror management theory and how it relates to intergroup conflict. Also, discussion regarding conditions relating the link between intergroup violence and mortality such as consensus, justice, and the inevitability of conflict were discussed.
The initial quote that caught my attention in reading the chapter was “Every round of violence ends with a new shaky agreement that differs ever so slightly from the shaky agreement that preceded the most recent violent outbreak.” Being someone who does not support the idea of war as any kind of progressive movement for the people of a country, I found this quote to make a lot of sense. This chapter did a nice job of discussing the psychological factors of ethno-political conflict and how these conflicts persist even though many people feel this kind of violence is wrong.
Terror management theory is a new theory to me. It posits that terror is managed when individuals hold a worldview that gives an explanation for our existence, individuals have self-esteem gained by believing that worldview and meeting those standards, and individuals having close interpersonal relationships. Therefore, when a perceived threat is felt against one’s worldview or their values, they are more likely to become defensive which can progress to anger or negative feelings towards those who are doing the threatening. The chapter often gives examples of religious groups fighting against one another, as well as the 9/11 attacks.
The idea of mortality salience was discussed in depth and that the link between death and violent outcomes depended on consensus, justice, and inevitability of conflict. Having a sense of “death awareness” allows for the dichotomy of thinking us versus them. In discussing the condition of consensus as it relates to violence, the book explains how it can be two sided. On one side, consensus initially can then change to frustration or anger or disappointment if the outcome was not what was initially anticipated. On the other side, consensus can be positive as it can lessen anxiety. It is discussed that for consensus to be maintained, the belief that a threat is so severe that it requires violent force allows for consensus to be appropriately established. For example, during war times the president and government prefer for the majority of the country to be on board for going to war. If it is portrayed that the other country is of such threat, than it only makes sense for us to go bomb the heck out of them…and the country will approve of it. Can we say weapons of mass destruction???
The second condition explains how justice relates to approval of violence. If it is thought that the cause is noble or worthy enough to fight for or against, and the consensus is that it is then the acceptance of violence may be more tolerated. The expected utility theory is discussed and described as a way political scientists are able to analyze reasons of war by describing the costs and benefits. Analyzing war in a way that explains what those in favor of it see as beneficial and those who are against it see as costly, can allow for a more broad understanding of the issue.
The condition of the inevitability of violence explains that while consensus and justice assist in thinking more positively about war, it also helps if people feel there is no other option and war is the only way. For example, after 9/11 many people who did not favor the idea of war felt it was inevitable because we were attacked on our territory, the attack was so severe, or whatever their definition of inevitable fit in to.
This chapter provided a lot of information that I felt was relevant to group thinking and collective violence. The conditions of consensus, justice, and inevitability can often be changed or deterred by what or how others are thinking or feeling about an issue. When it comes to war, feelings and energies can be extremely tense and anxious and often any way to escape or avoid the sense of chaos is favored.
Chapter 16, An Existential Perspective on Violent Solutions to Ethno-political Conflict, concerned the issue of obtaining peace in a seemingly violent method of conflict resolution. The author's begin by arguing that there are psychological forces beneath ethno-political conflict, that hinder the ability to make the rational choice of gaining and maintaining peace.
The chapter focuses on Terror Mangagement Theory, which I have never been acquainted with. The premise of this theory is that the instinctive desire for life paired with the awareness of having to eventually die creates terror, and this terror must be managed through regulating behaviors. The authors name several ways this terror is managed, but the main point is that they all require validation from others in order to effectively function. When others differ in beliefs that cause contridiction between persons, it creates a threat to anothers views, culture, and beliefs. This causes group conflict. The overall conclusion is that when one feels their life is in danger (the authors call is MS or morality salience), they are more likely to support violence to resolve conflict.
Three conditions either aleviate or support MS: perceived consensus, justice, and inevitablity of conflict. The authors cite several studies to demonstrate the presence and strength of these three factors plays a role in the use of violence between groups of people. As the degree of these three conditions heightens, acceptance of violence also raises.
I thought the next section of how MS can lead to less violence was very interesting. The different factors are perceived personal vulnerability to conflict-related injury or death is high, adversary rhetoric raises the possiblity of a nonviolent solution, experts advise that violence is counterproductive, and people are induced to think rationally. This all makes sense and can be applied in real-life exampes. All of these factors play a role in decisions we make, not only about violence but in other areas of life as well. These factors suggest we are rational actors who make decisions based on cost and benefit. While this may not always be true, I can see how it would affect ethno-political decisions about violence.
This chapter really did not apply to my expert topic but it was very interesting to read and I learned a lot about ethno-political violence.
After reading chapter 16, I have to agree with Angela's post in that many of the base concepts in this chapter really can be applied to a variety of different types of violence. I feel as though with the political climate as it is, wars raging in various parts of the world, it is important to understand motives for violence from an educational viewpoint and also to find better ways to stifle further violence as a society. The text says "..humans are defensive violence-prone creatures in one way or another." I like that. on a personal level we all feel we are rational well behaved individuals, we are right in our beliefs and standards, and the others just need to see it our way. The problem is when "the others" are in the same mind set and the conflict is big enough to bring about damages on an unbelievably large scale. This may be a gross simplification but I feel like this is one of the points the chapter was trying to get across to the reader.
Terror management theory (TMT) was not a new concept for me, but I feel as if the author made the entire concept more accessable. I liked the way TMT was broken down and examples given for how it can be applied to the various concepts such as justice, self protection, and intergroup conflict in general. I think I have a better understanding of TMT now than I did before reading the chapter.
I thought alot of the research on how TMT and mortality salience (MS) interact with eachother in various scenarios was really interesting. I like to think about the application of the research to help reduce the amount of violence going on in various politically charged regions today. I know it is much easier said than done, and peoples minds cannot be swayed so easily when it comes to core belief systems, but as an optimist I would hope that someday we can make those global comprimises that will reduce if not eliminate violence of such a large scale, if only for a small bit of time. while world peace is still just a whimsical hope for us die hard optimists at least I can sleep better at night knowing that there are researchers out there working to find out why the human race is such an angry violent group. We may not be curable but maybe someday we can subdue our violent nature.
Chapter 16 focuses on ethno-political conflict which definitely relates to this week’s topic. It was also one of the more interesting chapter to read—I didn’t feel like pulling my hair out trying to get my way through it! The authors argue that powerful psychological forces underlie ethno-political conflict and become somewhat of an obstacle in achieving peace even in situations where achieving peace seems like the rational decision. The author’s base their argument on research done demonstrating the Terror Management Theory (TMT). The TMT states that the “instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror.” Most research focused on TMT typically looks at intergroup relations which goes right along with this week’s topic of genocide. TMT also argues that the potential for terror must be effectively managed by 1. a cultural worldview that promotes personal value by following set standards and provides why people exist; 2. self esteem which is obtained by believing in the cultural worldview and following its standards, and 3. having closing interpersonal relationships. The authors then discuss how terror management studies have used a process of priming thoughts of death, or increasing mortality salience (MS), and looking at cultural worldview defenses. Findings from these studies suggest that MS increases a person’s motivation to invest in their worldview and avoid and/or behave aggressively against people who threaten their worldview. I thought it was interesting that these effects only appeared when thoughts of death were primed. The chapter moves on to talk about three conditions that, after people are exposed to MS, will increase the chance that those people will support war: 1. consensus (of the nation’s population); 2. justice; and 3. inevitability of conflict. The text discusses a study in which results suggest that for MS to elicit support for war (in this case suicidal terrorism), participants had to think or feel that there was a consensus of all the participants in supporting that type of violence. Justice is established when people feel they are fighting for a good, just, and noble cause. The authors suggest that, in accordance with the TMT, when death is relevant, motives for justice become most important and may overlook utilitartian considerations to the point that engaging in violence may occur even when it is ‘counter to the rational self-interest.” The chapter continues on with discussion about how, in order to obtain support for a war, it partially requires the nation’s population to believe that going to war is the only option and that war is unavoidable. The chapter gives the example of 9/11 and how after the attack the American public believed violence against Islamic radicals and terrorists was going to happen whether they wanted it to or not. Going along with the inevitability of violence, the chapter states that recent research supports the idea that when violence is seen as something that is unavoidable/inevitable, MS leads to greater support for violent solutions to conflict.
Chapter sixteen in our handbook discusses different ethno-political conflict and genocide. The chapter begins by citing the events of 2009 between Israel and Hamas. This, to me, was a really interesting and logical way to start a discussion about genocide. The author of this particular chapter then goes on to discuss what they call the 'Terror Management Theory'. This theory states that, "...the instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror, effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that this potential terror be effectively managed." This terror, (according to the chapter) can be managed by; a cultural world view that provides an explanation for existence, higher self-esteem, and closer interpersonal relationships.
The handbook then goes on to relate terror management with intergroup conflict. The article sites studies that have shown how people tend to regard their own group(s) as more superior than other groups. This, in turn, encourages them to initiate conflict when they feel their views and ideas are being challenged. More specifically, the article mentions that intergroup violence is linked to three things; perceived consensus, justice, and inevitability of conflict.
The article concludes by talking about how self-protection helps to moderate political violence. This theory states that, deep down, people are more concerned with their own protection and safety than getting revenge on another person or group of people. If we bring this concern to the surface and make it more immediate, then they will be less likely to want to participate in acts of intergroup violence.
To me, this chapter was really interesting and a very great lead in to our discussion on genocide. The most interesting part of this chapter was where they discussed the different factors that lead to intergroup violence. I never thought that perceived consensus would have been a factor. It always seemed that one group didn't need consensus before they went and acted violently towards another group. For example, with the Holocaust. The Germans most definitely did not have permission from the Jewish community to pack them all up and ship them off to concentration camps. The only reason they did that was because the Nazis were spreading propoganda saying that the Jews were "horrible" people and "less than human". Of course, the Holocaust is just one example of genocide and ethno-political violence.
However, it was still interesting to think that there had to be some sort of perceived consensus that the two groups both felt that violence would occur and was almost necessary. It makes me want to reserach other reported acts of genocide and entho-political violence and see how it stacks up to what the book said.
Sadly, this chapter did not help me at all with my expert topic. I do not think it would make much sense to relate bullying to intergroup violence. Bullying is much more personal and far less violent than any intergroup violence or genocide.
Even though this chapter did not relate to my specific expert topic and other topics I have been interested in looking at in regards to violence, it was still very interesting and made me think of genocide and ethno-political violence in a very different light.
Chapter 16 has to do with why ethno-political violence happens and how to resolve it. A big part of this chapter is terror management theory. TMT says that people have an instinctive desire to stay alive but also have the awareness that death is inevitable. This can create terror. This terror must be managed to regulate behavior. This terror is managed by having an explanation for existence, self-esteem, and close interpersonal relationships. If these things are challenged, violent defense may ensue. Heightening mortality salience (MS) is used in many studies cited in this chapter. It has been shown to lead to “avoidance, derogation, and aggression against worldview-threatening others.” There is a definite link between MS and support of intergroup violence depending on perceived consensus, justice, and inevitability of conflict.
When leaders and others feel the right move to make is a violent one, it is more likely that one will support that decision. Consensus is malleable and can change because of many different factors such as doubts to legitimacy or fear of costs associated. For consensus to maintain, the threat must be large enough to warrant force as the only effective response. Consensus is one of the necessary factors for MS to evoke support for intergroup (ethno-political) violence.
Another factor is justice. Regaining justice by war may overpower other more rational routes because of the associated anger and fear. In studies, the presence of a desire for justice increased support for ethno-political violence when paired with MS. Inevitability of violence is also important. When this inevitability is felt, MS leads to greater support for violent solutions.
There are also instances where MS will lead to a lessened desire for ethno-political violence. These instances include when there is a personal risk with the violence, there is an alternative to violence, experts advise against violence, or when people are induced to think rationally. These conclusions were found through studies which the text references. All of these situations are important for preventing ethno-political violence. With these, we must focus on compassion and tolerance for others. This includes focusing on common humanity. It was also shown that feelings of security in close relationships reduce the support for violence. This is probably the only part of this chapter I can relate to my expert topic of familial influence. If children are raised to feel secure, they may be less likely as adults to support ethno-political violence when confronted with MS.
I think this chapter is important because in telling us why ethno-violence occurs, we are given the knowledge to reduce it or prevent it. My question is why are world leaders not presented with this information? Why, if we can prevent ethno-political violence, do people not know how? This information should be known and used. We should make the public aware of the possible personal risks involved in war. We should provide knowledge on what some alternatives to war are. We should start with the world leaders so that they will influence their people against violent acts. We should also use strategies to promote rational thinking among the public and leaders. These strategies are important to actually put to use to reduce ethno-political violence.
Chapter 16 involved violence in relation to ethno-political conflicts and the solutions that were created from the situations. The chapter discussed intergroup conflict and what increased violence and also what made violence more acceptable between two conflicting groups. I found the two new terms listed in the chapter quite interesting and integral to how intergroup violence is assessed. The first term mentioned is Terror management theory (also known as TMT), which overall states two opposing thoughts of humanity (an instinctive desire to live paired with a human awareness of inevitable death) create paralyzing terror which needs to be effectively managed. The fact that one thought was completely instinctive (also referred to as “animal” according to the book) and the other was a purely human awareness, which is what makes this topic so interesting. The idea of a unique human thought process creating such violence is so surprising. I would think the human aspect would be what makes the more negative aspects go into retreat; however, it appears to only be a hindrance in promoting peace. Perhaps the human aspect is only considered negative when paired with the instinctive behavior.
The other term mentioned is mortality salience, which is not given an actual definition in the chapter, but is mentioned quite often. Overall, it appears to mean priming thoughts of death. When reading, it seemed mortality salience was considered a neutral term. There were many references in which a reminder of mortality would lead to more negative views of one’s outgroup, along with possibly aggressive acts. However, this appears to only happen in instances when only mortality salience was involved, along with the appearance of a strong and successful (but ultimately separate from others) ingroup. In situations that involve thinking of the deaths of loved ones (for example), whether justice is “needed”, or whether people think war is avoidable or not. It is surprising the small differences between one’s thoughts for peace and violence are.
People are much more interested in violence when the public shows support for said violence. This sort of support is the easiest to see, and it can tie in with the other reasons for a heightened support of violence. Having an enormous public opinion always seems to be an influencing factor in people’s position on violence. This is actually something we see quite often, an example of this would be during the Bush administration in our nation’s association with war. Many of us were under the impression of everyone else viewing war as positive (which may or may not be true) and led to the public’s further acceptance of participating in war. Also, the events from 9/11 led our nation to feel a need for justification from such attacks, which leads me to my next point.
It also appears people are much more willing to engage and support violence when they feel justified in their cause. This is often is intertwined with revenge, which seems to discard the rational sense. And as mentioned in the chapter, when affected by emotions and intuition often raises instances of violence and thoughts in mortality salience.
This chapter can tie in very well with the issue of genocide. The fact of the ingroup believing they are strong and successful (as mentioned earlier), leads to an unjustified belief in becoming aggressive towards another group. Certain groups might actually feel justified when these atrocities are committed (such as with the mother of a soldier mentioned in the chapter), which can often lead to support for violence if there is no actual involvement in the aggressive acts. Overall, the issue of genocide comes from violent solutions stemming from ethno-political disagreements.
Chapter 16 is a very interesting chapter. I, personally, have never been into politics or tried understanding them, so I was not looking forward to reading this chapter. However, I was thoroughly surprised by how this chapter was easy to understand and helped me not be so frustrated at trying to understand politics and war. This chapter begins by discussing Terror Management Theory (TMT). TMT states that the combination of the instinct desire to live and the awareness of inevitable death creates a terror that must be managed. They continue to discuss how this terror is the root of ethno-political war and violence. In order for terror to be managed, there must be an explanation of existence, self-esteem, and close interpersonal relationships. Studies of TMT use what they call Mortality Salience (MS). This is the priming of thoughts of death. They would use MS and look at the cultural worldview defenses.
I thought one of the most interesting things in the chapter was the 3 conditions they believe are necessary to promote ethno-political violence. In order for this violence to occur, there must be 1) consensus, 2) justice, and 3) inevitability of violence. In event, such as the war after 9/11, violence will be much more likely if there is a consensus of national support for it. In studies, after MS activities, they found that there was much more support for violence against nations if there was a perceived consensus of the action. If the goal of the act is justice, which is giving the persons what they deserve, there will be much more support of violence after MS than if the goal is utility, or trying to get the other party to stop or refrain from doing it again. Lastly, if it is perceived that violence and conflict is inevitable, the support will be much higher after MS than if there are other options available.
I thought this was very useful in examining the war that has ensued after 9/11. Immediately after the attacks, anger, betrayal, justice, and other emotions were extremely heightened. There was a large consensus that we needed to bring justice upon the persons responsible. Because of our high emotions, we did not see any alternative to bring that justice. It was inevitable that more conflict and violence would ensue. The combination of these three factors and the fact that our cultural worldviews were being attacked fueled violence instead of peace. One thing the chapter says will help alleviate this violence is when people feel they are personally, or their families, are in mortal danger. We have the drive to live. In studies conducted with the MS activities, giving people the perception that they were personally in danger or that their families were, reduced support of violence. There was also a reduction if the subjects were primed with thoughts of close interpersonal relationships after MS. If these theories hold true, at least to me, it seems as though our part in the war should be easing up. There is much less consensus today about the effects of the war. People are seeing the negative deathly costs. People are now realizing that the ones they love and they are in mortal danger. They are being more rational, which is another thing the chapter says should alleviate violence. The problem is that there has not been success in finding alternatives. Countries fail to achieve peace because of this. They still feel that their cultural worldviews are threatened and therefore they are defensive, creating violence.
It seems to me that if there is such evidence for TMT and ways to control such violence, why is nothing being done to go towards the end of it? Why are the world leaders not aware of this theory and evidence, and if they are, why are they not listening? It seems to me that this would be very valuable in ending a lot of hurt going on at the moment. “Knowledge is power”, so why aren’t we using it?
The Terror Management Theory was what I found most interesting. The way I interpreted it was that people protecting themselves can in reality can add to the terror. But also how it goes into the standards we choose to live by cause us to feel superior over a certain group rather it is political, religious, sexual preference, ethnicity, and countless more. It isn't uncommon for us as humans to feel that our way of thinking/living is the correct way and no other way. Religious views are a perfect example of this. We are taught a religion and with that we believe that no other religion is correct and is wrong. It states how American college students can tend to behave more aggressively toward other students with different political views than their own, and I could definitely see signs of this when Obama ran for President. Like stated earlier, people tend to view their "group" in a more positive light and any other group that is not theres or different in a more negative light.
This chapter helps out a lot with giving a better understanding of how genocide can come about. It's a well known fact that a lot of people view their "group" in a brighter light than other groups. Unfortunately in some cases this leads to violence, and a lot of times people feel like the only way to protect themselves from violence is by fighting back with violence. Death leads to long term security, or so people may tend to think. In most cases it leads to most violence. Death leading to long term security and satisfaction is what lead to genocide situations like the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazis had a mission to acquire what they desired and they felt the necessary move to make was the Holocaust. Killing off the group they felt stood in the way freeing up space for them to take over without interference.
I thing that is shocking to me is how people really let anger, revenge, or the need for justice cause interethnic conflict. Not all people of certain ethnic groups are the same, therefore they ALL shouldn't be treated the same. Punish the deserving. Guilty by association should be something that is left for the law to use, but not humanity because it's not fair and never leads to a good outcome. This is commonly seen where some African Americans are bitter toward all whites because of slavery, segregation, and racism. I think that is so stupid being an African American male myself! I've heard a story from a teacher who's father despised her from dating black guys simply because he had ONE altercation with a black man in the military. Holding grudges over an entire ethnic group because of an altercation with ONE person is definitely not the answer. In this chapter the TMT theory provides alternatives for situations like these, and that's why this chapter is a great chapter to read.
This chapter doesn't fit in with my topic of expertise at all, but it is very informative none the less.
I thought that this chapter provided a lot of quality information, even if it wasn’t the most exciting material to read. There were a lot of political aspects of Terrorism that had never really occurred to me before, much of which I found difficult to concentrate on. The chapter starts off by discussing the Terror Management Theory, much of which went way over my head. The definition that the text provides; “the instinctive animal desire for continued life juxtaposed with the uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death creates a potential for paralyzing terror; effective regulation of ongoing human behavior requires that terror managed and security is provided by…” I had to reread this statement over and over again to really understand it. What I gathered is that the role of cultural worldview and interpersonal relationships plays a large part in the motivations behind terrorism. So much so, that it goes against the natural desire to want to stay alive. I addition, the cultural norms that are present in societies that have terrorism present is that living up to a name or a certain standards is very important.
I also thought that it was interesting that the chapter decided to break up the organization of terrorism; it was really helpful to think about the politics behind terrorism in separate functions. The consensus section of the chapter had a lot to do with the support and functioning of terrorist groups and organizations. In a switch of topic, the justice portion of the chapter talks more about the motivations and causes for their actions. I thought that this portion made a lot more sense, and was much easier to follow and understand. These people aren’t just fighting for their country or their beliefs; their fighting for a way of life and for what they think is right and fair. However skewed their thoughts and ways may be, it is still something that they feel very strongly about. Reading this makes terrorism seem more real and more relatable, something that almost makes me feel disgusting.
Another point that this chapter makes is the inevitability of violence. This is something that we haven’t really talked about in class, but is a very good point. Every species on earth has violence; even the most intelligent of animals. It’s a means of survival, a natural instinct. I think that the reason that humans feel as though we should rise above it is because at times our violence becomes malicious. Greed, respect, jealousy, competition, big egos and love inspire much of the violence in our human world. In the animalistic world it’s more basic aspects like survival and land ownership that generate violence. In a way, some of the terrorist attacks can reflect territory protection-as they are protecting their beliefs and in some instances their country. Some would say that our intelligence and maturity should allow us to rise above situations that lead to war and create a more peaceful way of solving problems. Unfortunately, as the chapter discusses, the issues that we care about have grown to such massive proportions, along with our egos and pride, that war is the most popular solution when it comes to conflict of major issues.