I just heard a great interview on WNYC with Dr. Willard Gaylin, a noted psychologist who is exploring the real roots of mass murder. He's published a book recently, Hatred, The Psychological Descent into Violence, in which he claims that social hatred is not exclusively an emotion. Here's the blurb from the book:

We all get angry at the built-in frustrations and humiliations of everyday life. But few of us ever experience the intense and perverse hatred that inspires acts of malignant violence such as suicide bombings or ethnic massacres.

In Hatred, Dr.Willard Gaylin, one of America's most respected psychiatrists, describes how raw personal passions are transformed into acts of violence and cultures of hatred. Such hatred goes beyond mere emotion. Hatred, Gaylin explains, is a psychological disorder--a form of quasi-delusional thinking. It requires forming "a passionate attachment," an obsessive involvement with the scapegoat population. It is designed to allow the angry and frustrated individual to disavow responsibility for his own failures and misery by directing it towards a convenient victim.

Gaylin dissects the mechanisms by which cynical political and religious leaders manipulate frustrated and deprived people, leading to the acts of mass terror that threaten us all. Step-by-step, he leads us into an understanding of the psychological pathway to acts of terrorism--an understanding that is an essential to survival in a world of hatred. Hatred is a masterwork in Willard Gaylin's life-long study of human emotions. Writing for the educated lay audience in the eloquent, accessible language of his bestsellers Feelings and Rediscovering Love, he takes us to the very roots of hatred.

Willard Gaylin, M.D. is a leading theoretician, educator, and practitioner in the field of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. He is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons and cofounder of the Hastings Center, the preeminent institute for the study of ethical issues in the life sciences. He is the author of sixteen books.

He discussed several historical case examples, most notably of course the biggest one, the Holocaust. He mentions how the Nazis at first utilized social outcasts and commn petty thugs in its implimentation of the Holocaust but over time it began to run out of these thugs, and had to develop elaborate psychological tools to coax ordinary Germans to participate. He mentioned how Colin Ferguson, the person who got on the LIRR in New York and shot several white people dead in the early 1990s and later claimed he was driven to this act by white racism actually grew up as the chauffeured son of one of the wealthiest families in Jamaica. He talked of some of the psychosis of a people like the Palestinians who celebrate the murder of children, so long as they were children of the enemy. He also touched on Daniel Goldhagen's controversial book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, and I'm pleased to report that he came to a similar conclusion about the book as I did, that it showed excellent research about how average people get caught up with and become accomplices to great crimes but Goldhagen reached a faulty conclusion, that the Holocaust was a German anomoly.

Thoughts anyone? In our modern mass-societies where does some of the intense hatred and loathing of other peoples come from? Is it rational? Is there any way to address it?

I think the Holocaust is not an aberration or an anomoly, but merely the most publicized and well documented mass murder. In fact it was not the only case of such an occurence at that period of history either. A few years after the end of WW2, the partition of India led to a catastrophic religious genocide from all sides as the masses of people went from one "country" to another. 10 million were slaughtered and several others, scarred for life. The dead included rich, poor, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and just about any division anybody can care to think of.

Sure, there are closer examples of genocides than the holocaust, also in Africa and in the Balkans.

"We all get angry at the built-in frustrations and humiliations of everyday life. But few of us ever experience the intense and perverse hatred that inspires acts of malignant violence such as suicide bombings or ethnic massacres. "

Of course few of _us_, but perhaps some of _them_.

In Israel it's obvious, that economical and cultural inequality is the main reason for suicidal bombings. If you were a Palestinian kid you'd probably have different emotions about Israeli kids, who have expensive clothes, education, own car, a girlfriend, money to go abroad, nice home etc. etc. You would have none of this and no future. In other words your life is worthless. From these conditions civil wars (also communism) have risen - this particular crisis has also strong ethnic and religious backgrounds. It's not alone a question about evil men in high positions manipulating you to suicide attack other men but about what you will see and experience in real life every day. This is an eternal question to which history does not give an answer or a model how to solve it.

I fail to see may of the suicidal bombings only as acts of pervert hatred but I see them as desperate acts of desperate people. As desperate are also the Jews who continue what they see is a righteous fight for survival. In the situation there's no reason to give "Who's more perverted" medals.

I don't know if I am going to read Gaylin's book since I get the feeling he's biased and the message doesn't seem to introduce anything new. However, at the moment I've enjoyed Jonathan Glover's book Humanity - moral history of the 20th century.

I disagree with Gaylin's view of hatred as it is described in the article you quoted.

He focuses completely on hatred as a subconcious method of avoiding to confront your own failures ("It is designed to allow the angry and frustrated individual to disavow responsibility...").

I think this disregards the emotional aspect too much. It disregards that, as Ukas said, there may well be direct reasons for the hatred.
An example of that can be someone who loses everything on the hands of an organization that is associated with a certain group or people (like his family being killed by the army of country X).
If that person develops a general hatred for all citizens of country X that has nothing to do with compensating his own failure (he didn't fail) but rather with the inability to differentiate between murderers and everybody who happens to have the same citizenship, with the simple emotional wish for revenge.

In your article it also says "Gaylin dissects the mechanisms by which cynical political and religious leaders manipulate frustrated and deprived people,...", which leaves the question of why those leaders have these motives in the first place. Who manipulated them?

Originally posted by Hitro
I disagree with Gaylin's view of hatred as it is described in the article you quoted.

He focuses completely on hatred as a subconcious method of avoiding to confront your own failures ("It is designed to allow the angry and frustrated individual to disavow responsibility...").

I think this disregards the emotional aspect too much. It disregards that, as Ukas said, there may well be direct reasons for the hatred.
An example of that can be someone who loses everything on the hands of an organization that is associated with a certain group or people (like his family being killed by the army of country X).
If that person develops a general hatred for all citizens of country X that has nothing to do with compensating his own failure (he didn't fail) but rather with the inability to differentiate between murderers and everybody who happens to have the same citizenship, with the simple emotional wish for revenge.

In your article it also says "Gaylin dissects the mechanisms by which cynical political and religious leaders manipulate frustrated and deprived people,...", which leaves the question of why those leaders have these motives in the first place. Who manipulated them?

Nobody, but by manipulating people, you convince them that you are the only hope for them against the "others".:rolleyes:

@allhailIndia

Huh? As far as I can understand the point is that if there's no reason to rise against the "others" then there will not be people manipulating nor people to be manipulated. Can we perhaps say, that the surrounding conditions will manipulate a group of charismatic people to manipulate others to do desperate deeds, but then again both the leaders and the followers were first manipulated in to action by the same reason, and without that the leaders would have nobody to manipulate. Uh, yeah! :yeah:

Let me illustrate with an example.

The very reason for Pakistan's exixtence hase been the Kashmir Issue with India. Every Pakistani politician comes to power promising to deliver Kashmir to Pakistan. Even General Musharraf remains in power because he has convinvced the mullahs and amams that he will continue to send terrorists into India as long as they support him. Also, it is a fine way of convincing young men to die in a far off land for some vague than have them try and overthrow tyranny.

Likewise, in the recent Gujarat state elections, the ruling state govt. managed to convince the majority Hindu community that they are in trouble because of the Muslims in the state, by using the Godhra train burning as an incident. It resulted in a landslide victory for the party.

Hatred is bred and fostered by those who have run out of reasons to be in power.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
The very reason for Pakistan's exixtence hase been the Kashmir Issue with India.I thought it was 'cause the Muslims won't accept being a minority in India and wanted their own country? So the Partition.

In fact, I'm surprised India didn't shatter more, despite all the separatist movements in the frontiers, or internally, after all these years. As far as preserving the union is concerned, the Indian govt is doing well. :thumbsup:

Every Pakistani politician comes to power promising to deliver Kashmir to Pakistan. Even General Musharraf remains in power because he has convinvced the mullahs and amams that he will continue to send terrorists into India as long as they support him. Also, it is a fine way of convincing young men to die in a far off land for some vague than have them try and overthrow tyranny.Much the same for some other autocratic ME countries (like Saudi Arabia e.g.). :rolleyes:

allhailIndia:"Hatred is bred and fostered by those who have run out of reasons to be in power."

Ok, there may be somewhat truth in that too - but this doesn't apply to every problem in the world. I don't know much about Kashmir issue, is there any reason except hatred the Pakistanis want to have Kashmir?

Originally posted by Ukas
allhailIndia:"Hatred is bred and fostered by those who have run out of reasons to be in power."

Ok, there may be somewhat truth in that too - but this doesn't apply to every problem in the world. I don't know much about Kashmir issue, is there any reason except hatred the Pakistanis want to have Kashmir? AFAIK, Kashmir is Muslim majority but used to be ruled by a Hindu maharajah. The said maharajah bequethed the state to India, but the people wanted to join Pakistan, being mostly Muslims. India couldn't accept this.

Both nations had fought wars over the state, amidst other issues.

Actually, Kashmir is a strange mix of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as well. Just because there was a numerical superiority of Muslims did not mean that it automatically became a Pakistani territory. Besides, in such contested places, the choice of the local ruler was the last say.

Also, the kind of Islam practised in Kashmir is nothing like the one being preached about in Pakistan. Kashmiris, as such are a very, very peace loving people and very secular in their outlook and also did not want a catastrophic separation with their Hindu and Buddhist neighbours.

Also, till general Zia got into the act, the Pakistanis were not rabid Islamist fundamentalists, but he tried to encourage this to have a bigger role in freeing Afghanistan from the USSR. BTW, among these were certain gentlemen who are now part of the Al-Qaeda.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Actually, Kashmir is a strange mix of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as well. Just because there was a numerical superiority of Muslims did not mean that it automatically became a Pakistani territory. Besides, in such contested places, the choice of the local ruler was the last say.Shldn't it be the voice of the people? :hmm: I thought India is a bastion of democracy?

Also, the kind of Islam practised in Kashmir is nothing like the one being preached about in Pakistan. Kashmiris, as such are a very, very peace loving people and very secular in their outlook and also did not want a catastrophic separation with their Hindu and Buddhist neighbours.They're both Sunni; what's the difference? Pakistan is fairly secular too - the military's the one calling the shots and has been, since the wars with India. At the moment they're keeping the religious extremists under control somewhat.

Was there ever a referendum held in Kashmir for the people to decide whom they wanted to join? I don't seem to recall.

Going by the recent history of how Muslims were treated in India, I'd think the Kashmiris would want to join their co-religionists...

Also, till general Zia got into the act, the Pakistanis were not rabid Islamist fundamentalists, but he tried to encourage this to have a bigger role in freeing Afghanistan from the USSR. BTW, among these were certain gentlemen who are now part of the Al-Qaeda.Radicalization of Islam is a worldwide phenomenon (it's even happening in my home country!); nothing unique to Pakistan. It's a complex process, with many factors, and I would say, generally an extreme and rabid reaction against the dominant West.

Zia was probably just riding on the Islamic tide to achieve his objectives.

Originally posted by XIII
Shldn't it be the voice of the people? :hmm: I thought India is a bastion of democracy?


Yes, excpet we would have bankrupted ourselves trying to have a referendum where every tom dick and harry wanted a state to himself.:p

In Kashmir, it was not so homogeneously Muslim that they ought to be part of Pakistan!

Originally posted by XIII
They're both Sunni; what's the difference? Pakistan is fairly secular too - the military's the one calling the shots and has been, since the wars with India. At the moment they're keeping the religious extremists under control somewhat.

Have'nt read any Time magazine article on how Christians and Hindus are relentlessly persecuted and given second class citizenship??

Besides, Musharraf cannot antangonize the Mullahs, so he's basically telling them to ignore the Americans and go after the Indians in KAshmir. Tell me how many "freedom-fighters" slaughter innocent pilgrims, villagers of another community and destroy homes and lives for their 'cause'.:mad:

Originally posted by XIII
Was there ever a referendum held in Kashmir for the people to decide whom they wanted to join? I don't seem to recall.

Going by the recent history of how Muslims were treated in India, I'd think the Kashmiris would want to join their co-religionists...
For one thing, it would lead to a terrible communal clash, if the referendum went either way. The Hindus and Buddhists will say that the Pakistanis rigged it and vice versa.

Sure, communal tensions do sometimes rise to the surface in India, but that does'nt mean that ALL Muslims are reviled!!
Half of India's hottest male actors are muslims!
India's President is a Muslim!
Till receently India's cricket captain Muslim was a Muslim!
India's richest man is a Muslim!

Check the facts next time before making such an irresponsible statement!!

Originally posted by XIII

Radicalization of Islam is a worldwide phenomenon (it's even happening in my home country!); nothing unique to Pakistan. It's a complex process, with many factors, and I would say, generally an extreme and rabid reaction against the dominant West.

Zia was probably just riding on the Islamic tide to achieve his objectives.

Exactly, and now Pakistan is rife with militant Jehadis who are even in charge of the state legislatures in the Western provinces and starting to impose a Taliban-like Islamic rule there.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Yes, excpet we would have bankrupted ourselves trying to have a referendum where every tom dick and harry wanted a state to himself.:pSo it's much more convenient to just acknowledge the last maharajah's will (which just so happens to bequeth the land to India)?

In Kashmir, it was not so homogeneously Muslim that they ought to be part of Pakistan!Then let them create their own state.

Have'nt read any Time magazine article on how Christians and Hindus are relentlessly persecuted and given second class citizenship??No. :p Shld I trust the American media?

Besides, Musharraf cannot antangonize the Mullahs, so he's basically telling them to ignore the Americans and go after the Indians in KAshmir. Tell me how many "freedom-fighters" slaughter innocent pilgrims, villagers of another community and destroy homes and lives for their 'cause'.:mad:Terrorists to one may be freedom fighters to another...

For one thing, it would lead to a terrible communal clash, if the referendum went either way. The Hindus and Buddhists will say that the Pakistanis rigged it and vice versa.Let someone else hold the referendum, perhaps a body of international trustees. Obviously its value is going to be questionable if it's organised by India...

Sure, communal tensions do sometimes rise to the surface in India, but that does'nt mean that ALL Muslims are reviled!!
Half of India's hottest male actors are muslims!
India's President is a Muslim!
Till receently India's cricket captain Muslim was a Muslim!
India's richest man is a Muslim!But what about the majority of the Muslims in India? Do they have it so good in life? I doubt so.

Check the facts next time before making such an irresponsible statement!!The inner workings of Indian elitism isn't exactly popular knowledge internationally. <shrugs> Apologies if I've ruffled your Indian-centric feathers. :p

Originally posted by XIII
So it's much more convenient to just acknowledge the last maharajah's will (which just so happens to bequeth the land to India)?

Then let them create their own state.


Actually several rulers did accede their land to Pakistan!

Trying to, but don't trust Pakistan or even Indian politicians to keep it that way:p;)

Originally posted by XIII
No. :p Shld I trust the American media?


The reports came out before 9/11

Originally posted by XIII
Terrorists to one may be freedom fighters to another...


World's most idiotic argument for violence and hatred!!:mad:

Originally posted by XIII
Let someone else hold the referendum, perhaps a body of international trustees. Obviously its value is going to be questionable if it's organised by India...


Sure, get the UN???!!!
Originally posted by XIII

But what about the majority of the Muslims in India? Do they have it so good in life? I doubt so.

The inner workings of Indian elitism isn't exactly popular knowledge internationally. <shrugs> Apologies if I've ruffled your Indian-centric feathers. :p

The point is that the Indian govt. is neither pro-Muslim or anti-Muslim:p.
If the Muslims have problems, it is their fault.
If they have achieved success, it is their hard work.
Simple as that.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
The reports came out before 9/11So? I miss the connection...

World's most idiotic argument for violence and hatred!!:mad:The world's not painted in black and white; there're a lot more of shades of grey.

Wringing your hands over the idiocy of it will not make the problem go away...

Sure, get the UN???!!!Did I mention the UN? Don't put words in my mouth.

Get a panel of trustees fr the democratic nations. The Scandinavian countries e.g.

The point is that the Indian govt. is neither pro-Muslim or anti-Muslim:p.Last I knew, it's the Hindu-based nationalist-religious BJP party that's controlling the govt... Or did Congress wriggle its way back into power? :hmm:

Originally posted by XIII
So? I miss the connection...

:hmm:I assumed you were referring to the fact that the American media has gotten more biased towrds muslims, arbs after 9/11.

Originally posted by XIII
The world's not painted in black and white; there're a lot more of shades of grey.

Wringing your hands over the idiocy of it will not make the problem go away...


Easy for you to say.:mad:
When was the last time Singapore was attacked by terrorists.
Originally posted by XIII
Did I mention the UN? Don't put words in my mouth.

Get a panel of trustees fr the democratic nations. The Scandinavian countries e.g.

After the job they are doing in Sri Lanka, I don't think we want more spectators in this conflict.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by XIII
Last I knew, it's the Hindu-based nationalist-religious BJP party that's controlling the govt... Or did Congress wriggle its way back into power? :hmm:

Once again you have twisted the facts.

The BJP LEADS a COALITION of 20 parties from all corners of the country who are not necessarily Hindu nationalist:p
This is like saying that just because Bush is a Christian all, non-Christians are suffering in the US:p
We too have an independent judiciary, a WRITTEN constitution and a framework of govt. designed not to discriminate against the minority.:king:

Originally posted by XIII
So? I miss the connection...

:hmm:I assumed you were referring to the fact that the American media has gotten more biased towrds muslims, arabs after 9/11.

Originally posted by XIII
The world's not painted in black and white; there're a lot more of shades of grey.

Wringing your hands over the idiocy of it will not make the problem go away...


Easy for you to say.:mad:
When was the last time Singapore was attacked by terrorists.
Originally posted by XIII
Did I mention the UN? Don't put words in my mouth.

Get a panel of trustees fr the democratic nations. The Scandinavian countries e.g.

After the job they are doing in Sri Lanka, I don't think we want more spectators in this conflict.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by XIII
Last I knew, it's the Hindu-based nationalist-religious BJP party that's controlling the govt... Or did Congress wriggle its way back into power? :hmm:

Once again you have twisted the facts.

The BJP LEADS a COALITION of 20 parties from all corners of the country who are not necessarily Hindu nationalist:p
This is like saying that just because Bush is a Christian all, non-Christians are suffering in the US:p
We too have an independent judiciary, a WRITTEN constitution and a framework of govt. designed not to discriminate against the minority.:king: