- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
ondelette (October 7, 2008 07:24 A):
ondelette: The reasons I am separating the people at the top of the food chain from those beneath should not be so obscure that you cannot see them, unless you are determined to make everyone who inhabits that chain fundamentally different than yourself, which they are not.
That's quite a howler, ondelette. I have no desire whatsoever to delude myself that I am fundamentally different, biologically, psychologically, or spiritually from George W. Bush or William Graner. However, judging from their behavior vis a vis Abu Ghraib, it's evident to me that different tendencies certainly predominate, in our respective psyches. Specifically, if Miller's hypothesis is correct, as I think it is, Bush and Graner were quite probably brutalized more systematically and/or egregiously as children than was I.
Moreover, are you oblivious of the fact that the burden of proof is on you to legitimize your "separation" of the psychologies of Bush, Graner, and me? What fundamental differences do you perceive in the psyches of those who order torture and of those who "only" carry out those orders?
ondelette: They are not all sworn soldiers in the authoritarian brigade, determined to implement a regime of suffering and control mankind. Besides, one should always separate the decision makers from the workers, the former are accountable for what happens, the latter only responsible for what they have done. That's basic organizational understanding.
What conceivable distinction are you attempting to draw between accountability "for what happens" as opposed to being "only responsible for what they have done"? Are you attempting to rehabilitate the Eichmann defense, that Graner was only following orders and is, therefore, nicht schuldig?
And how do you account for the behavior of Abu Ghraib MP Thomas Hardy, who was exposed to all the contemporaneous pressures to which Graner was, yet was so repulsed by what he saw that he blew the whistle on it?
As Philip Zimbardo has written:
"Most psychologists who have actually read my newest book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (2007) will readily identify my research orientation as that of a 'social interactionist.' Social psychologists, like myself, follow the Lewinian tradition of studying individual and group behavior in situational-social contexts (See Ross & Nisbett, 1991). We do so because as I say up front, 'People and situations are usually in a state of dynamic interaction.' (Lucifer, p. 8) I go on to define these concepts as follows: 'The Person is an actor on the stage of life whose behavioral freedom is informed by his or her makeup--genetic, biological, physical, and psychological. The Situation is the behavioral context that has the power, through its reward and normative functions, to give meaning and identity to the actor’s roles and status.' (Lucifer, p. 445)"
Is it fair to say that your interpretation of Rejali is reflective of your being a die-hard situationist who has little or no use for dispositional factors in accounting for human behavior, including the torturing of others?
If not, how can you possibly reject out of hand, as you do, Miller's "child psychology" hypothesis of childhood trauma as determinative in adult manifestations of sado-masochistic behavior, up to and including torture?
