Cognitive dissonance (Blog 4)

Cognitive dissonance is defined as a mental state where two or more contradictory ideas are held to be true. (Jasper 1) For example, people who enjoy smoking, but are also aware that smoking is unhealthy. This state is uncomfortable, and causes most people to rationalize the situation in such a way where it is acceptable for the contradiction to occur, (Jasper 1) such as when the hypothetical smoker claims smoking keeps them from stressing out, or gaining weight. This rationalization occurs all the time, and I believe that it is part of the reason that people are able to go to war so easily.

Most people believe that war, and the horrors that accompany it, are a bad thing, so why do we fight? The usual responses are freedom, self-defense, or the protection of others. These are all considered "good things," which blur the line on whether or not war is good or bad, and cause confusion as to whether or not fighting should occur. These "good reasons" are not only the cause of cognitive dissonance, they also tend to be the justification people use. After all, if we're protecting others, or freeing the oppressed, then war is appropriate, right?
Well, I have to disagree, no matter how great the prize, at the end of the day, the amount of blood spilled will outweigh it. I feel it's time for people to get their heads out of the sand, and realize that you can justify anything if you try hard enough, and doing so causes more harm than good.


Jasper, John D., Mary Prothero, and Stephen D. Christman. “I’m Not Sexist!!! Cognitive
Dissonance and the Differing Cries of Mixed- and Strong- Handers.” Personality and
Individual Differences 47.4 (2009): 268-72. Print

Lakoff, George. "Metaphor ane War, Again." AlterNet.org. 18 Mar. 2003. 28 July 2009
http://www.alertnet.org/story/15414.
-"Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf." Presentation.
University of California at Berkeley. Berkely, California. 30 Jan. 1991. Rpt in. Viet Nam
Generation Journal and Newsletter. 28 July 2009

Terrorism

Terrorism is defined as deliberately and violently targeting civilians for a political purpase, and is always considered a bad thing. America has even gone so far as to "declare war" on terrorism, which in and of itself is a dangerous idea. However, American troops also use acts of terrorism to "persuade" others to do what we want.

In my opinion, the most notable of these acts are the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The government deliberately dropped atomic bombs on these two cities, knowing full well that they did not house military bases. It is almost impossible to count the number of people those explosins affected, because even if you went uninjured from the blast, there were still all sorts of uncatalogued effects from the radiation poisioning. These bombings were used to bully Japan into surrendering.

Which leaves me with this question: How can we expect the American government to get rid of terrorism when they are not above it themselves?

Richardson, Louise. "What is Terrorism." What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat. New York: Random, 2006. 3-20.

Propaganda (Blog 2)

Propaganda is used to persuade people to someone's viewpoint, and has been used in virtually every war. It gives us the reason to go off and kill other people. Propaganda designates one side as good and pure, the hero's of the other country they are about to face. Their opponents are cast as evil, viscious, malignant, and deserving of death. Of course on the side of the opposition, the roles are reversed. However, rarely are the true motives for going off to war revealed to the population at large.

Total War

Total war is not a new invention. The concept of decimating your enemies by any means necessary, even if it involves harming "innocent" civilians. People as a whole seem to have an innate desire to utterly destroy those we are in conflict also destroys the ability to keep any form of peace. This way of thinking is also called "The Armaggedon Complex" (The Armaggedon Complex)

It is well known that total war occurs, but what is harder to figure out is why. Why do people feel the need to annihilate anyone related to an opposing army?

A good portion of this can be traced to propaganda. The goverment feeds the general population a story about how the country fighting ours is a big, evil villain that needs to be wiped out. That includes anyone who assists their army, after all, if the army is evil, then anyone who supports the army must be evil, right?

Take the current "War on Terror" as an example. The American people want Al Quaeda brought down, and to do so, are willing to bomb towns and villages full of civilians that may or may not be hiding operatives.

Obviously the reasons for committing total war differ from conflict to conflict, and scientists may never know precisely why people in conflict are only satisfied after all potentially responsible parties have been absolutely destroyed, but it is certainly a problem that I feel needs addressing.

Paris Sinett



"The Armageddon Complex: Dynamics of Opinion." jstor.org. 6 September, 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2746165?seq=8