We see evidence of lashing out all around us. In Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in Little Rock, Wichita, and Washington D.C., some among us lash out in rage on the pretext of righting some wrong, despite ample evidence that lashing out will not achieve their objectives and indeed are more likely to crystallize the opposition to their objectives. Why do some groups lash out in desperate and often impotent rage?
Dominique Möisi offers some insights in his new book The Geopolitics of Emotion. He suggests these are cultures of humiliation, and that we must understand that sense of humiliation in order to better respond to and interact with such cultures.
More below the fold....
The (Geo)Politics of Emotion - Cultures of Humiliation
This week Morning Feature explores Dominique Möisi's new book, The Geopolitics of Emotion. We began yesterday with a summary of Dr. Möisi's thesis, and by exploring what he proposes as cultures of hope in China and India. Tomorrow we'll examine cultures of fear, which Dr. Möisi suggests exist in the U.S. and much of Europe. On Saturday we'll explore Dr. Möisi's projections for the year 2025, depending on whether hope or fear emerge as the world's dominant emotion.
To review, Dr. Möisi offers three driving emotions in geopolitics - hope, humiliation, and fear. He offers these definitions (at p.5):
- Hope - This is "an expression of confidence; it is based on the conviction that today is better than yesterday and tomorrow will be better than today. ... 'I want to do it, I can do it, and I will do it.'"
- Humiliation - This is "the injured confidence of those who have lost hope in the future. ... When the contrast between your idealized and glorious past and your frustrating present is too great, humiliation prevails. ... 'I can never do it ... I might as well try to destroy you since I cannot join you.'"
- Fear - This is "the absence of confidence. If your life is dominated by fear, you are apprehensive about the present and expect the future to become ever more dangerous. ... '[T]he world has become such a dangerous place; how can I be protected from it?'"
Dr. Möisi suggests that the dominant emotion in a culture is most apparent and important in how that people interact with the Other, and that "In the age of globalization, the relationship with the Other has become more fundamental than ever." (p.20) Broadly speaking, cultures of hope are more likely to work with the Other, cultures of humiliation more likely to lash out at the Other, and cultures of fear more likely to isolate themselves from the Other.
While he develops his thesis only in international terms, I'll explore whether and how his thesis applies in domestic politics as well.
Cultures of Humiliation - Arab-Islamic Cultures
Dr. Möisi begins by expanding on his definition of humiliation (p.56):
If hope is confidence, humiliation is impotence, an emotion that stems above all from the feeling that you are no longer in control of your life either collectively, as a people, a nation, or a religious community, or individually as a single person. Humiliation peaks when you are convinced that the Other has intruded into the private realm of your own life and made you totally dependent.
He notes that humiliation exists to some degree in all cultures and societies, and that it can be either beneficial or destructive depending on the other emotions that surround it. If offset by hope, it can motivate us to work harder to prove we've been wrongly dismissed. But if reinforced by fear, "humiliation without hope leads to despair and to the nurturing of a yearning for revenge that can easily turn into an impulse toward destruction. If you cannot reach the level of those you feel are humiliating you, at least you can drag them down to your level: 'I'll teach them what suffering is like.'" (p.57)
Dr. Möisi finds that culture of "humiliation without hope" most evident in Arab-Islamic cultures. He cautions that the idea of "Arab-Islamic" is slippery and difficult, as there are many significant divisions both among Arab peoples and even more so within Islam. We've encountered some of those divisions in Iraq. But Dr. Möisi offers an argument that the cultural identity of "Islam" has become increasingly linked to the Arab experience, and particularly the Palestinian Arab experience.
A culture of humiliation requires "an idealized and glorious past," and Islam certainly offers that. As proponents of Islam often argue, and as Dr. Möisi concedes, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire much of Western knowledge was preserved and nurtured in what is now the Islamic world, first by the Byzantine Romans, then by nascent Islam, finally in the Ottoman Empire. This was "When the Sciences Spoke Arabic," from the title of a recent historical exhibition in Cairo.
The decline of the Ottoman Empire was gradual, but its collapse was both rapid and humiliating after World War I. Not only was the empire broken up by the Allies, but Britain and France carved up its lands and peoples between them with little regard for or interest in historical or cultural identities. Indeed the British and French often followed the common and toxic colonial practice of establishing minority cultures in leadership, on the theory that they would recognize their tenuous status and be more beholden and obedient to their colonial sponsors. In 1948 the creation of the state of Israel - sponsored by Western powers, and ignoring Arab objections - offered a tangible focus for that sense of humiliation.
To the extent that worldwide Islam has taken on Palestine as a cause célèbre, it has contributed to what Dr. Möisi describes as "the Arabization of Islam." Iran, a Shiite nation, has supported both Shiite Hezbollah and Sunni Hamas against Israel. In madrassas from Pakistan to Indonesia, children memorize the Quran in Arabic, even if they don't understand the words they are reciting. Thus the humiliation of Palestinian Arabs is felt throughout the Islamic world. He argues that a peaceful, stable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential before Arab-Islam culture can move from humiliation to hope.
Cultures of Humiliation - White Christian Fundamentalism
I see a similar pattern and emotional expression here in the U.S. in white Christian fundamentalism. Their "idealized and glorious past" harkens back to before the civil rights era (arguably before the Civil War), when there was a clear social structure and any white Christian male was nearer the top of that structure than any non-white, woman, or non-Christian. The white Christian fundamentalist culture claims credit for all of America's successes, and blames all failures on a perceived marginalization of white Christian males in favor of non-whites, women, and non-Christians.
The Civil Rights Acts and Roe v. Wade are for them what the creation of Israel has been for Arab-Islam: tangible foci for a sense of humiliation. And too often their response has been to lash out in much the same ways we've seen in the Middle East: "If I can't achieve what I want, at least I can drag you down with me."
While we need not accept that narrative, I suggest we must understand that narrative - that culture of humiliation - to find solutions.
+++++
Happy Thursday!