Other Fears: The Naming of Our Disconnect

We live in frightening and unstable times. War with deadly weapons may start at any moment and spiral out of control. Plagues can emerge from nowhere and travel the globe in two or three days. The earth shudders on the verge of being unable to support its inhabitants.

Is this a natural consequence – a time that has run its course? Is it the action of a divine power that has decided to clean house? Is it a predictable consequence of patterns of thought and behavior? Or is it the result of manipulation by some with ulterior motives?

My guess is that it is in part a predictable consequence and in part a manipulation. At base is the seemingly human ability to disconnect ourselves from each other and from the world in which we live. Humans are capable of incredible levels of compassion and selflessness. We are also capable of unbelievable levels of brutality.

One might ask what triggers either the compassion or the brutality. I believe it has to do with our feelings of connection … and our fear. When our sense of connection weakens, or even breaks, then literally anything is possible – even if it potentially leads to our own destruction.

Fear can serve as a lever of connection or disconnection. Fear can cause us to embrace those with whom we normally feel little or no sense of connection. For example, strangers helping each other in a disaster. Or it can cause us to spurn those with whom we feel significant connection. For example, parents who reject a child for being gay, or rejecting a friend for a breach of faith.

This idea of connection or disconnection lies at the heart of the most basic “us versus them” mentality. It lies at the heart of what is sometimes called the creation of the “other.” It lies at the heart of objectification. Many societies and ideologies are built on the foundation of distinguishing “us” from “them.” The classic distinction of “man versus nature,” or “human versus animal,” lies at the base of so called “Western” societies. This was refined early in written history of the West with the further separation of “mind” from “body.”

Objectification is by definition removing something from the inherent wholeness of life, and placing it as distinct from the objectifier. This is an intellectual process that fundamentally separates the objectified from the objectifier. The process is not one of simply recognizing others, but of creating “others.” The “objects” created may be desirable or despicable; utilitarian or worthless. Regardless of the value assigned, the importance rests in the fact that we create them - or allow them to be created. Objectification, at its base, places objects relative to the objectifier. It is never a neutral process, but one which constructs the mental landscape which finds its reality in small and large choices and actions.

In US mainstream society the process of making “others” has a long history. The natural world is seen as an “other” to be controlled and utilized to “our” benefit. Non-“white” people are seen as “others” with an assumed relative position less than that of “whites.” Women are seen as “others” with an assumed value less than men. Non-Americans are seen as “others” who may be friends or enemies, but are always competitors relative to “our” interests, and perceived “rights.”

This otherness aspect of objectification removes the essence of the objectified and replaces it with a meaning and valuation that allows us to “rationally” disconnect from the object. The valuation places the objectified in the conceptual landscape relative to ourselves.

So the fact that we live in frightening times becomes a “predictable consequence” of our patterns of thought and behavior. But what of the manipulation? Manipulation of the meaning and positions of an objectified world is used by those who want to advance their interests. The manipulation can be through comission or omission - what is, or is not, told. It can be through active assigning of meaning. It frequently involves the naming of things. It combines all of these. For example, the chemical industry knew the health hazards of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) while 1) telling workers there was no problem, 2) keeping hazards secret from both government and the public, 3) extending the market for PVC, and 4) marketing the wonders of PVC. Omission, comission, decisions made.

Likewise, the Bush administration plays upon the mainstream ideological landscape. On one hand playing to the pride of US greatness, and on the other, playing to the fear of losing that place. This is reflected in such often repeated clichés of “either with us or against us,” or the naming of those deemed as a threat as “evil doers” and the “axis of evil.” Then making the historical and cultural link of naming the policy the “war on terrorism” and referring to it as a “crusade.” We are now accustomed to the construction of boogie men, and the absorption of whole peoples under their umbra. These objectified others (Afghans, Iraqi’s, Arabs, Muslims, and Islam itself) are threatening objects to be removed - “no matter what the cost .” The goals are purportedly “safety” and “democracy,” and the people killed and injured along the way are “collateral damage.”

This Administration has made a career out of creative naming and allusion. The US could not get support for a preemptive invasion of Iraq so we bought a “coalition of the willing” and defended ourselves through “regime change.” We have “smart bombs,” and not so smart but cutely named “daisy-cutter” bombs. We have the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act which sounds uplifting but stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” Or in a different vein, naming a policy that reduces clean air standards the “Clear Sky Initiative,” or one that ultimately reduces funding for public education the “Leave No Child Behind Act.” Or naming the new, tougher, version of welfare reform “P.R.I.D.E.” (Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone). And likewise, they have done an excellent job of garnering support for their policies through the politics of fear and disconnection.

This allows, indeed almost forces, a fundamental disconnect that allows atrocity and the unthinkable. It garners support for destruction of real peoples and the lands where they live, and a policy of preemption with nuclear (and other) weapons. It promotes these disconnections as both a justified position based on protecting ourselves, and a “right” due to our relative position to the (objectified) rest of the world. And the sound bite becomes, “the best offence is a good defense.” All of this creates a bizarre conceptual landscape where people can simultaneously pat themselves on the back for “liberating the people of Iraq” while supporting the destruction of those same people. Or we believe the war is wrong, but once the troops are in action we must support the war to “support the troops.” Or we drill into soldiers an objectification of the “enemy” so they can “do what is necessary,” then are horrified when those same troops engage in massacres and trophy taking, or come home and engage in “inappropriate behavior.”

If disconnection at many levels is creating this frightening time, then the solution becomes rebuilding connection. As objectification is an ongoing part of this process, we must first change the meanings and conceptual landscapes. This is fundamental to returning “objects” to themselves and in reconnecting to the whole. What is patently assumed, and therefore overlooked, in objectification is that the objectifier also becomes a disconnected object. This is not a process of actor and acted on, or verb and subject, or real versus constructed. All become subsumed - the objects as well as the objectifier. Therefore, another strategy is to expose the object we have become. Such exposure may shock us into reconnection to the essence from which we have disconnected.

Posted by rowan at November 13, 2003 7:45 PM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |