Sociology and Explanations (Re: Hitchens responds to critics

[Ted Winslow]

Doug wrote:

> All of life isn't a teach-in. Don't we have an interest in
> understanding why people do ghastly things?

I think so.  Moreover, the two activities are connected.

Acts of vengeance in some psychological contexts will provoke an escalation
of violence from those against whom they're directed.  That's why the
development of a willingness to accept "money" payments as a substitute for
revenge against murder, injury and insult (as institutionalized in practices
such as wergild) was progressive.  It provided a way of ending the
escalating blood feud, the vendetta.  An argument against military action in
the present context may therefore be that it would be counterproductive from
the perspective of reducing the likelihood of future acts of terrorism.

Klein's argument is that we all as infants had the mentality of the
terrorist (this is why we either find acts such as those of Sept. ll
"inexplicable" and get very upset when anyone attempts to explain them or,
if we do attempt to explain them, deny our own irrational rage and hatred by
giving explanations that demonize or idealize the terrorists).  What we
required was understanding adults who could recognize and "contain" our
phantasy assaults against them and in this way enable us to become ourselves
strong enough to overcome fear rationally.  (This, by the way, is why the
language of bravery and cowardice is usually inappropriate.  Those who
overcome their fear of death by believing that they won't in fact die but
will be transported to a "paradise" where they will, among other things,
have sex eternally with 72 virgins are not "brave" even if, as Stanley Fish
apparently believes, there is no way of knowing if their "story" is true.)

What we needed, in other words, was to be "loved" in the very particular
sense embodied in Marx's idea of "mutual recognition".

Ted