The Missing Piece

Old World New Mind

2011-04-24T02:32:00.012-04:00

In 1989, two renowned American psychologists, Robert Ornstein and Paul Ehrlich, wrote a book called “New World New Mind: Moving Towards Conscious Evolution”. Their thesis, in essence, was fairly straightforward: humans had created a new world for themselves, but were still using an “old mind” to ineffectively deal with its consequences.

This mismatch meant that primitive fear and anger could potentially launch nuclear weapons, and that a mind wired for drama and stark contrasts simply could not detect and react to “slow change” - such as what we are seeing in climate change and the slow but sure consumption of the planet’s resources. By the time Chinese and Indians consume like Westerners, it may simply too late.

Ornstein and Ehrlich put forward an answer: humans can develop a “new mind” to deal with the challenges of a new world through a process they call “conscious evolution”. For this to happen we need to slow down our fast reflexes, widen our mental filters, see more “grays” in the world and approach the complexities facing us through holistic methods. Through a campaign of awareness and new forms of education that are focused on developing those parts of the mind currently slumbering, they believe we can make this transformation, thereby effectively saving ourselves from the spiraling dangers of our new world.

Above all, the shift will hinge on humans first becoming aware that they even have a problem, and realizing that their minds are operating according to methods devised to save us from saber-tooth tigers - and not from the environmental impact of carbon-based resources. Only when we become “conscious” of these limits, can we proceed to a new evolution.

In our blog “The Missing Piece”, we have attempted to demonstrate how the specific problems of the Middle East, especially the ongoing ethnic conflicts and their fall-out, can be approached in new ways based on novel understandings of our psychology and culture. We have looked at matters ranging from cult thinking, to conditioning, to the basic sources of extremism. We have also placed a heavy emphasis on the Human Givens approach of psychological understanding that describes the innate needs and capacities that all humans have, and that, if satisfied, eliminate mental illness.

In our view, meeting these needs will also diminish and even resolve conflict in the Middle East, and serve as the basis for the proper planning and development of societies there and in other regions.

The approaches presented in “The Missing Piece” are another way of understanding and developing “The New Mind” that Ornstein and Ehrlich propose.

Recently, we have seen the Arab countries go through unexpected revolutions that have succeeded in casting aside leaders and systems in place for decades. In the first few months of 2011, this "old world”, which is in a sense the oldest world, has leapt from a culture frozen since ancient times to a situation where positive evolution is at least possible.

The road ahead for the Arab world is difficult and unpredictable. The old mind may triumph. But the Arab revolutions carry with them a spirit of individual empowerment and functionalism that are largely anti-cult, anti-ideology and anti-authority, and which may yet carry the day even if the process is decades long.

The Arab people have risen up en masse because their needs - especially for legitimacy and dignity - were not sufficiently met by their rulers and governments. Today, they have the space to attempt to wrest control over their lives and build a future where their needs, their “Human Givens”, are indeed met and the problems ahead faced more constructively.

Ornstein and Ehrlich wrote their tome the year that the Berlin Wall fell. Little did anyone know that twenty-one years later another set of earth-shaking revolutions would occur, and that radical changes would begin in a most unexpected place. There are no assurances of success for this endeavor in the Middle East, nor anywhere in the globe for that matter. However, we believe that the dissemination of these ideas is crucial today to the solution of our problems and for the future of human development. As Ornstein and Ehrlich say to end their book:

“If this book stimulates some more people to think about the roots of the human predicament, and how we might begin to adapt to our society, then we will have accomplished our purpose. With luck, we will have started to change your mind.”

With luck, the Arab revolutions may also lead, against all odds, to an “Old World New Mind”.

Designing the Way Forward

2011-04-16T11:21:00.009-04:00

“You can analyze the past but you need to design the future. That is the difference between suffering the future and enjoying it.”

- Edward De Bono

Psychologist and physician, Dr. Edward De Bono, has devoted much of his life to teaching and promoting the skills of creative thinking. He believes the greatest threat facing humanity today is the inability of most people to think effectively. Not only do we not know how to think, De Bono says, but we are not even cognizant of our inability.

The problem, he says, stems in part from the way our brains operate. Our minds tend to create patterned ruts in the way we organize and retrieve information, confining us to very linear and predictable trajectories of thought. We lack the skills needed to "jump the tracks" of our routine thought processes onto other needed tracks of thought.

But that’s just one problem.

The other comes from our deeply entrenched traditional thinking habits, which we inherited at the time of the Renaissance when Europe adopted the methods of Ancient Greek thought. According to De Bono, our society’s current thinking style is based on the Greek philosophical approach to dialogue - one that relies heavily on analysis, critique, logic, and argument and which assumes that you can arrive at all answers, including the truth, by exposing falsehood or attributing blame. De Bono calls this the “I am right, you are wrong” approach. This approach, which is a veritable underpinning of our society and which is characterized by ritualistic opposition, can be seen operating almost everywhere.

Although analysis and argument have their place, these approaches were never intended to be creative or constructive, and do not design new ideas. Politicians are especially skilled in this kind of thinking, which is one reason why so many conflicts seem to endure with no end in sight. Adversaries are too busy trying to prove each other wrong, or to attribute blame, instead of working together to find creative solutions. Other situations simply don’t lend themselves to answers by way of analysis. As De Bono says:

“In many problems we cannot find the cause. Or we can find it but cannot remove it – for example, human greed. Or, there may be a multiplicity of causes. What do we do then? We analyze it further and analyze the analysis of others (scholarship). More and more analysis is not going to help because what is needed is design. We need to design a way out of the problem, or a way of living with it.”

De Bono says that we all need to learn this DESIGN oriented thinking – in the same way an architect or a graphic designer thinks in terms of delivering value, or an end result. We also require the tools needed to be able to execute this kind of thinking.

The good news is that these skills can be learned. De Bono has created a number of techniques (and which are found in some of his books) to assist individuals and groups to be more efficient and design-oriented in their thinking. These include the approaches known as “Lateral Thinking”, “The Six Thinking Hats”, and the “CoRT” programme – just to name a few.

His techniques have been immensely successful and are being taught and used by organizations, corporations and schools throughout the world. De Bono has also created The World Centre for New Thinking and The World Council for New Thinking as vehicles to generate new ideas to address pressing global issues.

Although, we have reiterated on this blog that many of the problems in the Middle East can be understood in terms of unmet human needs, we believe De Bono’s thinking techniques can be valuable tools in helping to design ways and mechanisms to better meet these very needs and resolving the problems. His techniques can very much help to generate new ideas in tackling the many issues the region faces, be they demographic, economic, environmental, and developmental.

Below are links to De Bono’s websites, as well as a few sample ideas from De Bono on the Middle East.

http://www.edwarddebono.com/

http://www.edwdebono.com/

“The Middle East situation could be eased if both Israelis and Palestinians were allowed to vote in each other’s elections. This would create more constructive governments.”

“The USA should give a grant of USD3 billion a year to the Palestinian Authority. This is considerably less than the amount given annually to Israel. The amount is about equal to the budget of the Palestinian Authority."

“Every time an Israeli citizen is killed by terrorism then the amount is diminished by USD50 million.

“After a period of one year, if terrorist victims have been significantly reduced in number (by fifty per cent or more) then the same system would be applied to the Israeli grant so that every Palestinian civilian killed would reduce the grant by the same amount.

“The amount is tiny in comparison with the cost of conflict and war in the Middle East and may serve to alter the perception that the USA fully supports Israel in all its activities.”

More on Hall

2011-02-12T23:51:00.012-05:00

In addition to a regular index at the end of his magnum opus, Beyond Culture, Edward T. Hall also provides what he calls an “Index of IDEAS and techniques of TRANSCENDANCE.”

These are the main themes of his book (written as maxims with corresponding page references), and which recur throughout his entire body of work.

They are important in that they help to underscore the important role of culture when trying to understand the problems of any given society (including in the Middle East).

The points might also be instrumental in helping Westerners see the profound need to much better understand the culture of the Middle East (and thereby their own culture in the process), as well as helping Middle Easterners see how critical it is to much better understand the West (while shining a light on their own culture at the same time).

We thought we’d include them here as a kind of addendum to our previous post on Hall.

Index of IDEAS and techniques of TRANSCENDANCE

1. an INDIVIDUAL cannot thru introspection and Self-examination understand himself or the forces that mold his life, without understanding his CULTURE.

2. CULTURES won’t change unless everyone changes. There are: neuro-biological, political-economic-historic and CULTURE-PSYCHODYNAMIC reasons for this.

3. CULTURE is dictatorial unless understood and examined.

4. “It is not that MAN must be in sync with, or adapt to his CULTURE but that CULTURES grow out of sync with MAN.” When this happens PEOPLE go crazy and THEY DON’T KNOW IT.

5. In order to avoid mass insanity PEOPLE must learn to transcend and adapt their CULTURE to the times and to their biological organisms.

6. To accomplish this task, since introspection tells you nothing, man needs the EXPERIENCE of other CULTURES; ie – to survive, all CULTURES need each other.

* The above extract taken from Edward T. Hall’s Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, 1976.

The Dignity Revolution

2011-02-04T10:58:00.003-05:00

Tunisia has fallen, Egypt is on the verge, Jordan, Yemen and Algeria are feeling the tremors.

Many commentators have mentioned that these revolutions are about bread, freedom, and justice, and they also frequently mention ‘dignity’.

Having used that word frequently to describe Palestinian needs regarding Israeli occupation, I sought a definition of this “keyword” and found: “the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect.”

This need for status and legitimacy in a community is basic and universal, and can only be disregarded at considerable cost. Certainly, Arab states have not offered their citizens this dignity, and now they are suffering the consequences.

Many Arab leaders have also failed to proffer dignity at another level. They are perceived as, intentionally or not, complicit in Israeli occupation, weak in standing up to Israeli actions - thereby striking another blow at the Arab need for dignity.

This reality explains the broad popularity of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizballah, who through his words and war machine against Israel provides Arabs with that desire for dignity that most of their leaders have failed to deliver. This kind of ‘outward’ dignity regarding an enemy trumps the need for internal dignity, because, in the Arab world, the needs of the group supercede those of the individual.

Curiously, this may also explain why Syria, a tougher and more thorough regime of oppression than Egypt’s, may prove more resistant to revolution than other Arab countries. Beyond its ruthlessness, Syria’s ‘politics of Arab dignity’ and its support of resistance against Israel, as much as they are a facade, may provide a measure of immunity from popular revolt. Its refusal to “fold” to Israeli and American demands make it that much less susceptible to the “Dignity Revolution” sweeping the Arab world.

At the end of the day, it may be that the Syrian people may still find their government sufficiently lacking in liberties to warrant a revolt, but the pan-Arab sense of a lack of dignity due to Israeli oppression will nevertheless not go away. Indeed, the more democratic Arab governments will be, the more they will demand of Israel an end to occupation.

If Israel had any foresight regarding the future of the region, it would rush to create a Palestinian state along durable and fair lines (i.e. not interim, not partial and not in denial of history) and so avoid decades of future confrontation based on this profound Arab need. Although not a sure bet, it is the best one available. The status quo is the guarantee of conflict.

The real question at hand is what are the limits of this natural desire for dignity, and how does it take concrete form. Within Arab states, the need for status and respect will have to balanced alongside that for “bread” and freedoms, as well as the development of the necessary political culture and structures - a long-term proposition. Regarding Israel, the need for dignity will revolve around where Israel ends and Palestine begins in terms of borders, the status of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees.

So far, Israel has rejected answering these basic questions, thus permitting radicals like Nasrallah to claim the need for dignity ‘ad infinitum’, in terms of both space and time. The responsibility of countries like the USA will be to insist that the need for redress for Palestinian, and thus Arab dignity, is answered fairly and squarely, and soon, by defining the limits of an Israeli and Palestinian state and the other cores issues of the conflict.

By doing so, it will be nipping in the bud a natural cause of Arab revolt and conflict against Israel for decades to come. All the bread, new political structures and development projects in the world will not make this basic, and universal, need for status and respect go away. Over time, the current Arab revolutions will only naturally also look to ensure that the Palestinians are also “worthy of respect”.

"Beyond Culture"

2011-01-19T02:25:00.021-05:00

If one is working on a project with Israelis and Palestinians, and an email is sent to ten colleagues from each side, nine out of 10 Israelis will rapidly answer, while only one out of 10 Palestinians will respond.

Therefore, Western diplomats, with working habits heavily centered around email, will have a tendency to engage the Israelis more, resulting in an increased impact of their views, as well as an unconscious sense of familiarity with the Israelis – unlike with the Palestinians who will seem disengaged.

Among other more well-known factors, this is a hidden reason for a traditional Western bias towards Israel: its work culture is Western.

Palestinians, like many Arabs, prefer a direct and personal work mode, relying far more on human rather than virtual interaction; and oral rather than written exchanges. This is simply a cultural difference, and one that must be adjusted for by diplomats working between the sides.

That is, if one is even aware of that cultural difference.

Edward T. Hall is one of the great cultural anthropologists of the 20th century. He has produced seminal books on the critical role of culture in our lives. Some of his works include The Hidden Dimension, about cultural differences in the use of space; The Dance of Life, regarding how people in different places perceive and understand time; and Beyond Culture, a summation and integration of his views.

His greatest contribution is that of revealing the presence of an “unconscious culture” in all of us that often goes undetected, hardwired into the deepest recesses of minds and affecting such basic perceptions as the employment of space, the regulation and response to time, as well as to our ‘extensions’: our technological and figurative inventions, such as email in the above example.

Hall elucidated how many human differences are often accounted for by these unconscious cultural habits. These deep-seated assumptions permit us to interact with our own group, but, if we are unaware of them, they can become the source of considerable frictions and misunderstandings with other cultures. Furthermore, if we are unaware of our own most subtle cultural underpinnings, it is most probable that so are the outside cultures that deal with us.

Hall maintains that people in any given culture assume, often wrongly, that how people behave and see the world can easily be carried over to - or be understood in - another place. Sometimes a culture will not imagine in its wildest dreams that an interaction with another is missing some crucial component of understanding of how the two differ in the most seemingly minor, or detailed (but important) aspect. Individuals from different cultures, say an American and a Frenchman, may believe they are each carrying on a predictable transaction when, beneath the surface, cultural expectations may reflect two very different, even conflicting, worlds…

According to Hall, there are three ways of bringing this cultural hard-wiring to the fore of our consciousness, and to realize the underlying pattern: 1) when raising our young and we are forced to articulate and explain to them certain habits 2) by learning about and interacting with other cultures, thus being confronted by foreign habits that may force us to examine our own, and 3) when old systems start to fall apart and the formation of new cultures is demanded.

This awakening to one’s own culture is the beginning of a “cultural literacy” without which we cannot relate effectively to foreign cultures. The assumptions built into us about time, space, social interaction, and other habits are working on “automatic” until this awareness sets in.

In the example of work with Israelis and Palestinians, western diplomats need to become aware that, by instinctively giving priority to email interaction, for instance, they are unintentionally preferring one side. Once this awareness sets in, adjustments can be made to the differing work habits of each side.

In an increasingly interdependent and interactive world, the need for cultural understanding is unavoidable. As old political and social systems begin to falter the need to develop new cultures will become a necessity, and not a luxury. This ability to create “the new” will depend on our ability to recognize “the old” in us, and how our built-in “unconscious culture” is affecting us today.

It is only when we see clearly what is today unconscious and hidden in us that we can transcend its limits.

The Smile

2011-01-13T05:50:00.013-05:00

The photographs of these two men, Jared Loughner and Mumtaz Qadri, were taken after each had committed murder and assassination in Arizona and Pakistan respectively. Their smiles betray a contentment with their actions that defies the logic of everyday life: they are more satisfied with their violent and deadly actions than many simpler folks are by more peaceful acts.

The two come from vastly different cultures, thousands of miles apart. The motives for their actions differ greatly: one was spurred by allegiance to his faith and a punishment of blasphemy, the other, for all apparent purposes, is a schizophrenic with unfathomable motivations. Both, however, express a grim satisfaction for their crime.

This sense of fulfilment comes from satisfying a belief system, whether highly personal in the case of Loughner or reflective of societal currents in the case of Qadri, that have replaced healthier and more balanced “lifescapes” that would not have led to murder.

We are living in an era when this smile may tragically become more common because, indeed, basic human needs for meaning and belonging are being skewed and hijacked by extreme ideologies, or simply left unattended to. In this case, indeed, ‘satisfaction’ can only be found in schemes of madness and radicalism.

A reversion to existing systems that focus only on material consumption and physical security, and ignore the importance of meaning will only, as we see, continue to empower extremists and seed insanity.

Satisfaction, and a different smile, can be achieved without violent ideals and purposes once the central role of meaning is recognized and nurtured in our lives. Once meaning is treated as a necessary ´human given´, and incorporated into normal social development, more creative, and less destructive, human effort will certainly result.

Conditioning II: Seeing Our Innate Susceptibility

2010-12-09T18:11:00.006-05:00

To be able to properly see and move past the problem of conditioning, it is not enough to just acknowledge that humans can, and do, get conditioned. It’s also necessary to recognize the psychological factors that facilitate that process.

Our proclivity to being conditioned and adopting viewpoints that are not our own, stems, in large part, from a series of behavioral imperatives and patterns that arise early in life. These include:

a need for social approval;
emotional dependency on others;
susceptibility to authority figures

These are all key ingredients in understanding how and why we learn to think and do things, which we might not otherwise.

As children, we are at our most vulnerable. In order to survive, and to ensure that we receive the needed love, affection and nurturing, we must rely on our parents - who also happen to be our only reference points in the world. But that love and protection can be seen to be conditional upon obedience to them. So, as children we work to maintain our parents’ approval, and thus we learn to conform to their wishes. And that process includes imitating them. And here begins the process of childhood indoctrination - and learning obedience to authority.

So, how does this bear upon us as adults - and upon the problems of the Middle East?

The answer (beyond the implication that we tend to imbibe our own groups’ beliefs) is that this dependency on authority figures, established in childhood, does continue into adult life - except that the authority figures are no longer just our parents, but are other individuals in the wider world.

All societies are based on authority figures. And as we’ve seen from above, we become conditioned early on to showing obedience to them. So, in the same way that we work as children to gain the approval of parents and families in order to ensure their continued benefaction, we also work to gain and maintain the approval of authority figures in our society who also have other things to offer. These people can be friends, teachers, bosses at our workplaces, and political or religious figures.

This is no less so in the Middle East, where authority figures are especially powerful and vested with special significance.

Because the Middle East has for so long been organized along family, tribal, and sectarian lines, AND because the welfare of those entities have so often in history been seen to be under threat, supreme obedience to the dictates of the group has always been considered paramount. This is not only to help ensure the survival of those groups, but also the survival of the individual, who, without maintaining the approval of the larger group, can be cast out – or worse. Thus the mind of the member is more easily influenced. Beliefs become inculcated and reinforced.

This partly explains why conflicts in the Middle East are so enduring: the conditioning within a group runs very deep, and is facilitated and reinforced by implicit and explicit threats. Dissenting, or alternative views on the “enemy” - which can put the wisdom of any conflict into question - are very rare indeed.

Individuals in the Middle East who are used to being looked after and protected all their life by strong authority figures, and whose innate needs may be unmet, can easily gravitate towards the most powerful authority figures of all: political and religious demagogues. Those authority figures can provide them with the ultimate reassurance and protection – but at the price of accepting their extremist and fanatical agendas.

In the Middle East, allegiance to groups like Hizbullah or Israeli settler groups, or even loyalty to to local sects, may appear “natural” due to traditions of history; however, the mark of conditioning permeates these groups with unforeseen consequences for politics – conflict can most easily be created where there is no dissent from the group.

It is only when we understand the deepest motivations that drive our acceptance and championing of certain ideas, can we begin to make headway towards freeing ourselves from those fixed positions – those mental inclinations of outside origin which might be contributing towards something either counterproductive, or even destructive.

Conditioning: The Deep Undercurrent

2010-09-15T00:36:00.015-04:00

In the past we have discussed how unmet human needs can block success in political negotiations, and how cult behaviour can fuel extremism.

We would also like to point out another critical dimension that can block resolution and sustain conflict in the Middle East: the conditioned beliefs and behaviour of the people of the region.

In the book, “The Manipulated Mind”, psychologist Denise Winn describes conditioning as “A learned association between two things which consequently affects one’s actions.”

Many of us have heard of the famous experiments conducted by Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov in the early 1900s. While studying digestion patterns in dogs Pavlov discovered that reflex actions could be inculcated, or conditioned, in animals.

Pavlov noted that the dogs he was feeding would often salivate in his presence before being given any food. He suspected that the dogs were associating him with the food, and decided to test this. By striking a tuning fork just before feeding the dogs, he later saw that he could induce salivation in the canines at will - just by striking the fork outside of mealtime. The dogs came to associate the tone of the tuning fork with nourishment. This procedure would later come to be known as “classic conditioning”.

Although knowledge of conditioning was held by earlier cultures in human history, Pavlov’s recent experiments opened the door to its study in the West. As a result of his work, and that of others, we’ve since learned that there is a whole range of conditioning patterns - learned associations - that impact human beings on a regular basis.

Not only is conditioning a daily part of human life, but it is something that almost always goes unnoticed by our conscious minds - and is therefore very difficult to acknowledge. Our actions, attitudes, and most deeply held beliefs are often a result of these learned associations brought about by such things as our environment, circumstances, and sometimes the deliberate efforts of others.

The sobering implication is that how we see and interact with the world is something that is largely predetermined. In other words, we don’t freely choose to see the world the way we do.

When we turn to the Middle East, we can see that decades of violence and warfare in the region has created learned associations between parties in conflict. These rigid perceptions of the other, that are often absolutist in nature, simplify and generalize individuals and populations to the point distortion.

Many Palestinians have been conditioned to viewing ALL Israelis as occupiers, and of being militaristic, aggressive and duplicitous.

Many Israelis have come to see Palestinians and other Arabs as hostile, anti-Semitic and uncivilized. Because of the their history of persecution, Jews have been previously conditioned to have defensive reflexes, that include at times a lack of trust, fear and paranoia of outside cultures. *

* (Apart from belief, conditioning does also impact behaviour, creating another powerful layer of influence. For instance, the sense of victimization shared by both Jews and Palestinians, as well as the feeling of righteousness that goes along with being a victim, has become a conditioned mental frame that is now difficult to let go of. Victimization is appealing because it is empowering and creates a sense of special status. To be positively conditioned towards being a victim means one is conditioned not to want a state of peace that might remove that condition of victimization).

What this conditioning does is to create a rock solid caricature of the other which is standardized, one dimensional, and which is applied across the board.

These generalized caricatures of the other are then passed along and reinforced by parents to children, and among peers. They are also perpetuated by the media and by education systems and eventually become conventional wisdoms - fixed principles that remain deeply entrenched in the collective mind of the general population.

The proclivity towards conditioning is, in part, the human brain’s way of streamlining perception as a survival mechanism. But what gets lost in the process is the much more complex and subtle realities of a situation: in the case of Middle East conflict, that Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, are infinitely MORE than how the other side is conditioned to see them.

Peacemaking therefore become extremely difficult, not only because the crude and conditioned beliefs that belligerents hold of one another stand in the way of the brave decisions needed to transcend conflict, but also because conditioned beliefs become inviolable (due to their inherent feeling of self-evident truth). In other words, they become vested interests - even property - that are to be maintained and protected at all costs.

The fact that people don’t realize that their beliefs are, in a sense, not their own, leaves little possibility for people to exchange those perceptions for viewpoints which are more nuanced and closer to reality.

Should it therefore come as any surprise that peace negotiations between even the best intentioned leaders often fail when their conditioned societies (married to their beliefs and behaviour) fail to support those negotiations -- or as is more often the case, work against them?

The Safe Bet

2010-06-11T06:39:00.017-04:00

When a society is malnourished, overweight, or suffers from disease and illness, the population and its leaders mobilize to action. Whether the response is immediate crisis measures, or long-term research, governments and scientists are motivated to attend to the problem quickly because people’s lives are at stake. The challenge is in our face, and can clearly affect us all.

Imagine that a society may suffer from a similar problem, not to its physical health, but instead to its psychic well-being - due to a misuse, abuse, lack or excess of EMOTION. Unbeknownst to whole populations, emotions may be withheld, twisted, ignored, heightened, repackaged and manipulated, creating havoc among citizens and causing debilitations as serious as poor nutrition.

There are psychologists who believe this is exactly the case and that we must look at the human condition not only from its physical needs and capacities, but equally in emotional areas as well. They make the case that humans cannot thrive, and indeed will wither, if their emotional needs are not met, much in the same way that communities would be crippled if their material needs are ignored.

They go further by suggesting that this basic reality should be the baseline reference for the success or failure of a government – i.e. that the only sensible measure of whether a government is meeting its objectives is to test it against clearly identified needs that humans beings require to progress and flourish.

This case is made in the Human Givens Charter. This is a cogent rationale for a new approach to governance. It ensures that what is now a process of random experimentation takes root in reliable basics, permitting more predictable outcomes.

*

Imagine if a region like the Middle East, plagued by rampant corruption, cultural conditioning and the lure of extremism, were to begin to apply such a "bottom up" principle to its governance. With matters as they are, the very thought seems both patently absurd and yet tantalizingly appealing. The likelihood of applying this system today is low, yet the likelihood of social collapse in this region, based on the current modes of government, is indeed very high.

Most people in the Middle East are too used to, and dependent on existing systems, to risk a bet on the new. Instead, ironically, they will stick with what they know because it seems to offer a greater chance of survival or prosperity. However, the record today (and in the past) shows that these current systems are of such a random nature that they constitute the real high-risk gamble.

The safer bet is to ground our future in what we really are: creatures that will starve without food and that can only thrive if our emotional needs are equally met. It is the responsibility of our governments, in the Middle East and elsewhere, to achieve nothing but that.

Joining the Cosmic Struggle

2010-04-20T18:27:00.007-04:00

In a previous post entitled Human Needs and the Lure of Extremism, we put forward the idea that the powerful appeal of militant groups stems from the ability of these organizations to seemingly provide for the unmet needs of the prospective recruit.

The idea that human beings are innately guided towards meeting their intangible emotional needs, is gaining greater currency among those doing social research on the behaviour of violent extremists.

Last month, American anthropologist, Scott Atran, presented some findings from his research into violent extremist groups to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

In his presentation, entitled, “Pathways to and From Violent Extremism: The Case for Science-Based Field Research”, Atran stated the following:

“Entry into the jihadi brotherhood is from the bottom up: from alienated and marginalized youth seeking out companionship, esteem, and meaning, but also the thrill of action, sense of empowerment, and glory in fighting the world’s most powerful nation and army.”

“…What inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Koran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world that they will never live to enjoy.”

“…Many who are bored, underemployed, overqualified, and underwhelmed by hopes for the future turn on to jihad with their friends. Jihad is an egalitarian, equal opportunity employer (at least for boys, but girls are web-surfing into the act): fraternal, fast-breaking, thrilling, glorious, and cool. Anyone is welcome to try his hand at slicing off the head of Goliath with a paper cutter.”

We believe that Atran has succeeded in distilling the essence here.

For those living in countries whose governments are either partially or completely non-existent, or who cannot otherwise properly provide for all their citizens, and where, consequently, basic needs are not met, one of the fast-tracks to meeting one’s needs is to join or create an militant group and enlist in the cosmic war.

The attraction to take part can be so powerful, if only because such groups promise to meet - in one fell swoop - all of the individual’s unmet needs, especially the basic need for meaning and a sense of mission in life.

Learning combat and other skills, carrying a gun, being given responsibility, experiencing a sense of personal importance, receiving money, taking part in international travel, meeting new people from other cultures, sharing friendships, and being a part of a historical cosmic struggle, all go a long way in making the recruit feel that his or her life has meaning, where previously they may have had little or none.

A sense of status, competency, control, and a feeling that one’s horizons and potential are being stretched make it very hard for some to ever look back. Indeed, if this is available in quantity from radical groups, and dressed in the garment of religious language, it may be hard to refuse, unless other serious alternatives are on offer.

Because all humans share the same innate needs, the deepest motives compelling the would-be extremist are not entirely unlike those of say, a recruit attending police academy in the West, a student signing up for an exciting international career out of university, or a frustrated youth who is orphaned from his adoptive parents and who joins the fight against an Empire in a far away galaxy.

The differences lie in the degree to which our current needs are unmet and in the value and goals of those pursuits that are available, and which we seemingly choose to apply ourselves to. Making available serious alternatives to the “cosmic struggle” that permit personal meaning to flourish is a key to diminishing the ranks of extremists.

The Human Journey

2010-02-21T16:22:00.009-05:00

Readers of this blog might be interested to hear about a new website which tracks the development of human beings over the last 100,000 years.

The Human Journey is a longstanding web project of the Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge (ISHK) - an organization which has been working for decades to increase public awareness about human nature and human capacities and potential.

Drawing upon the latest discoveries in genetics, evolutionary biology, anthropology and linguistics, The Human Journey website traces the development and evolution of human beings with a view towards our future.

To quote from the website:

The future depends on how we understand who we are, and how that past has made us so: what is unchanging about Human Nature and what we CAN and MUST change to face a world that is far different from our ancestors... If we don't know our history, social and biological, we can't adapt fully to a world that we made.

The website will be relevant to people interested in the Middle East not just in terms of its portrayal of early human development in that part of the world, but more importantly, in terms how the past has shaped us into who we are today. This knowledge can provide us with a better understanding of - and perhaps help us to mitigate - the conflicts in the region.

The Emotional Brain

2010-01-06T21:49:00.003-05:00

Part of the enormous task in trying to resolve conflicts in the Middle East is getting past the perceptual barriers that stand in the way of properly seeing these conflicts for what they really are.

Longstanding traditions of practicing diplomacy focus on state and interest-based negotiations, or an emphasis on concrete issues, for example, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, on resolving borders or settlements in the West Bank. These approaches are understandable because they are based on familiar institutions and methods. However, they assume that since we don’t see other potential causes of conflict, that they must not be there.

As we have indicated in previous posts, despite the best intentions of conflict resolution specialists, these efforts often fall short. This is because attending strictly to “issues” does not take into account the deeper human dynamics that give rise to those issues in the first place.

Unacknowledged are the psychological and cultural aspects of conflict, which are fundamental and which, if properly understood, may hold the keys to improved conflict resolution.

The role of excessive emotion in Middle East cultures, for example, is a factor that is virtually unrecognized or brought to bear in studies involving conflicts in the region. And yet emotion is one of the most salient factors, playing a crucial role in helping to instigate and maintain political conflict between human groups.

Cycles of revenge, exacting punishment, and an inability to see beyond the needs of one’s own group - actions and reactions between Israel and its Arab enemies today - are all driven by excessive emotional states.

Discoveries in the behavioral sciences allow us to see why the key to understanding and resolving conflicts lies in understanding our brains, and in our emotional brains in particular:

Our emotional brains date back to the earliest life forms on Earth and evolved to help ensure our survival.
Extreme emotional arousal results in primitive thought patterns and triggers the fight-or-flight response, creating a mindset that sees the world in either/or, black and white, and good or bad terms.
Being in a highly aroused emotional state prevents us from seeing subtle distinctions and shades of grey that are the mark of intelligent or evolved thought, and that more accurately depict reality.
Too much continual emotional arousal creates a state of ignorance in people and makes individuals susceptible to indoctrination and brainwashing

All violent conflicts, and acts of inhumanity and discrimination have as their hallmark high emotional arousal among humans. It is therefore easy to understand how a region like the Middle East, with its emotionally charged culture and complex politics, continues to be embroiled in so many ongoing difficulties.

However, this idea has not been embraced because it does not fit into our constructs of the world. We are not educated from an early age to know how our brains work and so we passively accept that all forms and degrees of emotion are simply an acceptable part of being human. The idea that excessive emotion may be to blame for many problems may also seem simplistic, and a leap from the hard interests that we usually equate with politics.

If we were all taught from an early age about the consequences of excessive emotional arousal and the need to temper those emotions, we might stand a chance to greatly reduce the periodic tides of conflict that arise between peoples - movements that bring with them waves of debilitating excessive emotion that literally drive the conflict and block the road to effective resolution.

As it stands - and in some cultures at that - we only view excessive emotion as a problem only if it seriously disrupts our interpersonal relationships. In cases like these we may seek out counseling or attempt to learn things like “anger management”.

But what about on a collective level?

Certainly, in cases of war and violent conflict, our group relations are more than disrupted. Is there also not a desperate and dire need for something akin to anger management among groups when it comes to certain international, interethnic, and inter-religious relations?

If people could be more cognizant of the power and damage of extreme emotions, they could better manage them, making their lives more fruitful both for themselves and for their neighbours, near and far.

Windmills

2009-10-25T21:49:00.002-04:00

Some have indicated to us that there has already been much work done to humanize the Middle East as a means of resolving the conflict, and that work has failed, and that the ideas presented in 'The Foundation Stone' will also flounder and are fundamentally a quixotic exercise.

Second, that power imbalances and asymmetries mean that, for example, Israel is capable of continuing settlement of Palestinian areas unimpeded.

It is true that cultural efforts have so far failed in the Middle East and that the play of power does mean no resolution and continued conflict.

In the past however, the approaches we suggest have not been tried at the political level. Instead, past political solutions were based, incorrectly, on hard, interest-driven paradigms which ignore the fundamentals described in 'The Foundation Stone'.

A peace treaty that is not first based on a mutual recognition of Palestinian needs for autonomy, independence, legitimacy and the dignity of refugee rights, as well as Israeli needs for physical security from attack and a sense of belonging for the Jews in the Middle East will not work.

Indeed, an approach based on a classical Western focus on constructing structures or a Middle Eastern emphasis on zero-sum game negotiations may, in fact, be more quixotic, despite its excitement appeal and its fit with common cultural habits, than the unusual approach we are suggesting.

It is true that a third party may be required to take the parties to more positive ends, addressing power imbalances. However, even then, a full and satisfactory basis for moving forward will require a full redress of the intangible needs outlined in 'The Foundation Stone', at the political level.

The Foundation Stone

2009-09-21T12:58:00.006-04:00

"Dignifying Security and Securing Dignity"

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is known for its intractability. Soon, it is expected that President Obama will try to bring together Israeli and Palestinian leaders for yet another round of negotiations.

He has a chance to succeed - possibly by sheer will power, if he exercises it - but it is not very likely.

There is another possible approach. It is one that has not been properly tried, and that Obama hints at in some of his speeches. This is to come to an explicit agreement on something more basic before beginning negotiations on such thorny issues as Jerusalem, the refugees and borders.

According to this approach, Israelis and Palestinians would agree beforehand that they both have a common set of human needs that are essential to their future, but that if these needs continue to be unmet, it will simply perpetuate the conflict between them. These fundamental needs underlie and fuel the problems between the two peoples and remain unaddressed because they are intangible by nature and are not traditionally considered in the realm of statecraft.

At a general level, these 'human givens' (1) include, for example, the need for security and safe territory, a sense of autonomy and control, meaning and purpose and the need to be valued by a wider community, among others.

All humans, no matter their identity, will spiral into dysfunctional patterns of behaviour and resort to violent reactions and unsuccessful management of differences if these basic elements of our nature are left unfulfilled.

In the case of the Middle East, the two sides have specific unmet needs: after decades of occupation and no Palestinian state, Palestinians need a sense of autonomy and control over their lives without outside interference; Israelis need security and safe territory in order to provide Jews with a national home. Both sides have denied the other this basic requirement.

Ironically, both peoples also need to a strong sense of legitimacy from and to be valued by others. For Jews, their experience in Europe as the victims of capricious history was the source of this lack, and it was followed, ironically, by their arrival in the Middle East, where their takeover of land - in their minds for a good cause - ensured that Arabs would in turn deny them legitimacy.

For the Palestinians, the rule of the Ottomans gave way to the rule of the British and from there directly to the creation of Israel on their land, reaffirming a consistent pattern of being 'lesser' in the eyes of others. This lack of legitimacy is an unacceptable status for any people.

It is these unmet and very human needs that lie, like phantoms, behind the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No amount of political activity, innovativeness, even will, can resolve the situation if these basic needs are not agreed to as the basis for negotiation. Many have referred to these needs in various forms in their analysis of the region, but few have recommended that talks explicitly be held on the basis of addressing these needs.

As difficult as it may be to agree to recognize an enemy’s needs, this mutual agreement can greatly facilitate agreement and lead to known answers:

For Palestinians, the need for autonomy and control can be met through the creation of a Palestinian state

For Israelis, security can be met by normalizing their relations with neighbours and ending the state of conflict, as offered, for example, in the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

The need for legitimacy from and being valued by others can be further met for both through recognition of Jerusalem as their respective capital and of their links to the city on the basis of religious heritage.

Resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem by recognizing refugees' rights without endangering the status of Israel as a Jewish state, providing refugees with permanent and stable conditions through citizenship, employment opportunities and compensation for suffering can go a long distance to making Palestinians feel less as the nation undeserving of a national status.

Experts will look at the above and say the most talented negotiators have tried to tackle these issues and failed and that this is more easily said than done.

But they have not. They have dealt with Jerusalem, Israeli security, a Palestinian state and the refugees as issues in themselves. They did not come to an explicit, mutual recognition of the common human needs behind these issues first - pinning the phantoms to the ground - before entering the issues and their details.

An initial, explicit recognition by Israelis that Palestinians share these of their common human needs may greatly facilitate negotiations by providing an equivalence between the sides based on a common human condition and a perspective and foundation to return to if talks become heated, hit an impasse, or sink into a quagmire of details. Over decades, both sides needs may have spiraled beyond these basics; however, this may be a way to return to the necessary basics.

Admitting the existence of basic human needs as the basis for any negotiation may seem odd at first. It appears to pull the carpet from right under the feet of the politicians and demystify apparently intractable and addictive, angst-ridden processes. Yet, this basic human recognition of the needs of another, even an enemy, may right decades of wrong and provide the foundation stone for greater contentment and a future for Israelis, Palestinians, their children, and their children’s children.

____________________________
(1) http://www.hgi.org.uk/archive/human-givens.htm

Understanding Iran IV - Mutual Respect

2009-05-01T14:11:00.003-04:00

We have put forward the possibility that relations with Iran are handicapped by narrow perceptions of that country, and that Iran's behaviour, including some of its excesses, can be explained through its search to have its 'intangible' needs met in the face of considerable international barriers. This is especially the case in a country with a powerful sense of status and entitlement driven by millenia of sophisticated culture and political history.

We believe there are two basic approaches to deal with Iran. Either we use what Ornstein calls our "old brain", rely on its caricatures and act on that basis, and continue to deprive Iran of its needs, or we derive a new more nuanced and realistic approach to the matter, unfamiliar as it may seem.

As we have indicated, we have in our mind only slim pictures of a fuller reality, including that of another society like Iran. All can appear terribly simplified through the words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or, indeed, of George Bush. It is also plain that not only the USA suffers from this problem; Iran has the same simplistic understandings of the USA (and of Israel) that Americans have of it. This is a two-way street where a sense of moral superiority, a black and white world of right and wrong, drives both sides.

Iran is a country seeking basic, if intangible, needs of legitimacy and respect. Many of the policies that have been under consideration do not sufficiently consider this. Iran will neither be bribed into a deal, nor threatened out of its ambitions. This is a cold reality. Therefore, the whole diplomatic approach of "carrots and sticks" that has marked American diplomacy will not work here. Furthermore, limited and cartoon perceptions not only limit our views of another society, they can cause misjudgments regarding the consequences of our actions:

Sanctions on Iran, even very heavy sanctions, will not likely make it bend nor stop it from enriching uranium. In fact, it will likely only strengthen the Iranian hardliners and radicals making them pursue uranium enrichment at an even faster pace, which, theoretically, is counterproductive to the international community's goals.

A military attack on Iran will not likely destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities nor its desire to pursuit it, but it will certainly destroy a country in the process. Hatred for the USA and Israel will be beyond the pale after such an attack with many currently incalculable consequences. Furthermore, in response, Iran can unleash a mixture of terror and missiles at Israel, American targets and other strategic sights in the Gulf, wreaking havoc in an already heavily destabilized Middle East.

Therefore, military strikes and sanctions cannot assure that Iran will not go nuclear; but they can assure that Iran will strike back, and that the atmosphere between the USA, Israel and Muslim countries will be deeply poisoned.

The reality is that this mindset may still, sadly, prevail. Both sides still feel the need to punish the other for past misdeeds, and expectations of threat can easily morph into an uncontrolled spiral of violence.

The key to avoiding this human disaster is to engage Iran on the basis of mutual respect and equality, which meets Iran's needs and may yield positive results for all concerned. Negotiating while threatening sanctions does not meet this criterion.

Although this second approach may be may be difficult and counterintuitive because of understandable aversions to the Iranian government's policies, especially over human rights, or Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about Israel, it may only be this reality that can move matters forward constructively.

Understanding Iran III - A Question of Needs

2009-04-28T20:14:00.004-04:00

Recent advances in the field of psychology, in addition to shedding light on our own behaviour as individuals, can also provide valuable clues as to what may be happening below the surface with regards to such things as conflicts between groups. Our awareness of the subtle, and perhaps more fundamental, aspects of the Iran-West conflict may be measurably heightened by our consideration of some of these new understandings.

We are fast learning that mental health and well-being (and the actions that arise from those states) depend highly upon certain emotional needs being met. It is being demonstrated that in addition to important physical needs of food, air water, and shelter, human beings need and require:

* security
* attention (to give and receive)
* a sense of autonomy and control
* to be part of a wider community
* a sense of status within social groupings
* a sense of competence and achievement
* meaning and purpose

When enough of these needs are unmet within a person or a community, psychological disarray, suffering and conflict may result.

Iran’s political and diplomatic behaviour, posturing and rhetoric which is often characterized as “extreme” or “rogue” and is sometimes depicted as being intrinsic to Iranian culture, is more likely related to its needs as a nation being deprived than it is to some inherent evil. And western countries may be quite complicit in this situation.

The ongoing effort by the West to sanction and isolate Iran, as an uncreative standard operating procedure, may be a primary cause. In fact, it might be said with some degree of certainty that the reason for which tools such as sanctions exist is to deprive countries of their needs in order to exact punishment, or to force capitulation on an issue or range of issues.

Decades of Western hostility, suspicion, forced isolation from the global community, and a devaluing of all things Iranian, go completely against the grain of the needs listed above: security, the ability to exercise attention through official relations, autonomy, control, being part of a community, and enjoying a certain national status and the fruits of growth and achievement. The implications of this, as profound as they are on their own, are further bolstered by the fact, often unappreciated, that Iran is a historically and culturally rich nation with a deep sense of pride. It’s needs for recognition, respect, and status perhaps run even deeper than other nations.

How does this bear upon the conflict and on our perception and understanding of Iran as whole?

If Iranians, or others in a similar situation, cannot have their needs met through the usual avenues that modern nations and people do, they will try to fulfill them in other ways.

For instance, what the west takes to be actions that are purely hostile towards it, may in fact be alternate and/or misplaced avenues for Iran to pursue its needs:

Iran’s continued revolutionary struggles, especially by its elites, against its “enemies” that include extreme rhetoric, action and political – may constitute an alternate form of pursuit of meaning and purpose, whose more appropriate forms are denied by sanctions and isolation

The development of a nuclear program (either energy or weapons or both) is a pursuit of security, status, competence and achievement, again, where isolation and sanctions prevents Iran from attaining these goals in other areas

Iran’s controversial relations to other groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, North Korea can easily be understood in terms of its needs to share attention, have relations with others, and feel part of a larger community, since it is currently excluded in various ways from the community of nations

Iran’s intentions to become a regional power in the Middle East – something construed as hostile and ill-intentioned – may be seen through the prism of Iran’s need to have a sense of autonomy and control denied to it by the wide range of economic and political strictures imposed by the world community

Any one of these actions can be related to other unmet needs cited in the other examples.

A dialogue with Iran can be entered into to both understand these needs as well as to discuss such possible excesses.

What is the impact of all of this for our understanding of Iran?

These behaviours, seen as pure hostility and apart from their other motives, re-enforces and feeds back into our already skewed caricatures of Iran. Our responses further alienates Iran and produces more behaviours that we use to strengthen our models. The cycle seems to have no end. Iran itself, or its leadership, may not be fully aware of the needs as described above and may be trying to compensate for those starved needs in excess.

The first step away from the precipice of the deadly violence which looms above this long-standing conflict, and towards more flexible policy options and improved relations between Iran and the West is for not only elites, but also regular citizens to learn and better understand why we see each other as we do, and how we might be able to bring our perception, even slightly more in line with what the reality might be.

Understanding Iran II - A Distorted View

2009-04-22T00:41:00.008-04:00

In order to appreciate the notion that what we as humans actually perceive is often far removed from what is actually there, we need to draw upon recent understandings in the fields of psychology and human behaviour.

Dr. Robert Ornstein is an American psychologist whose pioneering research and work in the areas of brain functioning, consciousness and human nature has transformed the way in which we understand ourselves. Among other things, he has shown that contrary to what we think, we as human beings do not perceive and experience the world as it actually IS, but instead as a distorted picture or caricature of that reality.

According to Ornstein, because of the evolutionary imperative over millions of years for humans to survive, our brains have evolved to filter in only certain information relevant to our survival while ignoring a multiplicity of other stimuli and data which exists in the external world.

Once we have experienced any given thing - whether it be a person, a place, an object or an environment - our minds create visual models and slots those things into simple and generalized categories, which we subsequently re-experience as we understand them in our own minds, rather than as they actually exist.

Our views and experiences become “habituated” or “automized”, as kind of natural shortcut to ensure survival. Things like assumptions, biases, and prejudices are all part of the way in which our minds generalize and simplify the world around us, in order to see and react to those things that may be most relevant to our survival. The end result is that we can only see what our minds have allowed us to see at any given time. Whatever we do “see” or “experience” is almost always done so in an incomplete fashion, and as we know it to be in our minds.

Far from being a far-flung theoretical exercise with little relevance to the real world of people and events, these contentions have been confirmed by science and apply to all aspects of human life and human interaction. Because reality feels to each of us so convincing, so rich and so complete, and because we are not otherwise taught about the limitations of our cognition, it seldom occurs to us that our perceptions are incomplete or flawed. We are thus convinced of our views, and are too often compelled to act upon them.

We tend to see a country like Iran primarily in terms of its potential dangers and its propensity for aggression because that is how we have come to identify, categorize and model it, both individually and collectively in our brains. We have become habituated to that generalized perception.

Our distance from the reality of the country itself, its people, and its rich cultural heritage, combined with media coverage filtering in stories that confirm our viewpoints further strengthens our incomplete picture. A country like the United States, which has been conditioned by its past experiences with Iran, or like Israel, whose predominant collective paradigm on the outside world is that of threat and the possibility of persecution, are both more susceptible to these processes.

But the cycle of misunderstanding does not end there. It is further heightened by our own actions on the political stage, which are essentially our responses to these entrenched viewpoints, which then play back into, and further enforce, our incomplete and lopsided perceptions.

Understanding Iran

2009-04-16T17:48:00.002-04:00

The traditional view of Iran, that of an irrational and hatemongering monolithic regime pining at any opportunity to harm its enemies, is one which has become widely accepted and unquestioned in the West. Over a generation of experts, academics, and policy-makers - some with relatively little firsthand knowledge of Persian culture - have inherited and continue to perpetuate the vilifying clichés and rhetoric that constitute the brick and mortar of a conflict that very few people understand.

The cornerstone of the West’s strategy in confronting Iran has always been to contain and punish it through the use of sanctions and diplomatic isolation, while waging covert actions in the shadows where Iran’s allies and agents are said to be also continually operative.

Despite periods of brief détente and cooperation on tactical issues, notably after 9/11, both sides have never been able to fully bridge the chasm of misunderstanding that divides them. Now, with Iran on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power, this conflict threatens to escalate to dangerous new heights as Israel – with or without the backing of the United States – stands poised to intervene militarily to deny the Iranians a nuclear capability.

Few people (including most Iranians) will deny that many of the ruling elites and organs of the Iranian state manifest extreme religious and ideological positions that are antagonistic towards the West. But in much the same way that an American would tell an Iranian who’s never experienced America that the United States is quite a lot more than someone’s idea of a “Great Satan”, Iran is also more welcoming, tolerant, diverse and sophisticated than the bleak unchanging image presented to us on the nightly news, or by our own blinkered politicians.

Indeed, at the political and other levels, if one is willing to look closely enough, there is an obvious dissonance between our perceptions of one another, and what may in fact be a more complex reality.

This in turn begs a number of questions:

1. How much of the Iran-West conflict (or any other conflict) is the result of limitations in our cognition that we as humans are naturally subject to, and are not even aware of?

2. Could the character and actions of Iran be seen through different lenses, which could help to free us from the myopic viewpoint to which we are today seemingly condemned?

3. If so, could an understanding of these subtler factors also constitute an important key towards the resolution of a long and unnecessary conflict which may yet have devastating consequences for the Middle East and for the world?

In the case of relations between Iran and the West, for example, we would like to put forward the idea that the conflict, although encompassing real issues, is also an ongoing drama involving and demonstrating flawed human cognition on multiple levels.

The West’s understanding of Iran and the dangers that it poses is more of an imaginary or psychological construct, than a true reflection of reality – and is one which gets in the way of amelioration of the conflict. The West’s inability to properly understand Iranian culture and its failure to appreciate that its own largely reactive, conditioned, and ritualistic posture of hostility towards Iran, elicits and compels Iran towards certain behaviours that then further reinforce our generalized misperceptions of Iran being a rogue.

We will be exploring these ideas further in our next series of posts.

"We are better than Them"

2009-03-03T18:21:00.005-05:00

"White smoke drifted up from a fog machine... A sound system played...anthems - deep male voices booming to a marching band's rhythms. The parents applauded wildly, the mothers ululating." (1)

We usually reserve the word ¨cult¨ for groups that commit mass suicide by drinking poison-laced purple cool-aid.

There is a view however that cult phenomena are much more pervasive in our lives. In the book 'Them and Us: Cult Thinking and the Terrorist Threat', Dr. Arthur Deikman, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, explains how cult thinking affects almost all of us. In the Middle East, where group belonging and identity remain supreme totems, the effect of hidden cult behaviour may be especially marked. Understanding its effects there may be critical to moving the region to new and more constructive paradigms.

Deikman points out that cult behaviour has three main characteristics:

Dependence on a leader;
Devaluing the outsider; and
Avoiding dissent within the group.

Compliance to and within groups is a natural human phenomenon, necessary for survival. But group activity can vary greatly, from consensus building and open critical discussion to more cult-like closed systems that reject not only outsiders but also any intruding realities – ultimately much to the expense of the group and its survival.

Taboos and respect and fear for authority are strong features of many groups in the Middle East. From national identity, to religious systems to patriarchal families, respect for the leader, authority or ¨father figure¨ is unquestioned. The values of the society, especially religiously based ones, are taboos that do not sustain critical inquiry. Indeed, in this scenario, the ability to truly see an outsider at ¨eye level¨, i.e. equal, is simply not there.

In the Middle East, these matters are simply seen as "the way things have always been, and will always be". However, this is a method of group survival with potentially terrible consequences in an age of globalization and weapons of mass destruction.

Whether in Israel´s relations to its neighbours, its desperate desire to preserve its identity or assumptions among some about being somehow superior to others, or in Hizballah´s grip on its members, motivating them to higher purpose through sacrifice, even death, cult behaviour continues to grip the region, hidden in the veneer of tradition and references to longstanding cultures and civilizations.

"You are our leader... We are your men!" (2). Indeed, most seductive of all, according to Deikman, is when belonging to a group comes with a divine calling. It makes the mission of sublime importance and eases the ability to maintain the tightness of the group, calling on members to act blindly in its favour. By devaluing outsiders and feeling supreme, the group can provide members with a sense of mission and meaning.

The benefits of belonging to groups that act like cults are many: comfort, security, belonging, and, above all, a sense of higher purpose that the group and leader deliver, often at any cost. Indeed, it is when security and comfort meet higher purpose that the cult becomes an iron-clad contract between individual and group.

The cost of cults is massive. Deikman calls it ¨diminished realism¨. We see it every day in the Middle East:

91% of Israelis supported the bombing of Gaza even though the results are profoundly uncertain, even possibly counterproductive (e.g. a post-war strengthened Hamas), and other methods of approaching the problem may not have been exhausted.

Hamas is so sure of their ¨divine purpose¨ that there is little questioning of their goals or methods. All - rockets, bombs, terror – can be justified in the light of the group´s distant goals even if, again, the results are not there: Gaza remains under siege and in a profoundly abnormal condition despite Hamas's strategy.

Certainly, the record of progress in the Middle East is testament to a state of ¨diminished realism¨. It may not be at all impossible for Israelis and Palestinians to come to terms if certain taboos are sacrificed, i.e. if cult behaviour is recognized and reduced.

Cult behaviour does not just apply to religious or Middle Eastern groups. It appears in a more subtle fashion in companies, organizations, and even between friends. The difficulty is that devaluing outsiders, avoiding dissent and blindly obeying leaders is often unrecognized for what it is. Furthermore, the reality is that breaking out of the group can be terrifying. Being thrust out, "excommunicated", a heretic in one's own "family" - however understood - can mean that the most basic instincts of life or death are triggered.

Yet, ironically, the word 'heretic' is derived from the Greek 'hairetikos', meaning 'able to choose'. Indeed, many in the Middle East deny the possibility of choice and point to the dance of fate in their desperate destiny, where in fact longstanding and unconscious acceptance of cult behaviour may be at play. After all, no one really wants to be a heretic.

Developing awareness of the problem is not easy, but it is possible. Recognition of one´s own cult tendencies may be the beginning.

"The musk oxen gather in a circle to defend against the wolves yet there may be only other oxen outside the circle."

(1) "Hezbollah Seeks to Marshall the Piety of the Young", New York Times, November 21, 2008
(2) Ibid.

All text and photography copyright (c) John Bell and John Zada

Human Needs and the Lure of Extremism

2008-10-21T00:10:00.010-04:00

As the boundaries of our understanding of psychology and human behavior are widened by the work of innovators in those fields, we are provided with new possibilities for perceiving the world around us in ways that may be more in line with reality.

For years, academics in the social sciences looked to socio-economics in their attempt to find an explanation for the powerful appeal of political and religious extremist groups in the Middle East. The idea soon emerged that disenchanted individuals – people with little education and/or few or no means to financially support themselves - were easily lured by militants, and made up the majority of their rank and file.

To many, this explanation seemed straightforward and logical enough. The solution, according to its proponents, was for governments to address the root economic causes of the disenchantment that led to people embracing extremist ideology – including unemployment, poverty, and lack of access to education.

But then something happened to muddy the waters.

Other academics, as well as those in some security services, started pointing to exceptions to this socio-economical approach. Many people, they claimed, who joined militant groups were in fact educated professionals that were known to be from the middle or upper classes. Lack of education and economic opportunity - although a factor in many cases of extremist recruitment - did not fully account for the large numbers of others who were clearly not lacking in education, jobs or money. These others had been suddenly magnetized to “the cause” for some other reason or reasons. Something else had to be at play.

Despite an emerging body of evidence-based research in the fields of the behavioral sciences that bear upon this question, there remains little consensus among academics and policymakers as to what causes some people to be attracted to extremist groups, and others not.

We now know that human beings have a set of clearly defined emotional needs that are as equally important to their well being as their physical needs. It is a person’s attempts to fulfill those needs that largely accounts for much of his or her underlying motives and behaviour in the many areas of life - regardless of how that person views his or her own actions. It is this needs-based approach that is the key to understanding the powerful motive to join an extremist group.

Some of these needs, including the need for a sense of status within social groupings and the need for a sense of competence and achievement, reflects the longstanding view by some social scientists that socio-economic issues including unemployment, poverty and lack of education do in fact play a role in the appeal of extremist groups. The inability to fulfill these needs on their own compel people to connect with others who can offer them the means to realize those needs, but in another way. For instance, a person who can’t derive a sense of competence and status through his or her work, simply because they are unable to find work, will be easily lured by a group or organization that can offer to meet those needs. But it doesn’t end there.

One could have an education, status, and money but still be vulnerable to the appeal of militancy – as demonstrated by privileged individuals who are a part of these organizations. But why would this be the case?

The appeal to join an extremist movement may be amplified for those who lack any or a combination of security, attention, a feeling of control, friendships, community, and meaning and purpose – and other fundamental human needs - because any such grouping will almost inevitably provide just those things for the would-be member. Being handed a gun and given a mandate to combat “evildoers” can provide a very powerful sense of safety, social cohesion, control over one’s destiny, and meaning to those who previously lacked those things, regardless of how well-off they may have previously been.

If people have their needs met through the healthy outlets of daily life, in a healthy society, by way of a good job, a sufficient income, a safe environment, a social network of family and friends, and a sense of meaning, they would not need to look elsewhere to have them met and will think twice about joining with others whose outward goals don’t gel with their own. This has always been the fundamental, subconscious, appeal of cults, who in addition to offering to meet certain needs also appeal to a person’s sense of dependency on others, especially authority figures.

Educating people about their needs and the necessity to meet them in a healthy fashion, combined with efforts on the part of governments, and others with influence and resources in the Middle East to foster environments where those needs should not go unmet, would go a long way in reducing the appeal of extremist groups. It would also have the effect of reducing conflicts and ameliorating core issues that provide the raison d’etre for these groups in the first place.

The Basis for Moving Forward

2008-08-18T00:09:00.013-04:00

In recent years, a new approach in the field of psychology has opened up possibilities for understanding important aspects of human nature. This new organizing idea, known as The Human Givens, postulates that when certain specific important human needs are not met, or are denied to an individual, that mental illness and suffering can ensue. Optimal well-being therefore can only be assured when a person’s needs are both known to that person and are sufficiently met.

We believe that this scientific, evidence-based approach, which is now gaining wider currency and is replacing outmoded models of psychology, can be applied to collectives as well, and can be used to better understanding the situation in the Middle East - a region which is undoubtedly today in a state of disequilibrium.

We propose that not only does the issue of unmet human needs hold as true for collectives, groups, and societies as much as for individuals - indeed, the goal of collectives is mostly to ensure that individuals have all those needs met - but that unmet needs are at the root of many of the problems in the Middle East today – fueling “issues” which are grappled with endlessly by politicians and diplomats using traditional methods and mechanisms, often with little or no results.

Viewing issues through the lens of unmet needs offers new possibilities for addressing complex issues in the Middle East.

Below is a list of needs, which we have adapted from the Human Givens approach, and which we believe societies in the Middle East must have met if a more healthy, productive, and promising future for the region is to be realized:

Security - safe territory and environment free of threat for the healthy growth of individuals and of societies respectively.

Ecological and Environmental Health – the maintenance and promotion of a balanced physical environment that can provide for the physical sustenance/needs of individuals and societies – clean air, water, and food and sufficient living space to avoid crowding.

Economic Welfare and Opportunity – systems for governments to deliver sufficient economic welfare and opportunity for their citizens.

A Sense of Autonomy, Control and Responsibility – for communities and nations in relation to each other and the outside world, and for individuals within all societies in the Middle East. Too much control by one country over another, one group over another, or by governments over its own citizens robs collectives and individuals of the sense of volition, and leads to frustration. Examples of greater autonomy and control include:

* Israel allowing Palestinians greater freedom of movement

* Palestinians having autonomy and control over their lives through an independent government and state.
* Easing of controls and restrictions by certain Arab governments on their people on access to information
* Greater opportunities for individuals and communities to be involved in politics, local or national.
* Less intrusion by governments into the lives of citizens through security services, informants and the like
* Greater allowance and encouragement of independent thought and dissent within groups or communities

Recognition – a recognition between communities and political entities of each others’ existence and the right to exist, and the cultivation between them of healthy relations, interactions, and exchange on an equitable and mutual basis.

Connection to the Wider Community – a more integrated Middle East, and more integrated countries within the Middle East with fewer divisions, separations, and barriers, and greater interconnectivity between countries, regions, and people. Some examples:

* Greater freedom of movement for people in the region to travel to different countries
* Greater allowance for people of the same ethnic community who are currently separated by borders to meet with one another in other countries or regions, ie – Palestinians, Kurds, Druzes etc.

Individual and Group Competence, Achievement and Status – better run societies with more effective frameworks for providing groups and individuals greater opportunities to realize their economic, political and cultural goals - thereby providing individuals and collectives with the need to have a sense of their own competence, achievement and status.

Corruption, nepotism, inefficiency, greed, and government apathy, deny individuals and groups fair access to opportunities for political and economic growth, leading to frustration and the channeling of energies by individuals and groups towards violence and dangerous ideologies in an attempt to meet those unmet needs.

Meaning and Purpose - Enabling an environment and culture which permits individuals to pursue meaning and purpose in their life.

The Problem

2008-07-18T23:29:00.001-04:00

For years, efforts to resolve the Israel-Palestine problem, as well as other issues in the Middle East, have floundered outright or only managed to scratch the surface of issues whose roots lie much deeper than where most peacemaking work has taken place. Despite the failures, these political initiatives continue unabated while the problems of the Middle East become further entrenched.

As a result we have a situation today in which a team of well-intentioned doctors are attending to a patient, whose malady has been misdiagnosed, in the hope that a successive application of misplaced treatments will result in a sudden, random, and miraculous cure.

We believe that new clarity is desperately required regarding the problems of the Middle East and their resolution. In our view, the problems of the region cannot be effectively addressed on faulty premises or political terms, or in talks or agreements that do not attend to the root problem.

We believe the correct basis and working assumptions must be established before efforts move forward. Therefore we would like to suggest reframing the problems of - and the solutions to - the Middle East in wider, simpler and more fundamental human terms that draw upon new understandings in the fields of psychology and human behaviour.

We therefore postulate the following:

* Human beings come into high states of anxiety and emotion if their needs - physical and emotional - are not met. These needs can be defined and articulated and they must not be confused with wishes.

* This heightened state of anxiety and emotion is not conducive to finding ways to meet those needs, leading to a downward cycle of worsening of conditions, and in the end, violent conflict

* We believe that the Middle East is exactly in this state, failing to find successful mechanisms to meet the needs of its citizens, societies and its groups.

* Part of the reason that Middle Easterners are not properly attending to the needs of their own, is because theirs is a region that emphasizes and employs the use of ancient means of meeting needs - approaches that no longer work in today's complex world.

* These ancient means can be described as old systems of survival used by small groups (whether tribe, religion, or nation - or a mix of the three) derived from millenia of threat and competition.

* Historically, the pressing need to survive in a region filled with competing groups and frequent invaders, often combined with a lack of overarching authority to provide security, have led to the creation of these group survival systems - based partly on strength, intimidation, deterrence, and war-making - and which have persisted until today. A high degree of exclusivity within groupings adds further fuel to these divisions in a region where groups live together, or in exceptionally close proximity.

* This continued reliance upon survival through a system of exclusive and ancient grouping that once helped to meet the needs of another time is now obsolete in a world where human beings live as part of one global community, where our survival as a race depends on collective cooperation against collective threats, and in a region that, despite the wishes of many, is fundamentally interconnected.

* Put in another way: continued emphasis upon ancient group survival in the Middle East only leads to worse emotional states and poorer responses to a conflict which now, ironically, threatens the survival of the people employing these techniques in order to survive.

* In addition to spending much of their time and resources towards ensuring group survival and neglecting the basic needs of its citizens, leaders in the region often take advantage of these conditions in order to keep themselves in positions of power, prohibiting the development of new mechanisms and deepening the already profound crisis facing the region.

* This failure to properly meet needs, and the ability to move towards approaches that do, is the source of regular violent conflict in the Middle East, whether between Israelis and Palestinians, or between groups in states such as Lebanon, or Iraq, or even between Palestinians, for example.

* Indeed, today in the Middle East, there is an often intentional approach of denying or belittling the other group and its needs as a means of strengthening one's own. This, above all, needs to change if negotiations or political processes are ever to achieve lasting solutions.

We believe that new mechanisms can be achieved in the Middle East for the needs of all groups to be met, and for survival and prosperity to be assured. To be sure, these must be developed by the people in the region on the basis that the needs of all sides must be met and that new arrangements - political, economic, and cultural - can and must be found to do so. As a basis for moving forward, various groups in the Middle East must also recognize each other's legitimate needs.

Through this blog we will aim to elucidate an examination of the problems, the needs, and the means to meet them, and thus, the possible roads that could help the Middle East move from illness to health.