A psychologically healthy adult is a person who, among many other things, has learned how to accept criticism and responsibility for their actions. Adolescents, who for reasons having to do with incomplete Neuropsychiatric develop, have a poor concept of cause and effect and typically react negatively to criticism. Their initial reaction is often to deny responsibility, deflect blame, and, in a pinch, resort to an offensive (ie, angry) reaction in order to preserve their fragile self-esteem. In a mature society, the ability to accept criticism is an essential part of the ability to correct errors. Even in the most mature societies, the effort is imperfect (consider the post-9/11 commissions which saw more energy spent by various participants and functionaries playing CYA than actually attempting to elucidate the systemic factors that led to our blindness to the attacks) but societies that engage in no self-criticism seldom learn from their mistakes. If no mistakes are ever admitted, no learning can take place.
In the Middle East, Arab societies have never progressed beyond a tribal based zero sum ethic, which is intolerant of admissions of culpability to setbacks and disasters. Elder of Ziyon has a particularly trenchant example of this thinking on his site today:
The zero-sum game and Arab mentality
In the wake of the 2006 Lebanon war, with hundreds of dead Lebanese civilians and a destroyed infrastructure, a Gulf News analyst - and professor of political science at UAE University - wrote:
The controversial discussion about the quality and significance of the victory and the size of destruction caused by the war is legitimate and healthy. But, despite the massive destruction in Lebanon, the Arabs seem to be better off after the war.
Logically, when Israel is in a worse condition, which is the case now, Arabs are definitely better off.
Although Israel was not routed in the battle, it surely seems defeated and frustrated. It is also living in a state of doubt and comprehensive review of its military and political performance during the war.
The equation of victory and defeat between the Arabs and the Zionist state has always been and will remain zero equation. This means that when Israel is defeated, Arabs have the right to celebrate victory.
Hatred of Israel can be found in the genes of all Arabs. Although it is hereditary, its intensity varies from time to time. All facts on the ground indicate that the Arab rejection of the Zionist entity reached its peak after the aggression.
The unification of Arabs in their deep enmity against Israel is a positive matter.
This is not some crazy member of the "Arab street". This is someone who has a respected job as an intellectual, who is saying that anything that is bad for Israel is, by definition, good for the Arabs. The Arab world, and a large number of its supporters, look at the Middle East as a zero-sum game where when one side wins, the other loses.History shows that this is not an isolated opinion; in fact, it is still mainstream Arab opinion. Even as pragmatic and moderate a leader as Jordan's King Abdullah reveals that he still looks at the conflict the same way, that what is good for Israel is bad for the Arab world, although Abdullah is much more nuanced.
Please read the entire post; it includes a great deal more good information. For my purposes today, what is important is that the idea that the Arab world still functions on a zero-sum basis is indisputable.
Their societies are ordered along zero-sum lines and they behave as if accepting criticism would lead to disaster, and in many ways they are correct. In a democracy, when things go wrong, there is built-in criticism and error-correction. More people critiqued the Republicans than the Democrats in the last two elections and a change of power ensued. In the Middle East, except for Israel, and possibly Iraq (too soon to tell) an admission of error by the society and the assigning of blame does not mean the leadership can retire home to write their memoirs but rather means the leadership is likely to be murdered.
When a society is unable to admit error and change course, it can be helpful for the International Community to make the proper "interpretation" for the offender. In this there are parallels for the wayward adolescent.
Kurt Eissler, in the 1950s, recognizing the difficulty treating young delinquents through conventional psychiatric and psychological ministrations, determined that a specific form of group therapy, in which the group could be mobilized to serve as an auxiliary ego structure for the youngsters, could decrease violent acting out and could occasionally lead to long term change. This finding has been replicated many times and applies not only to adolescent delinquents but to the adult sociopaths who they resemble.
Adolescence is a time of heightened narcissism (and attendant lessened empathy), poor appreciation of cause and effect (and concomitant diminished sense of guilt) and a tendency to aggressive acting out; in these ways the most impaired can resemble adult sociopaths, who are similarly marked by heightened narcissism, decreased empathy and guilt, and a tendency toward violence. Eissler used the opprobrium of the group to discipline his young charges and while they were involved in the group (this was in-patient work) they typically (unconsciously) imbued the group (analogous to their gang) with tremendous power and influence. Essentially, he used the tendency of adolescents to idealize their peer group to form a new, better behaved, gang and modify his patients' behavior. This required a two step process. First, the larger society had to make a preparatory, kinetic interpretation: You are not fit to be among civilized people and must be locked up. Delinquent Adolescents only understand actions, not words, and locking them up was a prerequisite for any change to take place. Only then could the second parameter be introduced, which involved the new gang introduced a new "ego ideal" (of non-violent mediation of disputes and non-violent methods for achieving gratification.)
The Palestinians, like the Delinquent Adolescents, are deeply dependent upon the larger community, and "belong" to a gang of thugs (ie, radical Islamists) who have control over several states and territories. Only the International Community can make the accurate interpretations necessary to change their behavior. The Israelis are currently engaged in making the kinetic interpretation, that their behavior is unacceptable to civilized people and they will be locked up, or killed, if they cannot control themselves. Once a cease fire is arranged, it will be up to the International Community to use the opportunity to introduce a new "ego ideal" for the Palestinians, one which values life and building a community over martyrdom and murder.
If past history is any guide the International Community, like the soft-hearted (and often intimidated) mental health professions who were so easily played by their delinquent adolescent patients in those halcyon days of the liberal 1960s and 70s, will fail to force the necessary modifications of behavior (as they failed with Hezbollah) and further kinetic interpretations will be necessary down the road. The people of Gaza deserve a better outcome from the International Community (which has colluded with the worst tendencies of the Arab autocracies for the last 60 years) but as long as the International Community prefers the demonization of Israel to the more difficult work of forcing fundamental change within the Palestinian community, they will continue to suffer for quite some time to come.
Update: Dr. Sanity, who resumed blogging after the new year began, has an excellent post up looking at the same phenomena from a slighly different point of view. Her post offers another way of thinking about the psychology of the Palestinians:
MOVING BEYOND THE PALESTINIAN DELUSION
David Gelernter has a very good article that suggests "Facing Reality" might be a good path toward peace in Gaza. I especially liked this part:
Any competent psychologist will agree: When someone is mooning over a thing he can't have because it belongs to someone else, the responsible and humane course of treatment is not temporizing sweet-talk but a blunt lesson in the facts of life. "No, you cannot have my wife (girlfriend, husband, etc.), and we are not going to negotiate over it; let's talk about something else." (And it really doesn't matter that the two of you used to keep company; you never loved her.) "Know Thyself" was supposedly carved on the ancient Temple at Delphi; "Face Reality" should have been carved right next to it. There is no irreconcilable difference in the fight between Israel and the Palestinians, no bone-deep dispute that will haunt humanity forever. There is only greed and envy. They never disappear, but can easily move from one target to the next. The problem will be solved as soon as the world stops trying to solve it. When the international community moves on to fresh causes, so will the Palestinians.
"Know Thyself" and "Face Reality" are certainly timely slogans for today's world; and it's an excellent bet that you won't see Code Pink--or any of the other leftist lunatics who angrily and violently act out for "peace"--carrying placards with anything remotely approaching such sentiments.
The truth is that you cannot "know thyself" without "facing reality." And, amazingly enough, reality doesnt much care about maintaining your self-esteem or enabling your self delusions.
Recent Comments