Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies - Who We Are

Home | Who we are | Evelin G. Lindner | Summary of Humiliation Theoryby Lindner (Longer Paper)

Theory of Humiliation by LindnerLonger Papersee also as very short summary, 2007, and a shortnarrative

Adapted fromLindner, Evelin G. (2004). Humiliation in a Globalizing World: DoesHumiliation Become the Most Disruptive Force? New York, NY: Paperprepared for the "Workshop on Humiliation and Violent Conflict,"November 18-19, 2004, at Columbia University.

Evelin G. Lindner, 2004 (slightly revised in 2013)Please ask the author for permission when you wish to quote her.

Keywords: circumscription, new technologies of communication andmobility, new visions of the world, ingathering of humankind(globalization, global village), shift to a more relational global lifeworld, weakening of Security Dilemma, shift from fear tohumiliation, Human Rights ideals, in-group ethics, continuousliberation of underlings (egalization), ranked worthiness of humanbeings, equal dignity for all, phenomenon and dynamics of humiliation(expressed in acts, feelings and institutions), honor-humiliation, dignity-humiliation, unequal human worthiness, humility of equal dignity,depression and apathy, genocide, terrorism, constructive socialchange (Mandela), new public policy, new decent institutions,attention to maintaining relationships of equal dignity, new socialskills for maintaining relations of equal dignity and healing andpreventing dynamics of humiliation, new leaders, paradigm ofpolicing, social control, male and female role descriptions,liberation efforts, third parties, resolution and transformation ofnecessary conflict, celebrate humanity, unparalleled window ofopportunity, dignism

Humiliation in a Globalizing World:Does Humiliation Become the Most Disruptive Force?

Evelin G. Lindner, MD, PhD, PhD (Dr psychol, Dr med)2004

Contents

Current State-of-the Art

Lindner's approach to research on humiliationWork on humiliation and related themes covered by other

Main Sections

• Who we are• Conferences• Dignity Press• OnlinePublications• World DignityUniversity• Research• Ideas for Action• Digniblog• News

Search

Connect with us

Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies - Who We Are http://www.humiliationstudies.org/whoweare/evelin/13.php

1 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

scholarsWork on causes of deadly conflict

Humiliation as a Historical-Cultural-Social ConstructAwareness of Human Rights and Humiliation

Conclusion

Need for a new global orderA Moratorium on HumiliationTriple strategy for new public policiesTriple strategy for the resolution of violent conflictNew application of traditional "male" and "female" roledescriptionsTriple strategy for subalterns who wish to rise upTriple strategy for third parties wishing to ensure peaceCelebrate humanity

To understand a globalizing world, we need research with a globaloutreach, as well as the participation of researchers who have a globaloutlook and possess experiences that enable them to see the world fromdifferent angles. In my case, a specific biography caused me to acquire aprofoundly global perspective and identity. This experiential backgroundhas led me to conceptualize psychology in specific ways, first, as beingembedded within broader historic and philosophical contexts, second, asbeing profoundly intertwined with global changes, and third, as currentlygaining significance. I avoid single interest scholarship, work trans-,inter-, cross-, and multi-disciplinary, and probe how even local micro-changes may be embedded within larger global changes (see my booksso far, Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict, 2006,Emotion and Conflict, 2009, Gender, Humiliation, and Global Security,2010, and A Dignity Economy, 2012).The lack of a clear sense of belonging during my childhood (being borninto a family of displaced people) made me particularly sensitive toidentity quests and urged me to learn about and become part of the richand diverse world culture that belongs to all of us, as opposed to beingpart of any particular national sub-culture. Adair Linn Nagata wrote anarticle titled Being Global: Life at the Interface (1998), where sheexplains how living as an immigrant in another culture means living atan interface. In my case, I have accustomed myself to living in manycultures and in many interfaces, more so, I have made the veryinterface my home.My personal development parallels recent epistemological trends inmany ways. Just to give one example, the field of psychology is nowbeginning to open up to qualitative research and its potential tointegrate quantitative results into larger contexts of meaning (manywould say that "physics envy" is slowly being overcome, see Ray andAnderson, 2000, p. 180). My personal development also parallels thepresent trend toward more relational approaches in social sciences,away from individualist concepts as they fail to capture the complexitiesof a relational world.I believe that both, my personal path and current epistemological trendsare intertwined with and nurtured by a growing awareness thathumankind is one single family. As long as people lived rather apart, itwas not seen as possible, at least not in sufficient depth, that peoplefrom different cultural spheres could understand each other. "Cultures"were regarded as a priori separate and almost impermeable containersof Others. First, colonizers forced "civilization" on those others, who, intheir view, lacked it, later, post-modern respect was extended todifference. What was not envisioned was that all may partake in onesingle culture of Homo sapiens, a culture where people react to eachother in relational ways, and are perhaps more similar than different.My conclusion after four decades of global living (since 1975) is that we,the human inhabitants of planet Earth, are more similar than different -similar even in our approach to difference - and that there is ample


2 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

common ground on which we can build. I suggest that this commonground connects people and draws them into relationships, and, if thistrend is cherished, respected, and nurtured, and if people are respectedas equal in dignity in this process, it can help turn differences that seeminsurmountable into diversities that connect. Differences can becomesources of enrichment as opposed to sources of disconnection. I wouldcharacterize myself as an intercultural voyager, a term coined bypsychologist David R. Matsumoto. Unlike a vindicator, a voyager iswilling to invest all energy into the effort of turning the challenges ofcultural diversity and intercultural conflict into a stage for forging newrelationships and new ideas.Even though an increasingly global horizon is emerging world-wide andin many ways,(1) still most people respond to the question "where areyou from?" with the name of a country. This outlook entails a framing ofthe world in terms of my people, my history, in relation to your historyand your people. In my case, I have developed an identity of being acitizen of the global village, and thus all people's history is my history,and all people are my people. This does not mean a rejection of local,national, or regional identifications; it means lovingly including themwithin larger outlooks, broadening inner horizons, and going beyondusually taken-for-granted inner boundaries. In my case, side-effects ofthis inner development are, among others, a longer time horizon as tomy academic analysis, and trans- inter-, cross-, and multi-disciplinarityin my academic positioning. Both are dovetailing with currentavant-garde trends.So far, I have not yet met another person with a similar globalanchoring as I have developed over the past decades. Yet, I expect thatnumbers will rise. Ever more people will be drawn into this trend, evenif at different rates. My experience and analysis will become moremainstream in the future, both in the lives of lay persons and inscientific practice. Thus, my perspective and standpoint are not onlyglobal but also future-oriented.Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson carried out surveys and interviewswhich show that we currently witness the emergence of a newmovement of people; Ray and Anderson call them the Cultural Creatives(2000). I appear to be at the forefront of this movement with my globaloutlook, with my quest for broader meaning (as opposed to narrowmaterial or status gratifications)(2), and with my desire to build bridges.I build bridges between what Ray and Anderson call Moderns andTraditionals as well as with what Ray and Anderson would perhaps callPre-Moderns, and I also bridge the Consciousness Movement and SocialMovement that make up the two original branches of what Ray andAnderson call the Cultural Creatives Movement.To my view, my intuition that humiliation plays a core role in aglobalizing world is deeply anchored in my global life world. Few peoplefrom wealthy elites, particularly in the West, enter into seriousrelationships with the rest of the world. Even when they travel, manypay visits, from my country to your country, from my bubble of isolationto yours, and maintain the illusion that the West is somewhatindependent from the rest. From such viewpoints, discord can beattributed to culture difference, to them and their culture seen asbackward, or their unfathomable nature, ranging from friendly-innocentto ignorant and even evil. Such travelers are bound to overlook that theworld is profoundly interconnected and that interdependence is morerelevant than cultural difference. And they overlook that theseinterrelationships are accompanied by feelings and emotions, be theyadmiration, be they envy, or, when we talk about serious disruptionssuch as terrorism, feelings of humiliation.The intuition that grew in the course of my global life is, per definition,less accessible to those who live more sedentary lives, as well as tothose who travel from one Western bubble to the next. I suggest thatmany of the rifts that we observe around the world may stem from auniversal phenomenon that is part and parcel of the desire forrecognition, namely, the feeling of humiliation that is felt whenrecognition and respect are lacking (may it be real or imagined). I donot see that ethnic, religious, or cultural differences create rifts bythemselves; on the contrary, diversity can be a source of mutual


3 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

enrichment. However, diversity is enriching only as long as it isembedded within relationships that are characterized by respect forequality in dignity. It is when this respectful recognition is failing thatthose who feel victimized are prone to highlight differences to "justify"rifts that were caused not by these differences, but by something else,namely, by humiliation.I repeat, it is my personal experience of several decades of global livingthat basically all human beings yearn for recognition and respect. It isnot a theory, not an opinion or belief that is open to debate. It is a rawexperience that I try to find words for and communicate. It is from thisvantage point that I share my observation that the desire for recognitionunites us human beings, that it is universal and that it can serve as aplatform for connection and cooperation. What we have to heed is thatthe withdrawal or denial of recognition and respect, experienced ashumiliation, may be the strongest force that creates rifts betweenpeople and breaks down relationships. To my view, in a globalizing worldof increasing interdependence, feelings and acts of humiliation representthe most significant phenomena to reckon with.In this text, I would like to put forward a framing of current and pastevents that defends this conceptualization. In my work, I treathumiliation as a historical-cultural-social-emotional construct that ischanging over time rather than a-historic and simply emotional process(for mechanisms of emotional production, classic names come to mind,such as Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, George Herbert Mead, or ErvingGoffman, see, furthermore, Collins and Makowsky, 1993, as well asCollins, 1999). To my view, the currently living generations findthemselves in a unique historical transition phase from an old honorworld (with honor-humiliation as core characteristic) to a vision of afuture world of equal dignity (entailing the quite distinct phenomenon ofdignity-humiliation).Let me conclude this section with an example. The downing of the TwinTowers on September 11, 2001, could be interpreted as a cruel attemptto humiliate the only still existing super-power, the United States.We learn from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon theUnited States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) in their Outline ofthe 9/11 Plot the following,

As originally envisioned, the 9/11 plot involved even moreextensive attacks than those carried out on September 11.KSM maintains [the idea for the September 11 attacksappears to have originated with a veteran jihadist namedKhalid Sheikh Mohammed, or KSM] that his initial proposalinvolved hijacking ten planes to attack targets on both theEast and West coasts of the United States. He claims that, inaddition to the targets actually hit on 9/11, these hijackedplanes were to be crashed into CIA and FBI headquarters,unidentified nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildingsin California and Washington State. The centerpiece of hisoriginal proposal was the tenth plane, which he would havepiloted himself. Rather than crashing the plane into a target,he would have killed every adult male passenger, contactedthe media from the air, and landed the aircraft at a U.S.airport. He says he then would have made a speechdenouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East before releasingall of the women and children passengers" (NationalCommission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,also known as the 9-11 Commission, 2004a, p. 13).

Later we read in the Overview Over the Enemy that "Al Qaeda remainsextremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological ornuclear attacks" (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon theUnited States, also known as the 9-11 Commission, 2004b, p. 12).We learn about the roots of Al Qaeda as follows, "By 1992, Bin Ladinwas focused on attacking the United States. He argued that otherextremists, aimed at local rulers or Israel, had not gone far enough;they had not attacked what he called 'the head of the snake,' the United


4 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

States. He charged that the United States, in addition to backing Israel,kept in power repressive Arab regimes not true to Islam. He alsoexcoriated the continued presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabiaafter the Gulf War as a defilement of holy Muslim land" (NationalCommission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known asthe 9-11 Commission, 2004b, p. 2).How come, we might ask, that the United States, priding themselves forpromoting happiness for all and promising unprecedented wealth, avision enshrined in an enthusiastically idealistic "American Dream," isbeing called "the head of the snake"? And how come that this is the viewharbored not only by a few, but that it inspires hundreds of activefollowers, or even thousands of sympathizers? Why do these people holdon to such gloomy goals as martyr death? Why do they not flock toAmerican lands, or at least embrace American values? Money does notseem to motivate them, at least not the leaders, since bin Laden and hissupporters seemed to have sufficient funds already. Mohammed Attahad nothing standing between him and a comfortable life in the Westernworld.(3) So, what does motivate these people? Unexplainable hatred?Envy of freedom? Humiliation?Would it not be wise to tackle such questions before descending into acontest of mutual destruction? Terrorists are hard to track down anddifficult to combat as they eclipse traditional warfare methods. Shouldwe not embrace new strategies of safeguarding "security," strategiesthat include the mindsets of people in violent conflicts? Eventssubsequent to 2001, including the killing of bin Laden in 2011, and thekilling of other Al Qaeda leaders by drones, have made these questionsmore relevant rather than less.I have elsewhere pointed out that feelings of humiliation, while theymay lead to apathy and depression, may also lead to violent acts ofcounter-humiliation. Spirals of violent humiliation-for-humiliation mayrepresent the only real weapons of mass destruction we face.Highjacking planes (9-11), or hacking neighbors to death with machetes(genocide in Rwanda 1994), are all very "cost-effective" methods ofmayhem that do work when willing perpetrators are driven bysufficiently strong motives. These motives can be feelings of humiliation,both authentically felt and/or instigated by ruthless extremist leaders,the "Hitlers" of our days. I suggest that feelings of humiliation representthe nuclear bomb of the emotions.On April 28, 2003, conservative Lord Douglas Hurd (British ForeignSecretary 1989-1995, in office during the first Gulf War) spoke aboutthe state of the world after the 2003 Iraq war.(4) Hurd had justreturned from a tour through the Arab world and reported that thepopulations there were in a state of sullen humiliation. Not thegovernments, he noted - they were rather US friendly - but the peoplein the streets. Hurd referred to the Egyptian President Hosni Mubaraksaying that U.S. policy is stimulating the bin Laden phenomenon ratherthan counteracting it. There is the wounded giant on one side, Hurdexplained, erupting in energy since September 11, not anymoreisolationist but rather imperialist, and on the other side Arabpopulations who are enwrapped in gloomy humiliation opposed toAmerica roaming their region. Arab citizens want to travel and study inUS universities, but not have Americans act like masters.Hurd's observations are confirmed by others. Shibley Telhami (AnwarSadat Professor for Peace and Development) wrote: "Today militancy inthe Middle East is fueled by a pervasive sense of humiliation andhelplessness in the region. This collective feeling is driven by a sensethat people remain helpless in affecting the most vital aspects of theirlives, and it is exacerbated by pictures of Palestinian humiliation. Thereis much disgust with states and with international organizations"(Telhami, 2003a, p. 1 (5)).(6)Having lived and worked in Cairo, Egypt, for seven years, from1994-1991, as a psychological counselor and clinical psychologist, I canonly agree with Hurd's and Telhami's observations. Most importantly,feelings of humiliation were relevant long ago, not just subsequent to9-11. Western analysts, with the relatively short historical horizon thatprevails in Western culture, often underestimate the much longer timeframes within which other cultures place their feelings and deliberations.


5 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

Western experts tend to quickly dismiss the humiliation hypothesis,because in their eyes "valid" tangible grievances are lacking prior to9-11. However, as I suggest, it might pay to look at longer time framesand consider that not all players follow the Western construct of Homoeconomicus who merely is interested in short-term material gain. Theneed to be recognized, validated, appreciated, and respected asimportant and weighty player on the world stage might be as salient, asmay be feelings of humiliation when such respect is perceived to befailing (whether this is real or imagined).

(1)Paul H. Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson (2000) carried out surveysand interviews and report on the emergence of a new movement, theCultural Creatives, who have a global outlook (even if global experienceis lacking).

(2) I was early on influenced by Victor E. Frankl and his work on Sinn(meaning), see Frankl (1972), and Frankl (1963). Recently, I detected arelated Japanese approach of "Meaningful Life Therapy" by Morita andLevine (1998), see also Reynolds (1987).

(3) I remember an Iranian friend living in Norway, a scholar atuniversity, telling me that he came to the West full of hope, feeling thathe was "one of us." However, so he recounted, his feelings turned sourwhen he realized that he was frowned upon, discriminated, andrepeatedly humiliated as "one of them." He did not expect to meet suchingrained contempt for "other" people, particularly against those comingfrom the Arab world or Africa. He explained to me that the West shouldnot be surprised when some people, after returning home from suchdisappointing encounters with the West, would promote anti-Westernviews. He referred to Frantz Fanon (Fanon, 1986, Fanon, 1963), whoexperienced a similar shift from admiration to humiliation andsubsequent rage.

(4) On BBCWorld in BBC Hardtalk with Jon Sopel.

(5) See also Telhami (2003b), Zakaria (2001).

(6) American commentator and New York Times columnist ThomasFriedman (2003) defines humiliation as "the single most underestimatedforce in international relations." See also the work done by Stern(2003).

Current State-of-ArtLindner's approach to research on humiliation

In 1994, after many years of international experience - in the fields ofmedicine and psychology in Asia, Africa, Middle East, America, andEurope, and later seven years in Egypt - I asked myself: What is themost significant obstacle to peace and social cohesion? My hunch wasthat dynamics of humiliation may be central. This hunch was based onmy clinical experience in diverse cultural realms, supported by thewidely shared notion that Germany was humiliated through theVersailles Accords and that this gave Hitler the necessary platform tounleash World War II and the Holocaust. Marshal Foch of France said in1919 about the Versailles Treaties: "This is not a peace treaty - it will bea cease-fire for 20 years."In 1996, I began to examine the available literature and was surprisedthat humiliation had not received much academic attention.Search-terms such as "shame" or "trauma" would render innumerablehits, however, not "humiliation." I was astonished, since, if humiliationindeed can trigger war, there must be a large body of research to be


6 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

found, I thought. However, this was not the case. I thus designed adoctoral research project on humiliation (for a doctorate in socialpsychology).In the following, I will briefly describe how I began my research on thenotion of humiliation, which then formed the starting point for mysubsequent work on humiliation. Since 1996, I am gathering material ina trans-, inter-, cross- and multi-disciplinary fashion from fields such asanthropology, history, social philosophy, social psychology, sociology,and political science.(7)After laying out my doctoral research, I will explain the current state-of-the-art of related research carried out by other scholars. Thereafter Iwill discuss how the phenomenon of humiliation is embedded in a largerhistorical timeline. I will sketch in what way I see globalization at work.At the end I will address what can be done to heal and prevent thedestructive effects of humiliation.Before proceeding further, let me make a little note. In everydaylanguage, the word humiliation is used at least threefold. First, the wordhumiliation points at an act, second at a feeling, and third, at a process :"I humiliate you, you feel humiliated, and the entire process is one ofhumiliation." In this text the reader is expected to understand from thecontext which alternative is referred to, because otherwise languagewould become too convoluted.Let me give you, furthermore, one of the brief descriptions ofhumiliation that I use in my work:

Humiliation means the enforced lowering of a person orgroup, a process of subjugation that damages or strips awaytheir pride, honor, or dignity. To be humiliated is to beplaced, against your will (or in some cases with yourconsent, for example in cases of religious self-humiliation orin sado-masochism) and often in a deeply hurtful way, in asituation that is greatly inferior to what you feel you shouldexpect. Humiliation entails demeaning treatment thattransgresses established expectations. It may involve acts offorce, including violent force. At its heart is the idea ofpinning down, putting down, or holding to the ground.Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of humiliation asa process is that the victim is forced into passivity, actedupon, made helpless.

People react in different ways when they feel that they were undulyhumiliated: some just become apathetic or depressed - anger turnsinward - others get openly enraged, and yet others hide their anger tocarefully plan for "cold" revenge. When the person who plans forrevenge becomes the leader of a movement, mayhem such as genocideand terrorism may be the result. Thus, feelings of humiliation mayfoment rage that can be turned inward, as in the case of apathy anddepression, yet, this rage can also turn outward and express itself inviolence, even in mass violence when leaders are available who forgenarratives of humiliation that feed on their followers' feelings ofhumiliation.There are many points that would merit closer attention and that arenot discussed here, due to lack of space. For example, what is thedifference between genuinely felt humiliation and feelings of humiliationthat are instigated by propaganda or prescribed culturally? In otherwords, feelings of humiliation may sometimes be felt authentically, andat other times constructed and instrumentalized to form narratives ofhumiliation. Or, another question, as feelings of humiliation are felt byindividuals, how are they elevated to group levels? Or, what aboutpeople who are resilient to feeling humiliated even in the face of seriousattempts to humiliate them? And why did Nelson Mandela find aconstructive way out of humiliation, and Adolf Hitler unleashed a worldwar? Why did Mandela not instigate genocide on the white elite in SouthAfrica? Also the nature and nurture debate that applies to aggressivebehaviour and ethnic and religious identity is relevant for humiliation.And what about primordialist, instrumentalist, and constructivist views


7 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

on humiliation and its manifestation at different times and in differentcircumstances? All these questions and many more are attended toelsewhere in Lindner's texts.Before proceeding further, I would like to make a note on the role ofhuman rights ideals: "All human beings are born free and equal indignity and rights," this is the first sentence of the first paragraph ofArticle 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by theUnited Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. This sentencegives permission to all those who feel their equal dignity violated toinvoke feelings of humiliation. This stands in stark contrast to formertimes, when unequal worthiness was the very norm and it was regardedas nature's order rather than as violation that higher beings presidedover lesser beings. In my work, I speak of the transition from a contextof unequal ranked honor to a context of equal dignity. Humiliation playsout very differently in each context.Many warn that human rights ideals are outflows of Westernimperialism. I embrace human rights not because I enjoy presentingmyself as an arrogant Westerner who wishes to humiliate the non-Westby derogating their honor codes and their rankings of humanworthiness. On the contrary, as I see it, honor codes reign in the Westas much as in the rest (only sometimes more covertly), and people whoendorse honor codes may not be looked down upon in ethno- andtime-centric ways. My conceptualization is that honor codes emergedand had their function in a historical context when people did not yethave the opportunity to experience the coming-together of humankindinto one single family. Yet, I repeat, the past needs to be approachedwith respect, rather than with present time-centrism. I believe thathuman rights ideals represent a normative framework that is betteradapted to an emerging global community. Thus, I encourage everyinhabitant of the globe to transcend hostile "we" and "them"differentiations and define themselves as "we," as "we humanity," we,who together and in a spirit of equality in dignity search for better waysto provide our children with a world worth living in, a world of dignifiedand dignifying unity in diversity.

Now to my doctoral research. I conducted a four-year research project(1997-2001) at the University of Oslo, Norway, with field work inSomalia and Rwanda, on the background of Nazi Germany. The title wasThe Feeling of Being Humiliated: A Central Theme in Armed Conflicts. AStudy of the Role of Humiliation in Somalia, and Rwanda/Burundi,Between the Warring Parties, and in Relation to Third InterveningParties. I carried out 216 qualitative interviews addressing Somalia,Rwanda, and Burundi, and their history of genocidal killings. From 1998to 1999, the interviews took place in Africa (in Hargeisa, capital ofSomaliland, in Kigali and other places in Rwanda, in Bujumbura, capitalof Burundi, in Nairobi in Kenya, and in Cairo in Egypt), and from 1997to 2001 also in Europe (in Norway, Germany, Switzerland, France, andin Belgium).As the title of the project indicated, three groups had to be interviewed,namely, both the conflict parties in Somalia and Rwanda/Burundi, andrepresentatives of third parties who intervened. These three groupsstood in a triangular relationship (this is the minimum version - wherethere are more than two opponents, as is the case in most conflicts, thepattern, obviously, has more than three corners). Both in Somalia andRwanda/Burundi, representatives of the "opponents" and the "thirdparty" were also approached.(8)Some of the interview conversations were filmed (altogether the authorproduced 10 hours of film, comprising many interviews, but also imagesof Somaliland and Rwanda), other interviews were taped on mini discs(altogether more than 100 hours of audio tape), and in situations wherethis seemed inappropriate, the researcher took notes. The interviewsand conversations were conducted in different languages, most of themin English (Somalia) and French (Great Lakes), many in German, and inNorwegian.After the doctorate was defended in 2001, I began building the HumanDignity and Humiliation Studies network as its founding president andglobal ambassador.


8 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

(7) See Lindner's texts. The concept of humiliation may bedeconstructed into at least seven layers (Lindner, 2001), each requiringa different mix of interdisciplinary research and analysis. The sevenlayers include a) a core that expresses the universal idea of puttingdown, b) a middle layer that contains two opposed orientations towardsbeing put down, treating it as, respectively, legitimate and routine, orillegitimate and traumatizing, and c) a periphery whose distinctivelayers include one pertaining to cultural differences between groups andanother four peripheral layers that relate to differences in individualpersonalities and variations in patterns of individual experience ofhumiliation.

(8) The following people were included in the network of conversationsthat was created in the course of the research:• Survivors of genocides were interviewed, that is people belonging tothe groups that were targeted for genocidal killing. In Somalia thisincluded, among others, the Isaaq tribe, in Rwanda the Tutsi, in BurundiHutu and Tutsi. The group of survivors was typically divided into twoparts, namely, those who survived because they were not in the countrywhen the genocide happened - some of them returned after thegenocide - and those who survived the onslaught inside the country. TheGerman equivalent of this fieldwork consisted of the network of contactsthat I had established, over some decades, with survivors from theHolocaust, and, especially, their children.• Freedom fighters were also included into this network ofconversations. In Somalia, interviews were conducted with SNM (SomaliNational Movement) fighters in the North of Somalia, who fought thetroops sent by the central government in Mogadishu in the South; inRwanda, the interviewees were former Tutsi refugees who formed anarmy, the RFP (Rwandese Patriotic Front), and attacked Rwanda fromthe North and ousted the extremist Hutu government which carried outthe genocide in Rwanda in 1994. In Burundi, also Hutu rebels wereamong the interviewees. In Germany, the equivalent of these contactswere exchanges with those aristocratic circles in Germany who opposedHitler, but also with those, especially from the researcher's family, whoadvocated human rights in the middle of World War II and paid a highprice for their human compassion. Furthermore, the researcher'scontacts with people from the occupied countries were relevant, thosewho tried to sabotage German oppression, for example, the Norwegianresistance movement as well as representatives of the allied troops whofinally put an end to German atrocities.• Somali warlords were interviewed who had their places of retreat inKenya.• Politicians were included, among them people who were in powerbefore the genocide's onset and whom survivors secretly suspected ofhaving been collaborators or at least silent supporters of those whoperpetrated the genocide. The equivalent in Germany is the atmosphereof underlying suspicion in which I grew up, generally a mistrust towardeverybody of a certain age, but particular suspicion toward the past ofpeople in power, a suspicion that only diminishes as the years pass andpeople die.• Somali and Rwandan/Burundian academicians were interviewed,those who studied the situation of their countries. As for Germany,Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's book on Hitler's Willing Executioners mayserve as an example for discourses that are related.• Representatives of national non-governmental organizations wereinterviewed, those who worked locally for development, peace, andreconciliation. In Germany, the responses to the atrocities of World WarII permeate everybody's lives - even those of the generations born afterthe war - and the researcher's intimate knowledge of a culture ofGerman self-criticism may stand as an equivalent to the pre-occupationwith past and present bloodshed, as well as bloodshed anticipated in thefuture, that characterizes life in Somalia, Rwanda, and Burundi.• Third parties were interviewed, namely, representatives of UnitedNations organizations and international non-governmental organizationswho work with emergency relief, long-term development, and peace and


9 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

reconciliation in all parts of the world.• Egypt is a heavyweight in the OAU and Egyptian diplomats in theforeign ministry in Egypt who dealt with Somalia were included.• African psychiatrists in Kenya who deal with trauma and forensicpsychiatry were asked about their experience with victims andperpetrators from Rwanda/Burundi and Somalia. In Kenya, manynationals from Somalia and Rwanda/Burundi have sought refuge, somein refugee camps, others through various private arrangements. Some,both victims and perpetrators, sought psychiatric help. An equivalent inGermany are researchers who focus on the psychological effects of theatrocities of the Holocaust and World War II.• With respect to Somalia, accounts of people who were close to Somalidictator Siad Barré have successfully been gathered. Masterminds ofgenocide in Rwanda, those who planned the genocide and organized itmeticulously, have not yet been interviewed. Some of them were said tobe in hiding in Kenya and other parts of Africa, or in French-speakingparts of Europe, or in the United States and Canada. Some were inprisons in Rwanda and in Arusha, Tanzania. In the case of Hitler andthose who supported him, a culture of openness and frank discussion isunfolding in Germany at present, many decades after World War II. Thecountry has entered into a phase of working through past experiencesand people who never spoke before, do so now.The topic has also been discussed with more than 500 researchersworking in related fields. As mentioned before, a theory of humiliation iscurrently being developed by the author. Some book projects havealready been realized, more are being envisioned.

Work on humiliation and related themes covered by otherscholars (as of 2004, see more here)

Few researchers have studied humiliation explicitly. In many cases, theterm humiliation is not differentiated from other concepts; humiliationand shame, for example, are often used exchangeably, among others bySilvan S. Tomkins (1962-1992) whose work is carried further by DonaldL. Nathanson. Nathanson describes humiliation as a combination ofthree innate affects out of altogether nine affects, namely, as acombination of shame, disgust and dissmell (Nathanson in a personalconversation, October 1, 1999).(9)In Lindner's work, humiliation is distinctly addressed on its own accountand differentiated from other concepts. Humiliation, for example, is notregarded as a sub-variant of shame. Shame carries a host of pro-socialconnotations. People who are shameless, for instance, are not seen tobe fit for constructive living-together (see Norbert Elias, 1994, and hiswork on civilization). Shame is an emotional state that is salient whenwe accept it, albeit painfully, while being humiliated is an assault wetypically try to repulse and feel enraged by. Thus, following Lindner'sconceptualization, Adolf Hitler managed to transform feelings of shameinto feelings of humiliation in the German populace. Stephan Marks andHeidi Mönnich-Marks (2003) demonstrated this point in their work. Theyinterviewed Germans and asked them about their motives to supportHitler. One interviewee, born 1917, described how boring and hard lifewas in his village and how Hitler's vision lifted him out of his lowlycondition. He reported how Hitler "showed" him that his lowliness wasnot something to be shamefully accepted, but a humiliation that had tobe rejected and fought.Lindner's view that humiliation may be a particularly forcefulphenomenon is also supported by the research of, for example, SuzanneM. Retzinger (1991) and Thomas J. Scheff and Retzinger (1991), whostudied shame and humiliation in marital quarrels. They show that thesuffering caused by humiliation is highly significant and that thebitterest divisions have their roots in shame and humiliation. AlsoWilliam Vogel and Aaron Lazare (1990) documented unforgivablehumiliation as a very serious obstacle in couples' treatment. Robert L.Hale (1994) addressed The Role of Humiliation and Embarrassment inSerial Murder. The phenomenon of humiliation is part and parcel of thematerial studied by many fields, even if it is not studied on its ownaccount; it has been relevant for research on themes as varied as love,


10 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

sex and social attractiveness, depression, society and identity formation,sports, history, or literature and film.Donald C. Klein carried out very insightful work on humiliation in theJournal of Primary Prevention that devoted a special issue to the topic ofhumiliation in 1991, 1992, and 1999. Linda M. Hartling and TracyLuchetta (1999) pioneered a quantitative questionnaire on humiliation(Humiliation Inventory) where a rating from 1 to 5 was employed forquestions probing the extent to which respondents had felt harmed bycertain incidents throughout life, and how much they feared suchincidents. Questions were probing being teased, bullied, scorned,excluded, laughed at, put down, ridiculed, harassed, discounted,embarrassed, cruelly criticized, treated as invisible, discounted as aperson, made to feel small or insignificant, unfairly denied access to someactivity, opportunity, or service, called names or referred to inderogatory terms, or viewed by others as inadequate, or incompetent.Thomas Scheff and Suzanne Retzinger extended their work on violenceand the Holocaust and studied the part played by humiliated fury inescalating conflict between individuals and nations (Scheff, 1997, p. 11).The term humiliated fury was coined by Helen Block Lewis (1971).Consider also Scheff (1988, 1990a, 1990b, 1997). Jan Smedslunddeveloped his Psycho-Logic, within which he describes anger,forgiveness, and humiliation (Smedslund, 1991, 1993, 1998). Note alsoMasson (1996), Vachon (1993), Znakov (1990), and, furthermore,Israel Charny (1997) and his analysis of excessive power strivings.Psychiatrist James Gilligan, as well, focused on humiliation as a causefor violence in his book Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and How to TreatIt (1996).Dennis Smith, professor of sociology at Loughborough University, UK,has been introduced to the notion of humiliation through Lindner'sresearch and has since incorporated it actively into his work, see, forexample, Smith (2002).Vamik D. Volkan and Joseph Montville carried out important work onpsycho-political analysis of intergroup conflict and its traumatic effects,see Volkan (1988, 1992, 1994, and 1997), Volkan and Harris (1995),and Montville (1990, 1993), Volkan, Demetrios, and Montville (Eds.,1990). See also Blema S. Steinberg (1996). Furthermore, Ervin Staub'swork is highly significant (see Staub, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1996). See alsothe journal Social Research in 1997, whose special issue was stimulatedby the book The Decent Society by Avishai Margalit (1996).Richard E. Nisbett and Dov Cohen (1996) examined an honor-basednotion of humiliation. The honor to which they refer to is the kind thatoperates in the more traditional branches of the Mafia or, moregenerally, in blood feuds. Bertram Wyatt-Brown wrote about SouthernHonor (1982). William Ian Miller (1993) authored a book titledHumiliation and Other Essays on Honor, Social Discomfort, and Violence,where he links humiliation to honor as understood in The Iliad orIcelandic sagas, namely, humiliation as violation of honor.See also Charles Taylor (1993) and his description of the paradigm shiftfrom honor to dignity and recognition. According to Taylor, socialhierarchies are the basis for honor and the collapse of these hierarchiesis the precondition of honor's transmutation into dignity and recognition.The Enlightenment emphasizes the equality of every human person andthe abolition not just of social hierarchies but of the concept of honor.There is a significant literature in philosophy on the politics ofrecognition, positing that people who are not recognized sufferhumiliation and that this leads to violence, see Axel Honneth (1997) onrelated themes. Max Scheler set out these issues in his classic bookRessentiment (1912). In his first period of work, for example, in his TheNature of Sympathy (1954), Scheler focused on human feelings, onlove, and on the nature of the person. He stated that the human personis a loving being at her core, an ens amans, a being who may feelressentiment.This overview does not exhaust the contributions to be found in theliterature on the topic of humiliation - or rather on related issues, since,to my awareness, only Miller, Klein, Hartling, the above-mentionedjournals, as well as Margalit put the word and concept of humiliationexplicitly at the center of their attention.


11 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

However, as soon as we turn to issues that are related to humiliationthen a wide field of research opens up: research on mobbing andbullying touches upon the phenomenon of humiliation and musttherefore be included.(10) Research on mobbing and bullying leads tothe field of prejudice and stigmatization,(11) which in turn draws onresearch on trauma and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder PTSD,(12)aggression, power and conflict,(13) stress, (14) and, last but not least,emotions.(15)In cases where humiliation are to be studied in cross-cultural settings,cross-, and multi-cultural psychology has to be included,(16) and theanthropological, sociological and philosophical embeddedness ofprocesses of humiliation in different cultural contexts has to beaddressed. If humiliation between groups or even nations is to bestudied, then, evidently, history and political science play a central role.

(9) See also Donald Nathanson (1992).

(10) See especially Heinz Leymann for work on mobbing, Leymann(1990, 1996), and Leymann and Gustafsson (1996), as well as Dan ÅkeOlweus (1993, 1997) on mobbing and bullying at school. The confusionaround the use of the terms mobbing and bullying stems from the factthat these phenomena are addressed differently in different countries.Leymann suggests keeping the word bullying for activities betweenchildren and teenagers at school and reserving the word mobbing foradult behavior at workplaces.

(11) Edward E. Jones (1984), Social Stigma - The Psychology ofMarked Relationships, is a central book on stigmatization.

(12) There exists a huge body of research and literature, see, forexample, Bremner et al. (1992), Eitinger (1990), Everly (1993), Figley(1989), Gerbode (2000), Havermans (1998), Horowitz, Weine, andJekel (1995), Kardiner (1941), Lavik et al. (1999), McCann andPearlman (1992), Nadler and Ben Shushan (1989), Pearlman (1998,and 1994), Perry (1994), van der Kolk et al. (1984), van der Kolk(1994), van der Kolk and van der Hart (1989, and 1991), and van derKolk and Kadish (1987).

(13) Political scientists P. Bachrach and Baratz were among the first toaddress power and conflict in their article "The Two Faces of Power"(1962) that is placed within the context of the civil rights movement inthe USA of the nineteen sixties. See also Tedeschi, Schlenker, andBonoma (1973) on Conflict, Power, and Games: the Experimental Studyof Interpersonal Relations.

(14) Standard reading on stress psychology is Richard S. Lazarus(1966), Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, and Lazarus andFolkman (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping. Stress is not necessarilynegative, it may also be a stimulating challenge - and there areindividual differences why some people thrive under stress and othersbreak. See, for example, Resilience and Thriving: Issues, Models, andLinkages by Carver (1998); Embodying Psychological Thriving: PhysicalThriving in Response to Stress by Epel, McEwen, and Ickovics (1998);Quantitative Assessment of Thriving by Cohen et al. (1998); BeyondRecovery From Trauma: Implications for Clinical Practice and Researchby Calhoun and Tedeschi (1998); and Exploring Thriving in the Contextof Clinical Trauma Theory: Constructivist Self Development Theory bySaakvitne, Tennen, and Affleck (1998).

(15) António R. Damásio, with his book Emotion, Reason and the HumanBrain (1994), provided a perspective on the important "constructive"role that emotions play for the process of our decision making; it showshow the traditional view of "heart" versus "head" is obsolete. DanielGoleman, in his more widely known book Emotional Intelligence (1996),


12 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

relied on Damasio. Among others, Goleman gave a description of thebrain activities that can lead to post-traumatic stress disorders. TheHandbook of Emotion and Memory by Sven-Åke Christianson (Ed.,1992), addressed the important interplay between emotions andmemory. Humiliation is a process that is deeply embedded in theaffected individual's relationships, and therefore relational concepts ofmind such as Gibson's ecological psychology of affordance are relevant.James Gibson "includes environmental considerations in psychologicaltaxonomies" wrote Looren de Jong (1997, Abstract). Michael A.Forrester (1999) presented an related approach that he defines as"discursive ethnomethodology," where he focused on narrativization as aprocess of bringing together conversation analysis with Foucault'sdiscourse theory of 1972 and Gibson's affordance metaphor from 1979.I thank Reidar Ommundsen and Finn Tschudi for kindly helping me tolearn about psychological theories on emotion, especially as developedby Tomkins and Nathanson. Silvan S. Tomkins developed one of themost interesting theories of the human being and emotions, see his fourvolumes of Affect Imagery and Consciousness (1962-1992). See alsoVirginia Demos (Ed., 1995), editor of Exploring Affect, a book that easedthe otherwise difficult access to Tomkins' thinking. Donald L. Nathanson(1996) built on Tomkins' work and wrote on script, shame, and pride.Tomkins did not always differentiate between humiliation and shameand used it exchangeably, while Nathanson described humiliation as acombination of three innate affects out of nine, namely, a combinationof shame, disgust, and dissmell (Nathanson in a personal conversation,October 1, 1999, in Oslo). Robert Abelson (1976) addressed the sameissues from a cognitive perspective, as compared to Tomkins'personality-psychological perspective. Also the sociology of emotions isrelevant, see especially the work of Thomas Scheff on violence andemotions such as shame.

(16) See, for example, the work of Michael Harris Bond (see, amongothers, Bond, 1992, 1997, 1998, Smith and Bond, 1999). HarryCharalambos Triandis is an important name as well (see, for example,Triandis, 1980, 1990, 1995, 1997). Richard W. Brislin is anotherrelevant name (see, for example, Brislin, 1993, Cushner and Brislin,1996, Landis and Brislin, 1983).

Work on causes of deadly conflict

Conflict and peace are topics that have been widely studied; thousandsof publications are to be found that cover a wide range of conflicts, frominterpersonal to intergroup and international conflict. The search wordterrorism renders thousands of hits in databases. Instead of presentinglarge lists of publications at this point, I would like to mention some ofthose that had particular significance for my research on humiliation andwhere the Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies network has itsaffiliations. A pioneer of conflict studies in social psychology is MortonDeutsch, the founder of the Morton Deutsch International Center forCooperation and Conflict Resolution (MD-ICCCR) at Teachers College,Columbia University, New York City (see, for example, Deutsch andColeman, Eds., 2000). Morton Deutsch's crude law of social relationsstipulates that "cooperation breeds cooperation, while competitionbreeds competition" (Deutsch, 1973, p. 367). To my view, only a globalconsciousness of unity in diversity can realize the promise ofcooperation. In a compartmentalized world, cooperation will simply beput at the service of competition.Andrea Bartoli was the Director of the Center for International ConflictResolution (CICR)(17) and Chairman of the Columbia University ConflictResolution Network (in 2009 superseded by the Advanced Consortiumon Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity, AC4).Also Herbert C. Kelman was among the first to work in this field (see, forexample, Kelman and Society for the Psychological Study of SocialIssues, 1965, and Kelman, 1999). David A. Hamburg's work as Presidentof the Carnegie Corporation has helped prevent conflict, as he shows inNo More Killing Fields: Preventing Deadly Conflict (2002). William L. Ury,


13 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

Director of the Project on Preventing War at Harvard University,co-author of Getting to Yes (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991), and authorof Getting to Peace (Ury, 1999), focuses in his anthropological work onconflict and peace. Lee D. Ross, principal investigator and co-founder ofthe Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation (SCCN), addressespsychological barriers to conflict resolution (see, for example, Ross andWard, 1995). Dan Bar-On and Arie Nadler (1999) call for more attentionto be given to conflicts in contexts of power asymmetry.Historical and cultural grievances are usually identified as representingthe core of deadly conflicts.(18) Such grievances are often identified asregional, historic, cultural, ethnic, religious, or class-based (land andlabor). However, as Monty Marshall shows in his book Third World War(1999), once violent conflict has begun, such grievances may becomesecondary, and a diffusion of insecurity may occur, spreading thedisposition to use violence through social networks and thus leading tothe "development" of protracted conflict regions. And, furthermore,grievances and cleavages may be instrumentalized or even constructedon the basis of secondary motives; according to Shashi Tharoor (1999)opportunistic political leaders find in ethnic conflict "the ideal vehicle" tomaintain or increase power or conceal domestic failures (quoted inScheper, 2004).The Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) at GeorgeMason University is a central player in the field.(19) Ted Robert Gurr'sMinorities at Risk (MAR) project studies core variables determining theemergence of ethnopolitical conflict among 275 ethnic groups worldwide.The results show four variables that impinge on the probability thatethnic groups will initiate political or armed action: the salience of thegroup identity, the collective incentives, the capacity for joint action,and the external opportunities (Gurr, 2000, p. 7-12). Monty Marshall,founding director of the Integrated Network for Societal ConflictResearch (INSCR) program at the Center for International Developmentand Conflict Management (CIDCM), University of Maryland, wrote theabove-mentioned seminal book on protracted conflict and the hypothesisof diffusion of insecurity (1999).In 1999 and 2000, the Carnegie Commission on Preventing DeadlyConflict identified "systematic frustration of human needs" as a majorcause of deadly conflict. Connie Peck (1998) highlighted five factors thatinfluence a group's readiness to mobilize: the ethnic geography, theleadership and political organization of the group, changingcircumstance in the political environment, demonstration effects ofefforts of groups in similar circumstances and/or neighboring countries;and, lastly, the specific group identifications and grievances.Also Ervin Staub, author of the classic study Roots of Evil (1989), linksthe evolution of evil in a society with the "frustration of basic humanneeds and the development of destructive modes of need fulfillment"(Staub, 1999, p. 181). Staub defines evil as extreme humandestructiveness that is not proportionate with the causative condition.Basic human needs include, according to Staub, security, positiveidentity, effectiveness and control over essentials, connections to othersand autonomy, and an understanding of the world and our place in it.And, in case such needs are being frustrated, scapegoats may be soughtthat can be blamed for the dissatisfaction (see also Dutton and Bond,2004).Nat Colletta's work on social cohesion emphasizes the importance ofvertical linkages between the state, its citizens, and good governance,and horizontal social capital building and bridging relations amongcommunities in multicultural societies (see, for example, Colletta andCullen, 2000).

(17) See Bartoli, Girardet, and Carmel (Eds., 1995), as well as work bytwo scholars at the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) atColumbia University, such as Robert Jervis (1978), and George J.Mitchell (1999).

(18) As to conceptualizations of causes of deadly conflict, see also thework of Elisabeth Scheper (2004), who examined the role of local NGOs


14 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

in conflict, a role that hitherto had been neglected.

(19) See, for example, Avruch (1998), Avruch, Narel, and Combelles-Siegel (2000), and Sluzki (1993).

Humiliation as a Historical-Cultural-Social Construct

The questions that formed the starting point for my research in 1996were the following(22): What is experienced as humiliation? Whathappens when people feel humiliated? When is humiliation establishedas a feeling? What does humiliation lead to? Which experiences ofjustice, honor, dignity, respect, and self-respect are connected with thefeeling of being humiliated? What are the roles played by globalizationand human rights ideals for humiliation? How is humiliation perceivedand responded to in different cultures? What role does humiliation playfor aggression? What can be done to overcome violent effects ofhumiliation?How could these questions be addressed? The brutal example ofso-called honor killings may provide a stark illustration of howexperiences of humiliation vary depending on the overall culturalcontext, experiences of humiliation and what they lead to, together withexperiences of justice, honor, dignity, respect, and self-respect. A familyin Norway, for example, whose daughter was raped, might send theirchild into trauma therapy and would not want to kill her to remedyhumiliated family honor. Even the use of the honor-killing example itselfin this text, employed by me, a Western author with the best intentions,elicits angry protests, for example, among my Egyptian friends (ashappened to me in 2007). Or, in Japan, merely walking around in publicwith the leaflet of the Osaka Human Rights Museum, where occurrencesof discrimination in Japanese society are being displayed, may causeembarrassment (as happened to me in 2004).It is therefore that I see humiliation as a historical-cultural-social-emotional construct that is changing over time, rather than as ana-historic emotional process. As already alluded to above, I see thegenerations presently alive on planet Earth in a crucial historicaltransition from a traditional honor world that entails honor-humiliationtoward the vision of a future world of equal dignity entailing dignity-humiliation.In traditional hierarchical societies, aristocrats defended their honoragainst humiliation with the sword (in duels, or in duel-like wars, withincreasingly more lethal weapons) while inferiors (women and lowlymen) had to humbly, subserviently, and obediently accept beingsubjugated without invoking feelings of humiliation. Men, when theybelonged to ruling elites, were socialized into translating feelings ofhumiliation into an urge to fight back, while lowly men and particularlywomen learned that they had to swallow such feelings, at least if aimedat superiors, and keep quiet. Superiors were expected to become angrythrough humiliation, inferiors were expected to become humble.This state-of-the-world began to hold sway when hierarchical societalsystems emerged, together with complex agriculturalism, roughly12,000 years ago. All early civilizations were built in this way. Untilrecently, such hierarchical societal systems were regarded as thoroughlylegitimate, even as divinely ordained. Still today, in many places, peoplesubscribe to such cultural concepts.Yet, this scenario only characterized the past five percent of humanhistory. Anthropologist William Ury (1999) describes how most ofhumankind's history went by relatively peacefully prior to that, withsmall bands of migratory foragers cooperating within noticeablyegalitarian societal structures. The available abundance of wild foodprovided foragers with an expandable pie of resources and a win-winframe. Roughly 12,000 year ago, a win-lose logic became salient,agriculturalism evolved, and hierarchical societies began to be pittedagainst each other in war. Circumscription theory is important in thiscontext, see Carneiro (2012). (This is not to be confused with a "noble


15 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

savage" approach; humans are social creatures and capable of doingwhat is called "evil" and "good." Furthermore, present-day foragerscannot be used as direct window into the era prior to 12,000 years ago.)At the present histocial juncture, new technologies of communicationand mobility (such as the internet, or transportation by airplanes, forinstance), allow for a) new visions of the world, b) the ingathering ofhumankind (ingathering is an anthropological term for the coming-together of tribes, see, for instance, Ury, 1999) and c) for a continuousliberation push from those at the bottom.As to a), today, new technologies give humankind access to profoundlynew visions of the world. Planet Earth has finally become visible as whatit always was, a tiny planet in a vast universe, and home to allhumankind. Television news programs around the world nowadays beginwith the image of a turning globe, a view that no human being in thepast had access to.With respect to b), technological innovations also enable people to relateto each other in profoundly new ways. People from around the worldnow communicate directly with each other and meet as never before.The new technologies drive the ingathering of humankind. In contrast toits many destructive aspects, this phenomenon is a promising aspect ofglobalization, the coming-into-being of one single global village, of onesingle in-group of humanity: "For the first time since the origin of ourspecies, humanity is in touch with itself" (Ury, 1999, p. xvii). Homosapiens is about to create a global knowledge society, explains Ury, thusreturning to the win-win frame of early migrating foragers, and openingthe chance to regain earlier relatively peaceful egalitarian societalstructures for the global "tribe" of humankind. Indeed, the term globalvillage signifies that at the global level one single family of humankind ispresently emerging and that the notion of out-groups disappears.As long as the separateness of communities characterized the globaltheatre, the security dilemma was strong. It left no other option than tolive in continuous fear of unexpected attacks from outsiders. Theingathering of humankind turns formerly separate communities into onesingle community in which relationships play a more prominent rolethan before. No longer can communities maintain separate "interests" inisolation. The quality of their relationships with others gainssignificance. The decisive element for potential conflict thus moves fromseparate interests to the quality of relationships. In an atmosphere ofmutual respect, conflicting interests can now be accommodated. If theatmosphere is characterized by dynamics of humiliation, however,conflicting interests risk fueling violence.The coming-into-being of one single global in-group is historicallywithout parallel. No longer do people belong to separate communitiesthat appear mutually opaque and incomprehensible to each other.People are drawn into mutual relationships, which, in turn, contribute toweakening the security dilemma.Relationships, however, do not always turn sweet, they can also turnsour. Relationships can range from warm friendship to bitter enmityfueled by feelings of humiliation when respect and recognition aredeemed failing. In the wake of the weakening of the security dilemma,the formerly dominant emotion, namely, fear of the unknown outsider,is increasingly replaced by the desire to be recognized and appreciatedby one's fellow human beings. This inlcudes feelings of humiliation whenrespect, recognition, and appreciation are perceived to be wanting.Thus, we can observe a shift toward a more relational global life world, aweakening of the security dilemma, and a shift away from fear towardhumiliation as emotional driving force (including fear of humiliation).Ironically, one might add, many of the technological drivers for thistrend toward connection emerged in the opposite context, namely, in acontext of disconnection and warfare. Classical warfare, however, turnsinappropriate when the security dilemma weakens. Now, thesetechnological innovations give the have-nots the tools to connect andform liberation movements. For the first time in history, continuousliberation efforts are feasible. Both features, the new vision of the world,and the new means for coming together, and thus for continuousliberation efforts of those at the bottom, represent new phenomena andmake "lessons from history" obsolete in many ways. Profoundly new


16 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

ways of thinking must be developed.With respect to c), intertwined with the ingathering of humankind is therise of human rights ideals. Human rights ideals entail two historicallynew aspects. First, they may be labeled as in-group ethics, which noware globalized, while out-group ethics lose their scope. Second, theycreate the emotional force that can drive the above-mentionedliberation movements and uprisings of inferiors (see more on the termegalization further down).As to the first aspect, human rights ideals resemble the ethical normsthat people usually apply within what they regard their in-group. Ashumankind is in-gathering, in-group ethics embrace the entire world,and out-group ethics lose ground. As to the second element, humanrights ideals entail a revolution: their advocates drive a transition thatmoves away from societies where ranked worthiness of human beings(higher beings presiding over lesser beings) is regarded as normal, tothe notion of equal dignity for all. Equal dignity for all is a revolutionarynorm. It turns strategies that formerly were regarded as legitimate intoviolations. These violations then carry the potential to elicit feelings ofhumiliation. To give an illustration, security and peace can no longer beattained by parading "strength" and holding down people by sheer force.While this might have rendered humble underlings in former times, it nolonger does.In the new historical context, the phenomenon of humiliation (expressedin acts, feelings and institutions) therefore gains significance in twocontexts, a) in the context of the new, more relational reality of theworld, and b) in the context of emerging human rights ideals. Dynamicsof humiliation profoundly change together with the historical transitionfrom a world steeped in honor codes of unequal human worthinesstoward a world of human rights ideals of equal dignity: dynamics ofhumiliation move from honor-humiliation to dignity-humiliation, andthey gain much more significance.The human rights movement aims at collapsing the master-slavegradient of arrogation/humiliation to a middle line of proud humility inequal dignity (see graphics). The practice of masters arrogatingsuperiority and subjugating underlings is now regarded as illegitimateand obscene, and human rights defenders invite both, masters andunderlings, to join in shared humility at the level of equal dignity.As noted above, with the advent of human rights ideals, the notion ofhumiliation changes its attachment point. It moves from the top to thebottom, from the privileged to the disadvantaged. In the newframework, the downtrodden are given the right to feel humiliated andget angry. Inferiors all around the world are increasingly socialized innew ways and are "allowed" to feel humiliated by their lowliness, alowliness that is now defined as illegitimate. The master elites, on theother side, face the opposite request: they are called on to regainhumbleness and are not anymore given permission to resist this call bylabeling it as humiliation. Elites who arrogate superiority lose theirage-old right to cry "humiliation!" when they are asked to come downfrom arrogance and humble themselves.It is important to note that the horizontal line is meant to represent theline of equal dignity and humility. This line does not signify that allhuman beings are equal, or should be equal, or ever were or will beequal, or identical, or all the same. Equal dignity is not the same asidentical sameness, and, while equal dignity has links with equality,these links are complex. This horizontal line is meant to represent aworldview that undoes the hierarchical ranking of differences of humanworth and value. Masters are invited to step down from arrogatinghigher worthiness, and underlings are encouraged to rise up fromlowliness. Masters are humbled and underlings entrusted withempowerment.

Historic Transition to Egalization


17 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

Master at the top of the traditional honororder (arrogation)

Line of equal dignity, future human rights order of proud humility

Underling at the bottom of the traditional honor order(humiliation)

Figure 1 : The historic transition to egalization

Brigid Donelan kindly commented this model as follows (personalmessage, December 20, 2004), "This is a model with twin features: onea historical trend and the other a contemporary potential/choice. Wemay think of humanity evolving through stages of pride, honor anddignity. We can also see that each stage is 'alive and well' within eachcontemporary individual, as a choice/potential. The value of the modellies in clarifying the choice, and suggesting a trend towards emergenceof a 'global knowledge society,' for which there is certainly evidence, andbenefits for all."It is often forgotten and important to emphasize that human rightsdefenders expect inferiors to refrain from translating their newlylegitimized feelings of humiliation crudely into violent retaliation:human rights promoters discourage underlings from merely replacingelites and taking their place as new dominators and humiliators. Humanrights campaigners encourage inferiors to do more than bring downabusive masters; they encourage them to also dismantle the veryhierarchical systems that now are defined as unjust. Human rights idealsstipulate, furthermore, that the process of dismantling is to be carriedout without the sword and without humiliating anybody, in the spirit of aGandhi and Mandela (see Mandela, 1996).(23)Thus, human rights defenders expect men and women around the worldto refrain from translating feelings of humiliation into either apathy oraggression; men and women are encouraged to learn how to transformfeelings of humiliation into critical and organizational consciousness andbring about constructive peaceful social change (see Paolo Freire andClodomir de Morais).This is where, to my understanding, Thomas J. Scheff's work ispositioned (see his work on shame, for example, in Scheff, 1988, 1990,2003). An important focus in his work is that males would benefit fromlearning to feel and acknowledge feelings of shame and humiliationwithout covering up for these emotions and translating them intoaggression. A new awareness of feelings of humiliation and shame willenable mature males to devise action that is more constructive andmore in line with human rights ideals.(24) I assume that Scheff wouldwelcome what a friend wrote to me (April 9, 2004): "I worked beforewith drug addicts, and physically abusive individuals. I couldn't take the'rage' out of them. But I could show them the consequences of that rageand re-teach them what to do if they felt that coming on, knowing thatthey would hurt, kill, or end up in jail."Scholars such as Howard Zehr (1990, 2002) and Avishai Margalit (1996)focus on social and societal institutions, and how they have to bereformed so as to no longer humiliate citizens. Scholars and


18 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

practitioners discuss ways as to how the world system (Wallerstein)could be transformed in order to grow congruent with human rightsideals (see, among many others, Stiglitz, 1998, Stiglitz and Squire,1998, or Monbiot, 2003).

(22) I thank Dagfinn Føllesdal for his support in formulating thesequestions.

(23) See also, for example, Freire (1970), Gurr (1970, 1993), or Wink(1992), and Tilly (1978).

(24) Neurologist António R. Damásio differentiated emotions andfeelings as follows: He separated three stages of processing along acontinuum, first, a state of emotion, second, a state of feeling, and third,a state of feeling made conscious. The first state can be triggered andexecuted nonconsciously, the second can be representednonconsciously, while the third is known to the organism as havingboth, emotion and feeling (Damasio, 1999, p. 37).

Awareness of Human Rights and Humiliation

As alluded to above, I see the currently rising awareness of humanrights in the context of what anthropologists call the ingathering ofhumankind (see, for instance, Ury, 1999, see also World SystemsAnalysis, for example, by Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997)(25)). Ingatheringis the coming together of humankind into one single family: "For thefirst time since the origin of our species, humanity is in touch with itself"(Ury, 1999, p. xvii). New technologies drive the ingathering ofhumankind and enable humankind to come together as never before.While globalization has many destructive aspects, this phenomenon is apromising aspect. The term global village is deeply indicative. It entailsprofoundly transformative seeds for change. The rise of the vision andreality of one single global village is concurrent with the almostsubversive loss of ground for the notion of out-groups (together with allout-group biases, prejudices and hostile "out-group ethics").(26) Theso-called "scope of justice" (Coleman, 2003) emphasizes social cohesionand its maintenance within an in-group, so do human rights. Thus,human rights ideals may be seen to represent in-group ethics whosescope is expanded to encompass the entire global sphere.However, this is not all. As mentioned earlier, human rights ideals donot condone the mere replacement of old tyrants with new ones; theyenvision the dismantling of hierarchical systems. Human rights idealsencourage inferiors to continuously challenge domination andoppression (Deutsch, 2002, Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Thus, Iconceptualize human rights ideals to represent inside ethics as we knowthem from age-long history, however, now applied to the entire globe,and intertwined with an egalitarian message that has the potential tofuel continuous uprisings.In former times, guardians of inside ethics often defended hierarchicalrankings of human worthiness with "the need for safe, stable, andcoherent societies." Confucianism, for example, still today, reflects suchconceptualizations: obedience to authorities is regarded as a high value.And indeed, as long as the world had not yet evolved into one singleglobal whole, but still contained many villages, such concepts had a validplace. Villages (sub-units such as groups, nations, or states) were facinga dangerous Hobbesian might-is-right environment and had to stayinternally cohesive to always be prepared for war. Males were sent outto put their lives on line in war, honed in the language of honor. Sinceinvaders could turn up at one's borders at any time, fear of surpriseattacks was an inescapable definitorial frame for all other societaldeliberations. International relations theory uses terms such as thesecurity dilemma to describe how arms races and war were almostinevitable in this atmosphere of fear. "If you want peace, prepare for


19 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

war" was the only feasible motto. Mahatma Gandhi's motto of "There isno path to peace. Peace is the path" did not yet find space to be valid.World War I was a master example: speaking of peace was punishableas high treason.The new global inside ethics, or human rights ideals, however, aim at anew combination, no longer the maintenance of social cohesionembedded within hierarchical rankings of human value in each in-group,but maintenance of social cohesion linked to attitudes, behaviors, andinstitutions that promote equal dignity for all. I believe that thistransition, enshrined as the central human rights call for equal dignityfor all (Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of human rights) currentlygains mainstream acceptance mainly because of the rise of the visionand reality of one single in-group of humanity.It seems evident, that, as soon as the insight that humankind representsbut one single in-group on a small planet is manifested more securely inimagery and institutions, fear of surprise attacks from distant outsidersis bound to subside. What gains visibility then are everybody'sinteractions with other insiders. And this interaction is fraught withquests for recognition, appreciation, and respect, quests that may leadto feelings of humiliation and their violent outcomes if unsatisfied. Whileformerly distant outsiders held the many communities, or "villages" ofthe world in fear of sudden and unexpected attack, today we share onesingle global village with close-by fellow insiders who ask us whether werespect them as equals or not. We enter a relational era. Isolated"differences" or separate "interests" lose significance, while the qualityof relationships gains importance.It is therefore, to my view, that no longer fear of a distant enemy is theleading emergency-alerting emotion that overrides all other emotionsand deliberations. Now feelings of dignity-humiliation take over, feelingsof humiliation in the face of a perceived lack of recognition for equaldignity from fellow human beings. Fear was an inescapable emotionalstate that held center stage as long as a strong security dilemma wasthe definitorial frame for all people on the globe. If humiliation played arole, then it was the terminology of honor and honor-humiliation thatnegotiated this fear as if it was a collective armor. In contrast, atpresent, as the security dilemma weakens in the wake of increasingglobal interdependence, a new notion of equal dignity for all emerges,together with, in its aftermath, feelings of dignity-humiliation whenrespect for equal dignity is felt to be lacking. Elsewhere, Lindner (2003)analyses why dignity-humiliation is more salient than honor-humiliation: while honor-humiliation keeps most humiliated people stillwithin the in-group, dignity-humiliation excludes people from humanity.In human rights contexts feelings of humiliation are intensified by thefact that human rights, unlike honor codes, no longer legitimate anyrankings of human worthiness.As long as feelings of humiliation are not honed intoGandhi/Mandela-like strategies for constructive change, they can drivehitherto unparalleled mayhem. "Pre-emptive prevention" of expectedfuture humiliation, for example, was perpetrated in the Rwandangenocide in 1994, as in Hitler's Holocaust in World War II. Globalterrorism follows a similar logic, led by humiliation-entrepreneurs whoinstrumentalize feelings of humiliation among their followers. Nomilitary expenditure is necessary when human hearts and minds areturned into weapons of mass destruction by way of a narratives ofhumiliation: in 1994, in Rwanda, within 100 days, almost one millionpeople were hacked to death by their neighbors with the machetes theyhad at home - victims paid for bullets to be shot dead rather thanmutilated to death.It is of utmost importance that we, as humankind, explain to each otherthat traditional honor scripts of humiliation-for-humiliation are nowobsolete. Today's webs of information technology give the power ofmillions of machetes to one mouse click. Firewalls and anti-virusprograms offer little protection (George, 2013): within two days, all ofinfrastructure can be brought down: First, the computer-controlledpower plants fail, then the overloaded telephone networks, and after 48hours, the chaos is perfect when it is dark in the overcrowded hospitals.Unfortunately, many on the globe still live in the old world of honor and


20 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

domination, rather than of dignity and dialogue. They regard others as"enemies" and respond to humiliation with "defiance" andcounterattacks rather than bridge-building. U.S. President George W.Bush's stance may serve as an example. He commented the beheadingof a hostage in Iraq (South Korean hostage Kim Sun-il on June 23,2004) by saying that even though "they" try to humiliate "us," eventhough "they" try to "shake our wills," "we" do not bow. "We" are proudof our resistance. There is no need to be ashamed as long as we do notgive in, Bush said: "See, what they are trying to do, they are trying toshake our will and our confidence! They are trying to get us to withdrawfrom the world! So that they can impose their dark vision on people!"(U.S. President Bush June 23, 2004, seen on BBC World News). From"them," the same rhetoric was sent in return as they pledged tocontinue with their "holy war" (retrieved on June 20, 2004, fromnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3822527.stm).In other words, attempts to humiliate "enemies" in order to humblethem, typically end in proud defiance, on all sides, defiance that is thentranslated into cycles of humiliation and humiliation-for-humiliationviolence, instead of Mandela-like social transformation.I have coined the word egalization to match the word globalization toform the word glob-egalization. The aim is to disentangle the malign andbenign aspects of globalization. Its malign aspects, for instance thepresently increasing levels of inequality, signify a "lack of egalization,"while the ingathering or coming-together of humankind representpromising aspects:

The word egalization has been coined by Lindner in order tomatch the word globalization and at the same timedifferentiate it from words such as equality, because themain point is not equality. The point is rather equal dignity,even though there is a connection between equality andequal dignity. (The connection is "hidden" in the humanrights stipulation that equal chances and enablingenvironments for all are necessary to protect humandignity.)The term egalization is meant to avoid claiming thateverybody should become equal and that there should be nodifferences between people. Egality can coexist withfunctional hierarchy that regards all participants aspossessing equal dignity; egality can not coexist, though,with hierarchy that defines some people as lesser beings andothers as more valuable.If we imagine the world as a container with a height and awidth, globalization addresses the horizontal dimension, theshrinking width. Egalization concerns the vertical dimension,reminiscent of Hofstede's power distance ( 2001).Egalization is a process away from a very high "container" ofmasters at the top and underlings at the bottom, towards aflat "container" with everybody enjoying equal dignity.Egalization is a process that elicits hot feelings ofhumiliation when it is promised but fails. The lack ofegalization is thus the element that is heating up feelingsamong so-called "globalization-critics." Their disquiet stemsfrom lack of egalization and not from an overdose ofglobalization. What they call for is that globalization ought tomarry egalization (Lindner, 2003c, pp. 262-263).

To repeat, the most salient change that is brought about by the presentrise of the vision and reality of one single in-group of humankind, is, tomy view, the rise of the significance of feelings of humiliation ascompared to fear. Feelings of humiliation were rather secondary informer times, instigated and honed in order to tackle fear of surpriseattacks from outside. Honor was worn like a collective armor anddefended against honor-humiliation with duel-inspired strategies,particularly by males.(27) In human rights contexts, feelings ofhumiliation are no longer attached to honor, but to equal dignity. In


21 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

human rights contexts, it is not the soiling of honor that elicits feelingsof humiliation, but the lack of respect for equal dignity. Feelings ofdignity-humiliation are less of a collective phenomenon, prescribedwithin group relations, but become primary, direct, salient, and personalfor each individual who feels them in the context of their personalrelationships.Unfortunately, in today's transition times, both cultural contexts, thoseof unequal and equal worthiness, of unequal honor and equal dignity,coexist in the global arena. Both forms of humiliation often merge, blur,and intensify each other. An Iraqi man, for instance, might not findanything wrong in honor killings, where a dishonored girl may be put todeath so as to repair soiled family honor; however, he mightnevertheless criticize Western occupiers of hypocrisy when they fail toobey their own human rights rhetoric.Human rights contexts represent new scripts, new templates for ethicsand morals, and they require new skills. Where obedience to one'ssuperiors was formerly a deed, another skill has to be honed now,namely, the skill to form cohesive relationships of respect for equaldignity for all global citizens.Much has been written on human rights and the emerging global contextof the information age and globalization, with the unprecedentedchallenges it represents with respect to new identities, new skills, andnew world orders.(28) Some challenges for the global community aredescribed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration of September2000:• eradicate extreme poverty and hunger• improve maternal health• achieve universal primary education• combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases• promote gender equality and empower women• ensure environmental sustainability• reduce child mortality• develop a global partnership for development.

Let me I conclude this section with a quote:

Globalization is not the problem. The problem is in fact therelease from globalization which both economic agents andnations states have been able to negotiate. They have beenable to operate so freely because the people of the worldhave no global means of restraining them. Our task is surelynot to overthrow globalizing, but to capture it, and to use itas a vehicle for humanity's first global democratic revolution(Monbiot, 2003, p. 23, italics in original).

(25) See also classics such as Karl Paul Polanyi (1944), and laterFriedman (1982), Wagar (1992), Taylor (1996), Hall (Ed., 2000).

(26) Muzafer Sherif et al. (1988), carried out classic research on in- andout-groups, see the famous Robbers' Cave experiment.

(27) Peter L. Berger wrote an article "On the Obsolescence of theConcept of Honor" (1970).

(28) See, among others, the work by Bauman (1998), Castells (1996),Castells (1997b, and 1997a), Giddens (1991), Legrain (2002), Sennett(1996), Tajfel and Turner (1986), and Wilkinson (1996).

Conclusion


22 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

Need for a new global order

Perhaps Douglas Hurd's message quoted earlier could be projected intothe future as follows: Global community building, in the spirit of what iswell-known, namely, nation building, requires support from all worldstates and citizens for a new global order to protect our global socio-and ecospheres, enacted through global institutions, possibly startingfrom current United Nations institutions. Perhaps one day we will have aglobal passport, a global welfare net, and global institutions that protectour planet and its inhabitants within a global democracy that nurturesglobal unity in diversity. Perhaps one day tribal and national identitieswill be secondary to the core identity of global citizenship everywhereon the globe. The principle of subsidiarity will be the blueprint fororganizing global structures (as well as for building personal identities):shared humanity on a small planet at the core, as primary element thatdefines everybody's essence, and cultural diversity at the periphery,cherished and celebrated, but secondary. There will be no need forenemies; all will be neighbors, "good" as well as "bad" neighbors. Anddemocratically legitimated police, aided by a global culture ofresponsible social control and respect, will contain "bad neighbors."Super-ordinate global institutions, democratically legitimated, willprotect global citizens in the same way democratically legitimated nationstates at present attempt to guard the interests of their nationalcitizens.The aim is a dignified future for our children. Dignity is manifestedthrough unity in diversity. It means that we unite in respect for equaldignity for all within the limits of the carrying capacity of our planet,while we safeguard the biological and cultural diversity of our bio- andsociospheres.

Transcending Humiliation

A decent global village needs to be built, following the call by AvishaiMargalit (1996) for a decent society. For that, awareness of humiliationneeds to be incorporated into public policies.The word humiliation is typically being used for a) feelings, b) acts, andc) for processes including institutional humiliation, where the act isembedded in institutions. "I humiliate you" (act) and "you feelhumiliated" (feeling), is a process that may play out within "societalstructures that humiliate" (institutions).Feelings of humiliation are part of human emotions and cannot beeliminated nor should they. They are an essential force for what PauloFreire calls conscientization or the development of a criticalconsciousness, and for the organizational consciousness that Freire'scolleague Clodomir de Morais emphasizes. However, there are otheraspects of the humiliation dynamic that can and should be diminished orremoved. Acts and institutions of humiliation are of that category. It isnecessary to heighten awareness as to the destructiveness of acts ofhumiliation - random and institutionalized - and how they can beprevented and healed. Consider apartheid and apartheid-like social andsocietal structures such as autocratic cultures in schools, workplaces, orhomes. Human rights defenders will agree that public policy planningought to aim at diminishing acts of humiliation, those that occur "atrandom," and at dismantling structures of humiliation, those that areinstitutionalized.Human rights ideals stipulate that every human being is equal indignity. Evidently, this is an ideal that is not yet attained, on thecontrary, we find many social settings where human worthiness andvalue are still ranked (men are regarded as possessing more worthinessthan women, colored people face discrimination; the list is long), and itis this ranking of human worthiness that human rights defenders declare


23 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

to be illegitimate. Robert Fuller (2003) wrote a book on rankism. Whatwe have to overcome, he stipulates, is rankism (including all -isms fromsexism to racism to ageism). Rankism has humiliating effects as soon aswe take human rights ideals seriously, while rankism forms the core ofmany traditional cultures: as explained earlier, honor typically isranked, as it presupposes higher beings presiding over lesser beings. Incontrast, human rights ideals stipulate that people's worthiness shouldnot be ranked.According to Lindner's conceptualization there are, simplified, threeways out of feelings of humiliation: a) apathy and depression, b) the"Hitler way" (such as violence, war, genocide, or terror), and c) the"Mandela way" (constructive social change that includes the humiliator).(Clearly, the situation is more complex than that, for instance, first,feelings of humiliation need to reach a certain degree of awareness,even if bypassed (Lewis, 1971, Scheff, 2007).) Considering Mandela,some of his prison guards became his friends, and he refrained fromunleashing genocide on the white elite in South Africa. He also did notattempt to put in place a perfect new society but explained to hisfollowers that impatience would be counterproductive. Social change is aprocess, during which we have to look to the destination in order tokeep on track, and the goal would be to eliminate institutionalizedhumiliation and diminish acts of humiliation.Awarenesss of humiliation, if incorporated and mainstreamed in publicpolicy planning, will increase human security and decrease perils such asglobal terror. Terms such as recognition and respect for equal dignity forall did not figure large in traditional Realpolitik. Yet, they neet to beintroduced into a new Realpolitik that is adapted to a globalizinginterdependent world. When "eliminating," "hunting down," or "smokingout" terrorists, when "hitting" at "evil guys" in a "war on terror," despitelaudable intentions and noble motives, can lead to the radicalization ofindividuals who now can destroy entire infrastructures by a mouse click,military approaches are second-best. When feelings of humiliationsmoldering within broader masses provide reservoirs for the emergenceof new terrorists, inflicting humiliation is counter-productive. There arebetter methods for securing the world. Public policy planning has toembrace the entire global community and include considerations forsafeguarding social cohesion therein. Awareness of humiliation,operationalized, mainstreamed, and incorporated into public policyplanning offers a more suitable approach.In short (Lindner, 2012): New public policies must be developed thatdrive glob-egalization toward a decent world (see The Decent Society,Margalit, 1996). These policies need to entail three elements that areintertwined. First, new decent institutions, both locally and globally,must heal and prevent dynamics of humiliation. This can be manifestedthrough subsidiarity, so that unity in diversity can flourish (instead ofcontemporary manifestations of uniformity without diversity and divisionwithout unity). In this way, dignism can become reality (rather thanother, outdated oppressive and predatory -isms). This can be broughtabout by multi-pronged efforts of all committed world citizens (seeMargaret Mead's adage) co-creating global and local systemicimperatives (Ellen Meiksins Wood) that have the common good ofhumanity at heart. Second, new attention has to be given to creating aglobal culture where relationships of equal dignity can flourish in aunity-in-diversity fashion, where bio- and cultural diversity iscelebrated. Third, new social skills have to be learned, to maintainrelations of solidarity and dialogue in equal dignity. We need new typesof leaders, Mandelas so to speak, no longer autocratic dominators andhumiliation entrepreneurs who lead followers into hateful polarization,but knowledgeable co-facilitators and wise co-motivators who co-leadtoward the respectful and dignified inclusion of all of humankind on avulnerable planet.

Triple strategy for new public policies


24 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

In practice, a triple strategy seems appropriate for the design of publicpolicies. Institutions need to be built, both globally and locally, thatensure that people are not being oppressed, discriminated against, orhumiliated (as called for in Decent Society by Avishai Margalit, 1996).For example, at the global level, at present, a mechanism is missing thathelps the world avoid genocide. United Nations institutions are not yetdeveloped sufficiently.However, better institutions are not the whole solution. They must befilled with new contents as compared to former times. Marriage mightserve as an example. In former times it was a rather contractualrelationship. It was sufficient to enter the institution and follow its rulesthereafter. Nowadays, a marriage is a relationship that requirescontinuous attention and nurturing. None of the partners can merelylean back and trust that the institution will be guaranteeing the successof the marriage. Permanent relationship nurturing work is needed.Likewise, relationships between groups at local and global levels requirecontinuous nurturing. First, attention needs to be given to this newnecessity, and second, the necessary social skills for doing so must belearned.While sheer force as a strategy was common and efficient in formertimes, in marriages and elsewhere, nowadays, relationships areexpected to be maintained in different ways. Human rights ideals turnthe appliance of sheer force into illegitimate humiliation. No wife, nofellow human being, in a world that is steeped in the human rightsmessage, can accept sheer force and respond with humility; violencemay prove be a more probable outcome. Old methods do no longer workin a framework of new moral norms and expectations.Attention to building relationships of equal dignity, acquisition ofappropriate social skills of continuous mutual engagement andnurturing, embedded into appropriate institutions, is the triple strategythat needs to be applied today. In a world where human rights ideals ofequal dignity define the life world, since human rights ideals turn theholding down of people by sheer force into an unacceptable violation, allthree elements of this strategy must be designed to prevent and avoiddynamics of humiliation.

Triple strategy for the resolution of violent conflict

With respect to violent conflict, both at the global and local level, asmentioned earlier, the paradigm of good quality policing ofneighborhoods needs to replace the paradigm of war on enemies. Theglobal village, as any village, needs to maintain its inner security bygood quality policing that heeds the dignity of all involved. War istypically waged with neighboring "villages." In the case of the globalvillage, there is no "neighboring village" left. Thus the paradigm of warloses its anchoring in reality, and the paradigm of policing is what is left.And good quality policing selects the best from traditional skills ofcontainment and infuses them into new forms of dignified respect.During my time in Egypt (1984-1991), I was amazed at the low rate ofcrime and unrest in Cairo, a huge metropolis of at that time 10 to 15million people. I soon understood that a high amount of social control ispart of Egyptian culture. I frequently witnessed incidents that gavetestimony to this social control. When I analyzed conflict resolution andcontainment scenes in the streets of Cairo, I observed a twenty-to-tworatio, at a minimum a ten-to-two ratio. Ten or up to twenty physicallystrong men were required to cool and pacify two clashing opponents. Theyoung men in the Cairo scenes did not need to exert brute force becausethey outnumbered the quarrelers. Their overpowering count enabledthem to combine containment and respect. Respect alone would nothave sufficed, and containment through outnumbering alone neither.If this scenario is to be taken as a blueprint for attending to violentconflict, it is a combination of containment and respect that has to bestriven for by the global community and bystanders in general.Resources for the prevention, containment, and resolution of conflicts


25 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

around the world are to be increased. Overpowering numbers of bluehelmets/global policepersons with credible containment mandates andwell-devised containment strategies are required, embedded in anoverall approach of respect.

New application of traditional "male" and "female" roledescriptions

The respectful containment approach, incidentally, combines elementsthat also can be mapped onto traditional male and female roledescriptions (see Lindner, Gender, Humiliation, and Global Security,2010). What is combined is "female" talking, understanding, empathy,perspective-taking, and healing on one side, and a "male" potential foroverpowering, coercion, containment, and force on the other. "Male"strength and well-dosed containment are required to contain opponents."Female" awareness of the cohesion of the social fabric is needed to takeopponents seriously. To combine the "male" aspect of force with"female" empathy could be described as the modern recipe of conflictresolution. The traditional "male" strategy of hitting, of destructiveforce, is no longer appropriate in an interdependent modern globalcommunity, while the "male" ability to use restraining force continues tobe an important tool, though in a more steady and long-standingapplication and combined with empathy and respect.UNESCO's Culture of Peace Programme can serve as an example. Iturges the strengthening of the "female" aspect in conflict resolutionefforts. The list is long: using multi-track, "track II" and citizen-baseddiplomacy; installing early warning institutions; rethinking the notion ofstate sovereignty; setting up projects to better study and understandthe history of potential conflict areas, collect this information and makeit available to decision makers; using psychology not only on a micro-level, but also on a macro-level, taking identity as a bridge; keepingcommunication going with warring parties; talking behind the scenes;including more than just the warlords in peace negotiations; developingconflict-resolution teams with less hierarchy and more creativity; settingup mediation teams; installing "truth commissions;" allowing warringparties to feel the world community's care, respect and concern; takingopponents in a conflict out of their usual environment; taking theadversaries' personal feelings and emotions seriously; recognizing theimportance of human dignity; introducing sustainable long-termapproaches on the social and ecological level; progressing from spendingaid-money after a disaster to allocating resources to prevent it; and soon.To summarize, the global village embodies one single inside sphere. Thetraditional "male" role description of going out, fighting the enemy andconquering the unknown - being unidimensional, unilateral and moreshort-sighted - loses significance since it was only appropriate outsidethe "village" or around its borders. The world as a single global villageno longer provides an out-side. Men themselves, as travelers andexplorers, were responsible for this shrinking of the world, which nowmakes some of their traditional strategies inappropriate anddysfunctional.Maintaining social cohesion within an in-side sphere calls for complex,relational, multilateral, foresighted, integrative, and holistic strategiessuch as mediation, alternative dispute resolution, and police deployment(for example peacekeeping forces) instead of traditional military combat.Subsidiarity, quality (and not quantity) of life, culture of peace - all theseare keywords and concepts which stem from traditional "female" roledescriptions, showing how much the new strategies are, conceptually,"female" approaches.Thus, globalization opens space for "female" strategies, inviting bothwomen and men into embracing and combining them with the traditional"male" strategies of containment. And human rights ideals call foregalization, meaning equal dignity for all humankind, to be the broaderguiding framework for glob-egalization.


26 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

Triple strategy for subalterns who wish to rise up

For the downtrodden around the world, be it women or discriminatedminorities of any kind, who wish to promote successful and constructiveprocesses of liberation to change their lowly lot, a Nelson Mandela wouldoffer yet another threefold advice. He himself implemented this strategymost wisely: First, people who wish to change their lowly situationconstructively, have to psychologically step outside of the master-slavedyad and learn to think autonomously. Second, they have to stopmerely re-acting to the master's actions and definitions, and begin toact. Third, people wanting to rise up from lowliness must persuade thosewho hold on to master elite positions that change is necessary andunavoidable, both normatively and practically, and that a peacefultransition is preferable to violence and war. With its notion of victoryover enemies, war only turns a unifying world back into a fragmentedworld.

Triple strategy for third parties wishing to ensure peace

For third parties who are trying to secure peace around the world, yetanother threefold approach seems helpful. First, it is important toidentify the fault lines between what may be called moderates andextremists in opposing camps. To give an example, not the Hutus orTutsis are the parties to reckon with, but the Mandelas (they could becalled the moderates) as opposed to the humiliation entrepreneurs (herecalled extremists) on both sides. Second, third parties need to facilitatealliances between the moderates of all camps with the aim to transformextremists' violent responses to feelings of humiliation. Third,humiliating living conditions of the broad masses must be minimized,because otherwise frustrated masses will be vulnerable to recruitmentby humiliation entrepreneurs.

Celebrate humanity

Sultan Somjee, Kenyan ethnographer honored by the UN for his effortsto preserve indigenous people's peace traditions, said in response to theIraqi Prisoner Abuse of 2004, "Humiliation does not have nationality,religion, color or gender. Humiliation of one human being humiliateshumanity and our dignity of being." One could add, only if we avoidinstitutions, attitudes, and behaviors that have humiliating effects willwe create a future for our world in the spirit of Kofi Annan's promotionfor the Olympic Games of 2004, namely, "celebrate humanity."At the present historical juncture, to my observation, the most pressingproblem is the avoidance of necessary conflict by those who are in aposition to address it. Those with resources, many of the wealthy of thisworld, rather than standing up, choose to stand by (Staub, 1989), whilefellow humans and the planet are being exploited. They are the newRajas so to speak, similar to the Rajas under British rule who continuedenjoying privileges while being complicit in colonization. Their dutywould be to invest their privileges into constructive change in the spiritof Paolo Freire, Clodomir de Morais, Mahatma Gandhi, and NelsonMandela.As to the exploitation of social resources, on the International Day forthe Abolition of Slavery (2nd December) in 2012, 21 million women,men, and children were trapped in slavery all over the world, forced towork, held through fraud, under threat of violence, for no pay beyondsubsistence. Today’s slavery focuses on big profits and cheap lives. It isnot about owning people like before, but about using them as completelydisposable tools for making money. Contemporary forms of slavery: debt


27 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

bondage, serfdom and forced labour, trafficking of persons andtrafficking for the purpose of organ removal; sexual exploitation, childlabour, forced recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, forcedmarriage, the sale of wives, or widow inheritance (www.ilo.org).As to the exploitation of ecological resources, to keep up present growthrates, several planets would be needed. The title of the latest report tothe Club of Rome is The Plundered Planet. The author posits that thepresent massive exploitation of the final natural resources of the planetis a sad symbol of desperation and a dead-end: "…it is an impotentattempt to keep going at all costs, even though you know exactly: it's adead end."At present, what needs to rise to our attention is not just open warbetween or within nations, it is the sophisticated covert war on thesocial wealth of all societies and the ecological wealth of our planet.Indignez vous! Cry Out! is the voice of Stéphane Frédéric Hessel in2010, a French wartime resistance hero who was born in 1917. He criedout against Nazism in the 1940s and calls on people today to "cry outagainst the complicity between politicians and economic and financialpowers" and to "defend our democratic rights. (See also A DignityEconomy, by Evelin Lindner, 2012).Lynn King wrote from China to our network on 26 December 2013: "Iwould include the humiliation of poor farmers around the world as partof the 'violent conflict' that is destroying the world now. Suicide rates offarmers in India, Australia, and China not to mention many other placesis occurring annually in epic numbers as climate change and economicand social oppression gives them no way to survive while they areactually performing a critical role in society."An unparalleled window of opportunity opens up at the present historicaljuncture. The image of our Blue Planet from the astronaut’s perspectiveepitomizes this window. The Blue Planet image provides a powerfulframe for global cooperation. None of our forefathers was able to seeanything comparable. None of our predecessors was able to fathom inthe same way as we can today that we, humankind, are one singlefamily living on one tiny planet. None of the founders of religions,philosophies, or empires had access to the vast knowledge as we possesstoday about the universe and our place in it. This is a historicopportunity. We are given space to transcend the misconception thateternal exploitation and domination is feasible. We can leave behind ourmisguided conviction that squeezing social and ecological resources isthe only way. There is no need to artificially keep alive the securitydilemma. New Realpolitik means acting when history offers a chance."Those who are late will be punished by life itself," is a sentenceassociated with Mikhail Gorbachev and his speech on October 7, 1989.He spoke to East German leaders who failed to see the signs of thetimes. Also we, humankind, need to see the signs of the times.When circumstances are new, many ideologies are now dead-endideologies, also those that once were perceived as salvation. Clinging tothem will not do. Only a down-to-earth intentionally driven continuouslyevolving process of co-creation toward dignity will do, co-creating afuture of mutual care in equal dignity for all people and our planet. Aspointed out before, only a global consciousness of unity in diversity canrealize the promise of Morton Deutsch's crude law of social relations,which stipulates that "cooperation breeds cooperation" (Deutsch, 1973,p. 367). In a compartmentalized world, cooperation merely servescompetition for domination. Everybody is called on to join in. Optimismand pessimism are irrelevant when the house is on fire and there is stilla chance for rescue. Our principal duty, at present, is to invest all wehave into the change that Nelson Mandela envisioned, dignified anddignifying change.Dignity-ism, or dignism, means a world where every newborn finds spaceand is nurtured to unfold their highest and best, embedded in a socialcontext of loving appreciation and connection. A world, where thecarrying capacity of the planet guides the ways in which everybody'sbasic needs are met, a world, where we are united in respecting humandignity and celebrating diversity, where we prevent unity from beingperverted into oppressive uniformity, and keep diversity from slidinginto hostile division.


28 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DigniFunding | 2003-2015

Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies


29 de 29 21/07/2015 11:56

Documents

Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies - Who We Are