|
CounterPunch
October
12, 2002
The Politics of Fear
by CAROL NORRIS
The first time I heard the now-famous, over-used
slogan "either you're with us or against us," I thought
it was one of the most inane, xenophobic lines I'd ever heard.
Frankly, as an American, I was embarrassed. I had an incredible
urge to write a blanket apology to the people the world over.
This oversimplification utterly dismisses
the complexities of people, societies and their relationships.
Of course I can be 'with' my country and still not agree with
many of its policies just as I can remain completely loyal to
my friends, family and clients even when I think they make incredibly
foolish choices, as they do for me.
But as I thought more about it, I realized
it was an absolutely brilliant line exactly because it was meant
to encourage people to overlook the complexities of life and
think in oversimplified terms, tapping into deep-seated fears.
Someone paid attention in psychology class and I'm thinking it
wasn't C-Student Bush.
It is no coincidence that Ted Geisel,
aka Dr. Seuss, the hugely successful children's author, was once
a writer of war propaganda. Both genres of writing get in touch
with the same concrete, childlike [not to be confused with childish]
thought processes like 'you bad, me good.' Young children think
like this because of where they are in their cognitive development.
Adults whose lives have been seriously
threatened--or perceive that their lives are seriously threatened--sometimes
think similarly. They move from a healthy balance of operating
from all areas of the brain [including the rational neocortex]
to operating primarily from the limbic system [the primitive
brain and the intermediate brain], which, among other things,
is responsible for self-preservation.
The limbic system is where fear and its
physiological responses are born and they function to help us
mobilize and defend ourselves against the woolly mammoth or the
saber-toothed tiger. This is also where the mechanisms of aggression
are developed. And the neocortex is responsible, among other
things, for rational thought, abstract thinking and the ability
to consider complexities
And during such fearful times, as the
ole' neocortex is overridden by the limbic system, we find ourselves
with the fear-based, reactive, jingoistic, and seemingly intractable
pro-war reactions in much of the American people. It's about
self-preservation. [As this isn't a neuropsychology class this
is an over simplification and certainly a spotty explanation,
but you get the drift.]
Coupled with this fact, I've come to
realize that many Americans have parentified our government--not
in the literal sense, but in the psychological one. I do not
say this in a condescending or judgmental way, but in a factual
one. We've all done it in one arena of our life or another.
The government is, in theory, supposed
to be for the people. [I know, I know.] Like a parent, it is
supposed to be there to protect us, to look after our best interests.
And when something as huge as 9.11 happens, seeming to threaten
our very survival, many of us who take the government at its
word and who are programmed by the Americentric media [another
trusted parental figure] look to our government to defend us
from the scary "other" out there.
Even if you are of the "bomb all
the son-of-a-bitches to smithereens" school, forgetting
that some of those son-of-a-bitches are blameless children and
their parents, you are still operating from fear. In fact, that
is a great example of the inability to think in complex terms.
You can't see the intricacies of the issue and tease out who
is dangerous and who isn't because you are afraid, even if you
don't realize you are afraid. You've gone into survival mode.
Anger doesn't fool me. It is oftentimes a thinly veiled mask
of fear. However, sometimes it is an appropriate response to
injustice [but that's another story] or shame [yet another story].
And so when you and I question or disagree
with governmental policy, many people can't hear it, absolutely
won't hear it. It's too threatening: please don't tell us about
the complex realities of our world, say their unconscious minds,
because we are scared shitless and we have little access to our
rational brain right now. We need our government, our metaphorical
'parents' to survive. We must see them as good and split off
the bad. Letting ourselves entertain the notion of anything different
than our construct of reality threatens our tenuous illusion
of safety. DON'T YOU KNOW OUR VERY SURVIVAL IS AT STAKE HERE??
This does not mean that people are immature
or need to grow up [to say so is as oversimplified as saying
'either you're with us or against us']. People often need to
defend their defenders--in this case our government--because
in doing so they are trying to preserve their very lives. Self-preservation
is primal, instinctual, often times not in our awareness and
is hardwired into our brain to perpetuate the species. This is
part of the seemingly inexplicable phenomenon of kids who defend
their horrible parent-abusers.
I believe this phenomenon also explains
to a certain extent the so-called approval rating of many of
the American people to rush off to war. [The phenomenon of the
Congress' rush to war is yet again another story.] That rating
is really by and large a fear rating. But, researchers know polls
are skewed by response bias. People who choose to answer polls
are by definition a self-selected group. And pretend as pollsters
and those that cite them for their gain might, respondents aren't
necessarily a truly representative sample of the whole. So, unless
you poll 100% of the people, always question polling results,
even if they say what you want them to. Polls are often used
[by the Left and the Right] to influence opinion, not actually
to quantify it.
A restrictive reaction to fear is what
Bush's handlers and speechwriters [and previous administrations
and administrations in other countries] are banking on, hoping
that people will cling to this fear and rally 'round the flag,
buy whatever is said to them no matter how implausible, devoid
of facts or contradictory it may be because their restrictive
response has made it difficult for them to access the more rational
part of their brain to say, "WHAT?? You want to bomb where???,
or "Cheney is connected with what???"
This fearmongering is the stuff of color-coded
alerts, speeches rife with promises of big turban-covered, germ-carrying
boogiemen looming on every corner and contradictory phrases like,
"anticipatory self-defense." This is not to minimize
the very real threats out there; as we know they are there for
sure. It is to point out that our fear is being exploited--very
effectively in the psyches of a lot of people.
This is also not an apologia for those
who "don't get it," who don't know of the complexities
and the issues involved. I'm a big proponent of people taking
responsibility for and educating themselves about the issues.
But the ever-conglomerating, tow-the-line corporate media certainly
doesn't make it any easier. I simply think those of us who work
for social, political and environmental change [and anybody,
for that matter] would do well to keep the politics and mechanisms
of fear in mind.
It's one thing to preach to the converted
choir, but it's another to get the message across to Aunt Matilda
who is scared shitless in Conservativetown, USA. Preaching to
the choir is quite important in its own right and should continue
full steam ahead. It keeps people energized and informed. And
I find it great fun.
The choir understands my references,
already knows the songs and will chime right in. But unless my
agenda is just to be 'right,' and only talk to people 'who get
it'--certainly a person's prerogative and I have to admit I've
been guilty of that myself more times than I care to count--to
see far-reaching change, it is important for at least some of
us to find a way to talk to the 'apolitical' [fill in the category]
in a way they can hear, whether I like it or not; to also at
times strike a chord so that others who have never heard the
song will begin humming a bar here and a bar there, until they
are singing it loud and clear.
I'm not even remotely suggesting everything
be all touchy-feely. I'm saying that from years of experience
as a therapist working with some of the most hardened folks in
the very toughest, scariest, and drug-infested neighborhoods
in San Francisco, I know that if you want people to hear difficult,
ugly realities that they haven't yet faced, it is crucial to
think about the role fear plays in a person's life. And from
there it is vital to think about how you present what you say
or people will simply shut down or dig their heels in deeper,
go into restrictive self-preservation mode, as harmful or maladaptive
as it may be.
You don't yell at or preach to a scared
child to get her to stop being scared, even if she is yelling
at you in response to her fear. At least you don't if you want
to help stop being afraid and realize she can do something about
her fear other than yell and react impulsively.
There are many ways to do it. And, often
the biggest skill is to sit and listen. Listen to what underlies
the jingoism and the warmongering. Don't get caught up in the
content, listen to the underlying message. This is a skill creatives
in advertising know well. Once you hear the message, you can
address it and begin to engage in an intelligent dialogue [a
skill advertisers know less well].
I often write absolutely irreverent,
edgy satire that touches on ugly issues. And I always get a hugely
positive response because it includes a lot of impactful information
in a few words and the realities presented are couched in humor
and absurdity, making it an easier pill to swallow for those
who have never taken pills before as well as for those who have.
But there are many ways to speak so that
a broader audience can also hear. The task is to explore and
use some of those. And when people begin to listen, they may
very well still have some of their fears, but hopefully they
will have a different relationship to those fears. Consequently
they'll be able to find a balance and use some of that neocortical
critical thinking to begin questioning and wondering.
This is when they'll begin to let themselves
see some difficult realities. And when that happens its important
to give people ways to do something about these realities; give
them tools and avenues for change that will instill a modicum
of hope and a sense of self-agency. And if they ultimately come
up with different conclusions than yours, so be it. At least
they know what's going on out there. But I believe if people
are able to loosen the clutches of fear and let themselves take
a critical look at the world around them, slowly but surely change
will happen. And one day perhaps Republican grandfathers will
march for justice and Aunt Matilda will start sending donations
to Global Exchange.
I do not want this war, this sham.
I do not want it. Scared? I am.
I do not want it in Iraq.
I do not want it in a sock.
I do not want it on TV.
I do not want it haunting me.
I do not want my Congress to fail me.
I do not want John Ashcroft to jail me.
I do not want this war, this sham.
Unpatriotic? Oh please, what a scam.
Carol Norris
is a psychotherapist and freelance writer. She can be contacted
at writingforjustice@hotmail.com
Today's
Features
Jason Leopold
The New
York Times, Salon, Enron and Me
Jennifer Loewenstein
Khan
Yunis:
Before the Juggernaut
Ben Tripp
Let Wag
the Dogs of War or No Peace at Any Price
Will Youmans
Israel's
Plans to "Transfer" Palestinians During Iraq War
Linda S. Heard
Israel's
Image Problem:
Fire Up the Propaganda Mill
Lawrence McGuire
Eight
Ways to Smear Chomsky
Baruch Kimmerling
Why
is the US Scaring Me?
Alexander Cockburn
Dwarf-Throwing
& the UN:
Shape of Things to Come
Tom Walker
The Work
Ethic and Its Discontents
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- How to Change the Subject: Corporate Scandal and Pension
Reform as Weapons Against Warmongering;
- Padilla's Predecessor: Court Ruling Cites 1904 War
Against Mining Union;
- Adios Hitchens: the Dorian Gray of Our Time;
- Object of Suspicion: How the FBI Watched Janis Ian
From Birth;
- First Carter, Then Clinton,
Now Sen. John Edwards:
Another "New South" Slimeball;
- Corporate Crooks: Nature or Nurture?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|