-
-
- When
a child has an imaginary friend, we accept it as part of growing
up. We routinely give children explanations of things which are
in fact lies. The jolly fat man brings the presents found under
the Christmas tree. Children believe this because the parents
have told them. And they act upon it. They send letters to the
North Pole. They may even try to impress Father Christmas by
being, briefly, uncharacteristically good. Of course, when adults
do what an imaginary person has told them to do, we tend to diagnose
schizophrenia or religion. But the reality is that much of what
all of us do as adults is based on ideas which have no objective
basis. Our opinions are often ill-thought out responses to half-understood
facts and outright fallacies and myths. This we consider to be
different to insanity. We are simply misinformed. But what about
when this misinformation results in horrific behaviour? Someone
who kills 77 people, with a bomb in a town centre and then on
an island at close range by gunshots because of a belief that
multiculturalism is wrong is presumed from the outset to be mad,
at least in a civilised society of which he is a member. The
trial of Anders Breivik is, of course, designed to determine
whether or not he is insane.
-
- In
contrast, we have seen the conclusion of the trial of Charles
Taylor after 4 years of hearings at the War Crimes Tribunal at
the Hague. He was the president of Liberia, and did terrible
things to his people but, in fact, the Judges convicted the former
Liberian president of aiding and abetting atrocities in neighbouring
Sierra Leone. He has been given a 50 year sentence. The court
found that he supplied arms to and took part in the planning
and command of the grim programme of the RUF (Revolutionary United
Front) of Sierra Leone. They paid him for the arms with 'blood
diamonds' from the mines in Sierra Leone. The RUF engaged in
crimes against humanity in order to gain control over the country
including murder, the use of child soldiers, rape and other horrific
of actions. The one question which was never asked, though, was
whether or not he was insane. Presumably, if someone commits
crimes against humanity to gain power and money, it is regarded
as normal.
-
- We
find it very difficult though to accept that such hateful actions
are a part of our shared human nature. We feel there must be
a reason for this 'deviation' from our humanity. After all, the
desire for power or money is within each of us, but we do not
pursue it in the single-minded way that Charles Taylor did. Perhaps
it is because we do not have the opportunity. Or perhaps because
the old image of ourselves and the other primates as purely competitive
and selfish is wrong. We now know that although competitiveness
and selfishness are indeed a part of the make-up of all primates,
they are considerably moderated by the other qualities which
we have and which are needed for living a social life - altruism,
empathy and a sense of fairness. It is easy to foresee the consequences
if these are undeveloped in an individual. Which puts in stark
relief the reason why most of us do not go down that route.
-
- What
we find even more difficult to understand is how people can do
hideous things to promote an idea, whether religious or not.
We imagine that there must be a schizophrenic voice of God or
an obsession at the root of it, but I do not think that that
is the main explanation. Breivik did not claim religious justification
and nor apparently did he show signs of obsessive stamp-collecting
in his childhood. And, even more disconcertingly, the promotion
of ideas usually seems to come from having that very concern
for others, albeit a limited group, which is apparently absent
in the Charles Taylors of this world. Anders Breivik did not
expect to survive his attacks. He was, in his mind, therefore
doing what he did for the benefit of others. In their mythology,
Islamic terrorists see their world as under attack from the West
and so feel they must protect themselves and their religion.
So we see that even if the terrorists have empathy and altruism,
they are able to overcome the horror which they must feel at
the their actions because they see their group as being treated
in a grotesquely unfair way. That in itself will largely outweigh
the empathetic feelings they may have towards the world in general.
Not entirely, perhaps - some persuade other more malleable
people actually to blow themselves up or, in his case, as Breivik
himself has told us, he hardened himself by looking at bloody
images.
-
- Breivik
considers that multiculturalism is unacceptable: he wishes to
retain the dominance of 'his' culture in his country. It can
certainly be argued that multiculturalism divides communities
and so is undesirable. There are many examples of this around
the world. But there are many other things which divide societies
- poverty and education to name but two - which are far more
important. And he ignores the fact that the idea of a monoculture
in any society is almost invariably a myth. But he builds on
his perception of how the world works and what is fair an all
too logical case for what he has done, given that the members
of the governing class are against him and so will not protect
his all-important monoculture. In a similar way Islamic terrorists
create a set of justifications for atrocious terrorist acts.
So then these people are exercising their logic in a consistent
manner, but based upon a set of premises which are completely
wrong.
-
- How
do they arrive at such a misconceived view of the world? I was
forcibly reminded of the mechanism involved when I was talking
to a friend the other night. He is convinced, despite all the
evidence to the contrary, that Muslims as a whole have embarked
on a breeding programme designed to outnumber the 'True Brits'
and other such 'indigenous' groups in other countries. I say
despite all the evidence because I sent him the actual numbers
a few years ago in response to an e-mail he forwarded to me making
such claims - and I never received a response. (click here for the article and
my reply). I understand,
however, that he is still receiving e-mails from various sources
asserting the truth of this conspiracy and clearly the number
of people peddling what is blatant myth and the vehemence with
which they do it is enough to persuade him that they are right.
-
- But
none of this would occur if we were not so hopeless at analysing
the reasons for our opinions. We are too lazy to investigate
the underlying facts and we have a confirmation bias which tells
us that we are right whatever we think. We may not be mad, but
we accept all too readily the myths peddled to us. And then we
see the awful consequences and wonder why these things happen.
|