Enemy Images
By |
|
In-Groups and Out-GroupsThe term "out-group" refers to anyone who is not in your own group. "Your group" can be any salient identity group: your nationality, your ethnicity, your race, your religion. In conflicts between groups of people, disputants usually view people outside their own group as less good, or in the case of the opposing group, as really bad. The term "enemy image" refers to the same thing. The opposing group is seen as the "enemy," who is inferior to one's own group in many ways.
For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid, selfish, deceitful, aggressive, hostile, or even evil. This perception remains, even if members of the out-group do nothing more selfish, deceitful, aggressive, or evil than do members of one's own group. However, when they are engaged in a serious conflict, people will normally project their own negative traits onto the other side, ignoring their own shortcomings or misdeeds, while emphasizing the same in the other. Enemy images also involve "scapegoating." It is common for each side to decide that it is the other side (the "enemy") that is the source of all their problems. If only the enemy could be vanquished or eliminated, then those problems would go away. The extreme form of this tendency is dehumanization, in which members of the opposing group are considered to be less than human. While such a view is unthinkable when people are not involved in a serious conflict, it is absolutely necessary to dehumanize an opponent if one intends to go to war against them. Otherwise, it becomes psychologically very difficult to kill people on the other side. If one is convinced that the other side is bent on one's own destruction, and is less human than one's own group, it is much easier to engage in war, human rights violations, or genocide against the opponent. A grotesque example of this dehumanization was the Rwandan genocide. As described in a report from the U.S. Institute of Peace:[1] "An organized campaign of violence was carried out, during which the Tutsi were referred to as "cockroaches" and "the enemy," and Rwandan radio broadcasters exhorted every Hutu to kill Tutsi, complaining that "graves are still only half full." In less than four months, between 500,000 and a million people were killed."[2] Avoiding or Reversing Enemy ImagesThe best (perhaps the only) way to avoid enemy images is to keep the parties together, trying to work out their problems. In the case of intractable conflict, this rarely, if ever, happens. Once a conflict becomes escalated and polarized, enemy images are bound to be formed. But they can be countered. Stereotype-breaking actions or de-escalating gestures are actions that one party can take to prove to their opponents that they are better in character than the enemy image suggests. For example, one party may visit the opponent personally, and be more reasonable, friendly, agreeable, or helpful than the opponent expected. When this happens, disputants are likely to revise their enemy image at least a little, concluding that some members of the opposition are reasonable people, or even that the opponents, in general, are more reasonable than they thought they were. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's first trip to Jerusalem was such an action. No one in Israel thought he would come at all, and when he did, he was much more reasonable and personable than most Israelis had expected. The same was true of the Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev's first visit to the United States. Gorbachev was very warm and friendly toward the American people, and they were captivated by him. This effectively broke down many people's stereotypes of Russians as hostile, cold, and aggressive, and replaced those images with one that was much more friendly and open. Such overtures can be made by ordinary people too; you do not have to be a world leader to break down enemy images among the people with whom you come into contact. You must simply determine what the other side thinks of you or expects of you, and then do the opposite. If they expect you to be closed to new ideas, then express an interest in listening to new approaches to the problem. If they expect you to be selfish and aggressive, take a nonassertive stance and make a small concession that demonstrates good will and a willingness to cooperate with the other side (see de-escalation). The goal is to contradict the negative images that people usually have of their opponents, and to begin to replace these negative images with more positive ones. [1] Rwanda: Accountability for War Crimes and Genocide. United States Institute of Peace Special Report. Available online at http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/early/rwanda1.html. (Accessed September 20, 2003.) Use the following to cite this article: Burgess, Heidi. "Enemy Images." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: October 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/enemy_image/>. Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this TopicAdditional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:Online (Web) SourcesMcGuire, Patrick A. Experts Offer Theories on the Roots of Ethnic Conflicts.Available at: http://www.apa.org/monitor/aug98/root.html. This article discusses the phenomena of group identity and how it often contributes to ethnopolitical conflict, as groups tend to identify themselves in opposition to other groups. Offline (Print) SourcesStein, Janice Gross. "Image, Identity and Conflict Resolution." In Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict. Edited by Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall, eds. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996.Janet Gross Stein argues in, Image, Identity and Conflict Resolution, that enemy images play an important role in perpetuating and intensifying conflict. Structural accounts of conflict do not recognize the importance of enemy images and stereotypes. Stein turns to social psychology to describe how enemy images form, and how they can be changed. Click here for more info. Scarry, Elaine. "The Difficulty of Imagining Other Persons ." In The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence. Edited by Weiner, Eugene, ed. New York: Continuum Publishing, 1998. The author addresses the problem of violence and cruelty toward foreigners. She argues that the way we act toward others depends on how we see them. Click here for more info. Northrup, Terrell A. "The Dynamic of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict." Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation , October 1989. In this essay Northrup argues that identity is always an important factor in conflictual relationships, as threats to identity can cause conflict or contribute to its intractability. The essay gives a definition and a thorough analysis of the concept of identity, including discussion of the role that dehumanization and enemy image play in validating conflict for some groups. Click here for more info. Rieber, Robert W., ed. The Psychology of War and Peace: The Image of the Enemy. New York: Plenum Press, May 1991. This collection of essays includes both empirical and more theoretical pieces focused on the psycho-social foundations of war and peace. Overall, the volume emphasizes the importance of making and unmaking enemies. Fisher, Ronald J. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and International Conflict Resolution. New York, NY: Spring-Verlag, January 1990. This book explores the causation, escalation, de-escalation, and resolution of inter-group conflicts from the perspective of social-psychology. The work is quite comprehensive in terms of the amount of social-psychological theory on intergroup conflict that is covers. Although the term "enemy image" is not used explicitly, Chapter Four, "Group Factors in the Escalation of Intergroup Conflict" discusses several related concepts such as group conformity and ethnocentrism. It is these types of social-psychological phenomena that contribute to the formation of enemy images. Click here for more info. Examples Illustrating this Topic:Online (Web) SourcesRehman, I.A. Enemy Images on Pakistan Television.Available at: http://members.tripod.com/~no_nukes_sa/chapter_9.html. This article details the perpetuation of enemy image by the media outlets of Pakistan. For example, the piece notes that daily news broadcasts update the public on the latest violent acts committed by enemy Indians in the disputed territory of Kashmir. The article outlines the history of Pakistani media and the dynamics of the conflict, in order to fully contextualize the production of enemy images. Lonning, Jorund. Israeli Ways of Conceptualising the Enemy and Implications for Israeli-Palestinian Grassroots Dialogue. Chr. Michelsen Institute. Available at: http://www.hf.uib.no/smi/paj/Lonning.html. This article discusses how enemy images are generated and their effect on the course and resolution of inter-group conflicts. The author employs the case of Iraelis' general conception Palestinians as his primary example. Wolfsfeld, Gadi. The News Media and Peace Processes: The Middle East and Northern Ireland. United States Institute of Peace. Available at: http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks37.pdf. This report explains how and when the media takes different roles in the promotion of peace. They can emphasize the benefits that peace can bring, they can raise the legitimacy of groups or leaders working for peace, and they can help transform images of the enemy. But the media also can serve as destructive agents in a peace process. They can emphasize the risks and dangers associated with compromise, raise the legitimacy of those opposed to concessions, and reinforce negative stereotypes of the enemy. Offline (Print) SourcesRothman, Jay. "Conflict Management Policy Analysis." In From Confrontation to Cooperation. Edited by Reed, Ralph E, ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1992.In this essay, Rothman analyzes a border dispute between Egypt and Israel. Much of the problem, he argues, was caused by distrust between the parties, caused by the enemy images they had of each other and hence of each other's motivations. Fiebig-Von Hase, Ragnhild, ed. Enemy Images in American History. Berghahn Books, July 1998. This work examines the creation of enemy images in American society, a society composed entirely of "others". The work covers the period from the American Revolution to the post-World War II era, focusing on the question of how enemy images influence the development and implementation of foreign, domestic and immigration policies. Heimberg, Ruth. "Extremists Versus Police: A Tragedy for All." ICAR Newsletter 6:1, 1994. This piece discusses the tragic incident that took place in Waco, TX between federal authorities and the Branch Davidians. The authors argue that the tragedy was caused, in part, by the extreme enemy image that each side had of the other, which prevented any consideration of a negotiated solution. |
