Over Humanizing the Enemy

Tech Central Station ^ | 2-3-04 | Dr. Helen Smith

[LadyDoc]

Over-Humanizing the Enemy

By Dr. Helen Smith Published 02/03/2004 Violence breeds violence -- but so can nonviolence. This is often forgotten in the debate over terrorism, as illustrated in some reviews of the new book by David Frum and Richard Perle, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Perle and Frum lay out a bold plan to defend America. But more important than their specific proposals, they provide insight into how our leaders are confronting -- or not confronting -- the war on terrorism.

As a forensic psychologist, what I found most worthwhile about the book was this unapologetic attitude toward terrorists and terrorism. I believe the authors are correct when they promote strong tactics in dealing with terrorists. In fact, I believe that the liberal stance of trying too hard to "humanize" our enemies is a mistake that will make the problem worse, and produce more violence rather than less.

Frum and Perle's view is not popular among the media elite. Case in point: a New York Times review by Michiko Kakutani that criticizes the authors as they

"purvey a worldview of us-versus-them, all-or-nothing, either-or, and this outlook results in a refusal to countenance the possibility that people who do not share the authors' views about the war in Iraq or their faith in a pre-emptive, unilateralist foreign policy might have legitimate reasons for doing so."

I suppose it follows from this statement that Kakutani would rather promote understanding and empathy with respect to injuries that Muslims feel they have suffered at the hands of the United States. No surprise here: Frum and Perle state that some commentators even suggested that Islamic anti-Americanism should be regarded as an understandable reaction to the materialism and hedonism of American life, as refracted through MTV, pornography, and the Internet. Apparently, they were anticipating Kakutani's review. In a Clintonian sort of approach, some Americans seem to believe that if we can "feel our enemies' pain," then we will be on the path to enlightenment and peace. This belief could not be further from the truth.

In my private practice, I don't work with terrorists but I do work with violent people. I used to believe (as many of my colleagues still do) that empathizing with my patients and increasing their self-esteem would help them on the path to self-actualization. Of course, for some anxiety-ridden patients who need faith in themselves, the technique of empathy and support works. However, for those patients with serious violent tendencies, just the opposite is true. With those patients, I've found that setting clear boundaries and making judgments about their immoral behavior works like a charm.

Those patients who threatened me backed down only when I got up in their face and told them forcefully to stop -- the slightest hint of fear or intimidation (or sympathy!) on my part was met with increased threats. In the real world of private practice, confronting real murderers, I learned to act in ways that were different from what I had been taught in graduate school.

Unfortunately, there are still those in the ivory tower who have not learned this valuable lesson. They continue to believe that to humanize and to empathize with violent students, professors, and terrorists is the only way to treat those who wish to do them harm. In fact, however, the old saw "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" applies. Without clear boundaries, and a sense of consequences, their behavior will spiral out of control until they injure themselves and others.

This seems to be the case where America's limp response to terrorism in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s is concerned (Osama bin Laden reportedly joked that the worst Americans would do in response to 9/11 was file a lawsuit.) It's also the case with crimes closer to home. As a recent study of mine indicates, university administrators often think that angry, violent students and faculty can be placated if they are understood and given what they ask for -- just like terrorists. But in recent university shootings, just the opposite happened.

Valery Fabrikant was a mechanical engineering professor at Concordia University in Canada who, after being denied tenure, murdered four of his colleagues. Apparently, the professor's rudeness and disruptive behavior had started a good ten years before he opened fire on his colleagues. He even boasted to others that he planned to shoot various professors and take hostages -- but instead of being disciplined or fired for this outrageous behavior, he was promoted and given raises. Many of the faculty were too frightened or impotent to take action against Mr. Fabrikant. One of the senior members of the engineering department even insisted that "giving Fabrikant what he wanted would bring out the best in him." Instead of acting to subdue his anger, giving in to his demands time and time again encouraged him to act in more and more outrageous ways, and eventually sent him on a killing spree.

In a similar case at the Appalachian Law School in 2002, a student by the name of Peter Odighizuwa murdered three and wounded three others before being subdued at gunpoint by his fellow students. Dean L. Anthony Sutin had helped Odighizuwa get into law school and even allowed him back in after he had flunked out the first time. Sutin and the school helped him get a loan, and to buy a car and a computer. Odighizuwa was known for his belligerent manner and threats to harm others. But in the academic world where nonviolence and understanding are believed to work wonders, no one bothered to tell Odighizuwa that his behavior was unacceptable. Once he flunked a second time, he was told he had to go, but instead he took the lives of some of the people who had helped him the most.

As any parent can attest, it's hard to punish those close to you. Social psychologists tell us that people strongly disapprove of punitive actions and rarely excuse them when they are directed at persons depicted in humanized terms. Psychological studies also show it is hard to be harsh toward others when they are humanized or even personalized a bit. This is why defense lawyers have their clients dress up in nice clothes and include personal information about them in trials. It makes their clients seem more human and less likely to receive a severe punishment, despite the fact that they may have murdered someone. Likewise, when the media and academics personalize terrorists to the extent that the American public feels they "know them," it is hard to support acting in ways that are incongruent with our treatment of someone we know. But in trying so hard to humanize the enemy -- who, remember, hates us -- we wind up dehumanizing ourselves, and in the process we do the victims of terrorists and murderers an injustice.

I've seen this in murder cases too, where psychologists and social-services workers are more interested in helping the murderer than in seeking justice. The victim, I'm sometimes told rather callously, is already dead.

Frum and Perle remind us that many would treat international terrorists the same way we treat domestic murderers: as sick people to be cured, without regard to the dignity of those they kill. In our attempt to be overly-tolerant and empathetic, we start to identify too much with the enemy (very much like those suffering from Stockholm syndrome) and start to dehumanize the victims of terror. Surely, the victims of 9/11 deserve more from us than that. As do the potential victims who might be saved by a more realistic, and less "nurturing," approach.

--------------------------------------------------------

Helen Smith is a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tennessee. She is the author of The Scarred Heart: Understanding and Identifying Kids Who Kill, and the executive producer and writer of Six, a documentary about a mass murder. © 2004 Tech Central Station Contact TCS About TCS Privacy Disclaimer Links Toolbox

[LadyDoc]

Democratic/Clinton's approach to terrorism is "theraputic"; Bush recognizes that this only allows violent sociopaths to be encouraged to do more violence...

[MEG33]

Terrific article."Root causes" hand wringers give me heartburn.

[Salman]

bump

[Bonaparte]

A psychologist with common sense. You could knock me over with a feather.

[IncPen]

In fact, I believe that the liberal stance of trying too hard to "humanize" our enemies is a mistake that will make the problem worse, and produce more violence rather than less.

[americanSoul]

But in trying so hard to humanize the enemy -- who, remember, hates us -- we wind up dehumanizing ourselves, and in the process we do the victims of terrorists and murderers an injustice. I've seen this in murder cases too, where psychologists and social-services workers are more interested in helping the murderer than in seeking justice. The victim, I'm sometimes told rather callously, is already dead.

Great insight. Her views have been proven empirically time and time again.

Thanks for the post.

BTW, I recommend a booklet by Jonathan Kellerman, "Savage Spawn". (kids who kill)

[RogueIsland]

Those patients who threatened me backed down only when I got up in their face and told them forcefully to stop -- the slightest hint of fear or intimidation (or sympathy!) on my part was met with increased threats. In the real world of private practice, confronting real murderers, I learned to act in ways that were different from what I had been taught in graduate school.

Funny how "compassionate" society tries to make us forget the simple lessons learned from dealing with the schoolyard bully. Life comes full circle sometimes, doesn't it?

[reluctantwarrior]

Insightful and exceedingly relevant thanks

[FierceDraka]

Pretty much sums up how I deal with violent and/or unreasonable people.

Reminds me of dealing with my girlfriend's ex-boyfriend when they were dating and we all worked at the same place.

Her ex was REALLY abusive toward everyone around him, calling them foul names and generally insulting people at every chance. He would even go so far as to tell his (then) girlfriend that she "sucks the joy out of everything". (Which I do not understand, since she is one of the most wonderful individuals I have had the priviledge of knowing)

Until he tried that sh*t with me, that is. Unlike everyone else there, I wasn't intimidated by him, and responded not with nervous, placating laughter, but with unmitigated hostility and threats of violence!

He started being nice to me real quick.

Same thing with terrorist thugs. Treat them with kid gloves, and it only encourages them to escalate their atrocities. But let them know in no uncertain terms that their sh*t WILL NOT be tolerated any further, and they scurry back to the filthy holes from whence they came.

[Prodigal Son]

Tech Central Station is a good resource. Lots of really good articles there.

[Tolik]

PING to TechCentralStation article by Dr. Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist counter-reviewing responses to the new Frum and Perle book, and drawing on her experience working with violent people to argue that sympathizing with murderers is a disservice to their potential victims. EXCERPTS:

 

...a New York Times  review by Michiko Kakutani that criticizes the authors as they

"purvey a worldview of us-versus-them, all-or-nothing, either-or, and this outlook results in a refusal to countenance the possibility that people who do not share the authors' views about the war in Iraq or their faith in a pre-emptive, unilateralist foreign policy might have legitimate reasons for doing so."

I suppose it follows from this statement that Kakutani would rather promote understanding and empathy with respect to injuries that Muslims feel they have suffered at the hands of the United States. No surprise here: Frum and Perle state that some commentators even suggested that Islamic anti-Americanism should be regarded as an understandable reaction to the materialism and hedonism of American life, as refracted through MTV, pornography, and the Internet. Apparently, they were anticipating Kakutani's review. In a Clintonian sort of approach, some Americans seem to believe that if we can "feel our enemies' pain," then we will be on the path to enlightenment and peace. This belief could not be further from the truth.

..... Unfortunately, there are still those in the ivory tower who [....]  continue to believe that to humanize and to empathize with violent students, professors, and terrorists is the only way to treat those who wish to do them harm. In fact, however, the old saw "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" applies. Without clear boundaries, and a sense of consequences, their behavior will spiral out of control until they injure themselves and others.

This seems to be the case where America's limp response to terrorism in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s is concerned (Osama bin Laden reportedly joked that the worst Americans would do in response to 9/11 was file a lawsuit.)

.... As any parent can attest, it's hard to punish those close to you. ..... Psychological studies also show it is hard to be harsh toward others when they are humanized or even personalized a bit. This is why defense lawyers have their clients dress up in nice clothes and include personal information about them in trials. It makes their clients seem more human and less likely to receive a severe punishment, despite the fact that they may have murdered someone. Likewise, when the media and academics personalize terrorists to the extent that the American public feels they "know them," it is hard to support acting in ways that are incongruent with our treatment of someone we know. But in trying so hard to humanize the enemy -- who, remember, hates us -- we wind up dehumanizing ourselves, and in the process we do the victims of terrorists and murderers an injustice.

I've seen this in murder cases too, where psychologists and social-services workers are more interested in helping the murderer than in seeking justice. The victim, I'm sometimes told rather callously, is already dead.

Frum and Perle remind us that many would treat international terrorists the same way we treat domestic murderers: as sick people to be cured, without regard to the dignity of those they kill. In our attempt to be overly-tolerant and empathetic, we start to identify too much with the enemy (very much like those suffering from Stockholm syndrome) and start to dehumanize the victims of terror. Surely, the victims of 9/11 deserve more from us than that. As do the potential victims who might be saved by a more realistic, and less "nurturing," approach.

 

[Tolik]

  Dr. Helen Smith

Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tennessee has a PhD from the Unviersity of Tennessee and masters' degrees from the New School for Social Research and the City University of New York. Dr. Smith has personally evaluated over 5000 mentally disturbed adults and children from Harlem, New York to rural Tennessee and acted as an expert in various murder trials. Her popular writings have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Houston Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, the Memphis Commercial Appeal and various online magazines. She has appeared on national and local radio and television to discuss the psychology of violence. She has also provided legislative testimony on school violence in the aftermath of the Springfield, Oregon and Jonesboro school killlings. She is writer and executive producer of a documentary, "Six", which tells the story of a mass murder. Her websites, www.violentkids.com and www.sixthemovie.com contain information, articles and her book, The Scarred Heart: Understanding and Identifying Kids who Kill (available for a free download).

[MEG33]

If you think the root causes people were bad here,the Australian Press had some real dunces after the Bali bombing..The "of course they hate us" crowd because of our......(fill in the blank).

[Tolik]

Right. And Bush doctrine so hated in the ivory towers goes one logical step forward, saying that not just terrorists won't be tolerated but also those who wants to use them as a proxy in the war against us. No more safehouses and unpunished hidden supporters.

[Tolik]

I understand that hard core leftists notwithstanding, Australians joined us in the wot only after Bali, sitting basically on the fence before that.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>>>some commentators even suggested that Islamic anti-Americanism should be regarded as an understandable reaction to the materialism and hedonism of American life, as refracted through MTV, pornography, and the Internet.

Very understandable. If you think someone has more stuff than you or is lazy and doesn't mow his lawn frequently enough to meet your ironclad standard, blow his house up.

If the neighbors' kids dress like trash, hot them with your pickup truck and haul them off to the dump. Besides, what are all those good, devout Muslims doing surfing thehun and watching MTV, anyway?

[neverdem]

BANG ON THE MONEY

[Valin]

Frum and Perle's view is not popular among the media elite.

I'm shocked! The NY Times doesn't like Richard Perle. As i said I'm shocked,


(seriously) Get this book! I'm not a fan of people telling me you MUST do/read/see this, my first reaction is ..no I don't. But you really should read this.