Globalization and Terrorism

Death of a Way of Life

Lionel F. Stapley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367324681
• eBook ISBN: 9780429914300
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

How do we explain the factors that led to the murder by Muslim immigrants of Theo van Gogh in Holland? How do we explain why four young British Muslims should become suicide bombers who killed themselves and 52 innocent members of the British public and injured many more on the London underground on 7/ 7? How do we explain why a Danish journalist published a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed and the violent reactions that this sparked throughout the world?' With a view to answering these and other topical questions this book tracks the development and progress of 'Globalization' with the intention of exposing the way that its development has centred on the technological process whilst ignoring the problems posed by its use; in particular the affect on societal cultures. This has been experienced as 'death of a way of life' leading to a loss of individual and group identity. In doing so, the author draws on comparisons with what is becoming known as 'the First Globalization'-the Industrial Revolution. The period of the Industrial Revolution was such that no parallels could be found in history and for the first time, the past ceased to throw its light upon the future; and this seems to most adequately describe what is happening today. An effect is to threaten the identity of Muslim societies who respond by mobilising groups such as Al Qaeda to commit acts of terrorism.

CHAPTER ONE
The field of study: societal cultures

In 1985 Miller and Khaleelee published a paper “Society as an intelligible field of study”. In brief, this paper sought to show that society was but a (very) large group and that the same sort of theoretical understanding used in Group Relations learning where both small and large group dynamics were the subject of study in temporary institutions, could also be applied to the study of society. For those readers who are not familiar with the Group Relations approach, which is sometimes referred to as a “systems psychodynamic” approach, the short summary below is an attempt to capture the essential features. For those who may wish to obtain a more thorough understanding there are several sources available (for example see: Gould, Stapley, & Stein (2001); Gould, Stapley, & Stein (2004); Stapley (2006); Armstrong (2005) and others).

Group Relations learning

For current purposes, this short summary will provide the reader with an introduction to the main features of Group Relations learning, such as to enable a basic understanding. The purpose of Group Relations learning is educational and is devoted to experiential, or here and now, learning about group and organization behaviour. The essentials of the approach, including its theoretical underpinnings, were largely established in the 1960s. Of central theoretical and practical interest is the notion of “relatedness”. That is the process of mutual influence between individual and group, group and group, group and organization, organization and organization and the relatedness of organizations and community to wider social systems including society itself. Influenced by Kurt Lewin’s (1947) work, and later Bion’s (1961) ground-breaking findings about group dynamics, the importance of studying the group-as-a-whole was considered paramount. Other psychoanalytic concepts, such as those of Melanie Klein (1959), were later found to be invaluable in understanding group dynamics. Psychoanalysis, besides suggesting that explanations for human behaviour in groups may be found in primitive and unconscious processes, also provided a model for working with groups and organizations. A key concept also derived from Lewin (1935) and developed by open system theorists was that of “boundary”. This was seen as significant in terms of any defined system, be that the task, an individual, a group, an organization, or society. (See Miller (1989) for a fuller description of Group Relations development and processes.)

From the above it will be appreciated why the theoretical underpinning resulted in it being referred to as systems psychodynamics. It includes psychoanalytic concepts that are social and psychological in nature but in addition moves from individual dynamics to a group-as-a-whole or systemic perspective. Seen in this light, the group (organization or society) can be conceptualized as behaving in a different manner from but related to the dynamics of the members; and, from this vantage point groups-as-a-whole have their own dynamics resulting from the interactions of group members who are interdependent members and sub-systems.

Margaret Thatcher, when Prime Minister of Great Britain, famously stated that, “there was no such thing as society”. Her point being that society was made up of individuals and only individuals were responsible for what occurred. If, as will be shown below, she had been trained in a systems psychodynamic way she might have come to a different conclusion. The very substance of the object relations argument in psychoanalysis is that the dominating feature of human psychology is an impulse to form relationships—a social orientation. For Melanie Klein (1975) human drives are emotions directed towards others, real or imaginary, from the beginning of life: drives are relationships. Thus throughout our lives we are constantly in a system of relatedness with others. As will be seen, this is an important notion. By relatedness I mean the mutual influence that societies and cultures have on each other at many levels. The mutual influence may sometimes be influenced by events many years in the past and are vital to our understanding of current day events.

To appreciate the systems psychodynamic approach it is important to have an understanding of two essential elements of Group Relations learning: those of relatedness (referred to above) and the group-as-a-whole. We will all be familiar with frequent references to the notion of a group or societal mind or of groups behaving as an organism. Indeed, it is not uncommon for some to erroneously speak of organizations or societies as actively doing something or other. But, we may ask, how can this be? We know that only individuals have minds and that no such thing as a group mind exists. It is individual human beings who are constantly engaged in the process of meaning making. And it is only the functioning of individual minds that make the human collectively possible. Without human minds, neither language, nor culture nor rules could exist. How or why, then, do we develop the idea that a “group mind” exists?

What we can say is that groups act “as if” they have a group mind: that the group is a construct and that without individual human activity the construct of the group-as-a-whole simply would not exist. The group is to be seen as an artificial creation, it is a mental construct. A mental construct that is hypothesized to come about from our human need to belong and to establish a state of psychological unity with others which represents a covert wish for restoring an earlier state of unconflicted well-being inherent in the exclusive union with mother. Put another way, we seek to recreate in the present a holding environment that will provide us with the same sort of psychological and social support that we experienced in the maternal holding environment. We need the group to provide us with a favourable emotional response as much as we needed mother to do so. And this is usefully added to by Bion’s (1961) notion of “groupishness”, a proclivity to and need to be members of groups. A measure of the importance that the group has for us is perhaps illustrated by the way we quickly come to identify with a group. (For a fuller discussion of group-as-a-whole see Stapley, 2006).

Working from this theoretical base, our primary focus in groups (including society) needs to be the group-as-a-whole and this includes what individuals or sub-groups may do. Roles that are taken up by group members are to be seen as a function of the group-as-a-whole and the behaviour of a person in a group has more to do with the group than it does with his or her individuality. I should stress that I am not here referring to formal, allocated roles. What I am referring to are roles that members of a group unconsciously take on as a result of beneath the surface processes. Thus, any role taken by an individual member of a group may be considered to be a group role, one that is a function of group dynamics. When role is defined as a property of the group, then role prescriptions are filled, sometimes by individuals, sometimes by sub-groups and sometimes by identifiable clusters of behaviour that are a group property and serve a role function, although they appear independent from all individual members or sub-groups. These group or societal role dynamics are to be seen as a manifestation of the group or society-as-a-whole.

Society as a large group

As members of a society we are still part of a group, and the same theoretical and practical findings associated with Group Relations learning can be applied to society. There is much evidence to suggest that as in smaller groups so also in societal groups, various individuals but mainly groups are motivated to act on behalf of their societal ‘group’. Thus we may see Trade Unions mobilized to lead the fight against perceived social injustice at work. Or a group of entertainers may be mobilized to lead the fight against perceived injustice and starvation in a foreign country. And a group of antiwar protesters may be mobilized to fight against the perceived wrongness of war and aggression. Or as was recently the case in America, where a large group of some million people who seemingly came out of nowhere, having been both consciously and unconsciously mobilized to demonstrate for immigrant rights. But to really understand the dynamics occurring at the time of these events we need to take our analysis further. In all these and similar situations we need to ask what the societal sub-group is doing on behalf of society as a whole. What is the underlying anxiety experienced by members of society to which they are reacting?

Unlike smaller groups where we can more easily identify the boundaries, society is a much more complicated group and lacking clear boundaries. This, I believe, is a major contributory factor that acts to inhibit thoughts about society and one of the reasons for the imperceptible nature of change. Society is, of course, less a finished product than a transitive process. While it has some stable features, it is at the same time continually undergoing change. A result is that “society” is a term frequently used as a sort of “cover all” for all sorts of explanations. It is as if society is simply there as a matter of fact requiring no further explanation. This is very similar to “societal culture” which is a phenomenon that can be regarded in the same way as society and one that, it is suggested, cannot be avoided when considering society.

Societal culture

Studying societies as societies, which is societies studied from a group-as-a-whole perspective, leads us to add to Miller and Khaleelee’s thinking to include the notion of societal culture. As is the case with regard to the term “society”, the term “culture” has been in common usage for many years and is a familiar notion. Unfortunately, this common usage has itself led to problems. For example, cultural differences are seen as being in the nature of things requiring no explanation. A result is that functions that are not easily understood are assigned to a mysterious central agency called “culture” accompanied by a declaration that “it” performs in a particular way. Culture is also an easy option to fall back on to solve all our unexplained problems. In addition, past uses of the word to designate a way of life such as a particular society, or part of a society, are exceedingly vague.

However, as vague as our understanding of culture may be, it is also vital to our understanding of different societies and in particular to our understanding of cross-cultural relationships. I shall start with a clarification of what is meant by culture using my previously developed work (Stapley, 1996) to provide an explanation for the way that cultures develop. I am taking as a given that there are a multitude of different cultures and sub-cultures, both societal and organizational. I shall not, therefore, relate to any particular culture but will provide a general theory that can be applied to any society or organization.

Societal culture is a complicated yet highly influential phenomenon and the degree of complication is likely to be much greater in a situation where multiple societal cultures prevail. I would suggest that in the past we have been more concerned with identifying the nature or the symptoms of a culture rather than understanding what it is. My approach seeks to provide an answer to that most fundamental of questions: that concerning how culture develops, working from the principle that if we know how it develops we shall be able to unpack it and therefore know how to influence it. In other words, knowing how culture develops will provide us with an understanding of the causes of the consistent behaviour that we call culture.

We can say that culture develops out of the interrelatedness of the members of a society and the societal holding environment. The external and internal worlds of members of societies are in continual interaction: what goes on in the minds of members of societies is partly reactive to what happens around them, but is also very much proactive. The ideas and ways of thinking of members of societies influence the way they act upon their surroundings to bring about change in them. In this way we can develop the understanding that culture is in the individual and that the individual is in the culture. The constant interaction between the individual and culture is fundamental to any study of culture, or for that matter, personality. They are indivisibly linked and consequently it is helpful to bear in mind both processes.

The influences which culture exerts on the developing personality are of two quite different sorts. On the one hand, we have those influences that derive from the culturally patterned behaviour of individuals towards the child. These begin to operate from the moment of birth, a matter that will shortly be dealt with in greater detail. On the other hand, we have those influences that derive from the individual’s observation of, or instruction in, the patterns of behaviour characteristic of their society. The fact that personality norms differ in different societies can be explained on the basis of the different experiences that the members of such societies acquire from contact with those societies. However, what we need to study is the processes of these societal experiences.

Every society consists of individuals developing from children into parents. In the earliest days the mother provides the context in which development takes place, and from the point of view of the newborn she is part of the self. She provides a true psycho-social context: she is both “psycho” and “social” depending on whose perspective we take, and the transformation by which she becomes for the infant gradually less “psycho” and more “social” describes the very evolution of meaning itself. In Winnicott’s (1971) view, what he refers to as the “holding environment” is vital to the development of the infant. From the beginning of life, reliable holding has to be a feature of the environment if the child is to survive.

The notion of a “holding environment” is seen as the key concept in providing an explanation of how culture develops. Holding in the mother’s womb and then holding in the mother’s arms, is the first boundary out of chaos within which the infant’s personality can develop. The early relation in the maternal holding environment is characterized by infantile dependence, that is, a dependence based on a primary identification with the object, and an inability to differentiate and adapt. A relationship grows through the ability of both parties to experience and adjust to each other’s natures. The relationship develops through the infant getting to know the mother as she presents herself to interpret and meet his needs, which are emotional as well as physical. For the infant to develop there is a need for a “basic trust” in the maternal holding environment and for what Winnicott (1971) has referred to as “a good enough holding environment”.

As the infant grows there develops the formation of a self-concept. This psychological change arises once the infant is able to experience the mother and other significant objects as separate. Gradually there develop several “not me’s” in the shape of father, siblings, playmates and other relations. At this stage the infant is capable of introjecting cognitive symbols. And here the holding environment begins to split into an internalized psychological part and an external social part. By “taking in” (introjecting), “summoning up” and “holding in mind” their perceptions as if they were an object, infants feel that they contain within themselves a world of concrete things of at least as much reality as the material world.

Early introjections (taking in of external objects), since they are virtually all the infant has, are particularly potent, and the inner “objects” (the mental images) they create are never forgotten. These early introjections, which of necessity are of parents or parental figures, create an inner object commonly referred to as the conscience or in technical term the superego. The introjection of the “good” parent creates what I shall refer to as the ideal conscience, that is, a sense of ideals and positive morality—a pattern of what to do. And introjection of the “bad” parent creates what I shall refer to as the persecutory conscience, a sense of guilt and negative morality—of what not to do. Conscience, then, is built up by identifying with, that is forming and taking in and retaining, mental images of parental figures. It is realized that these images are not built on the reality of parents’ behaviour, but on the way that the infant perceives reality— which of course may be total phantasy. Thus the reality may have been that the parent was very caring, but that his or her behaviour was perceived as uncaring by the infant. Introjection is a very important concept, which simply involves the creation of an internal object that may be another person, a quality of another person, or a concept, and may include family and societal values.

To summarize, the “maternal holding environment” consists first of the mother and child and later the father and other important relatives. In this “holding environment” there is a continuing interrelationship between the mother and the child. The mother influences the child and the child influences the mother. In other words the child is part of the “holding environment” and influences it while at the same time the child is influenced by the “holding environment”. The development of the personality of the child will depend upon whether the holding environment has been “good enough”. As the infant grows, he or she becomes a member of several holding environments: the family, the school, the university, the organization or work, and the societal holding environments. Indeed, I will go further than this because I believe it is more accurate to state that there is not only a succession of “holding environments” but that several “holding environments” may be available for any one individual at any given time. This may be especially so regarding societal, work and family holding environments which we will all influence and at the same time be influenced by.

As was mentioned above, our experience of the maternal holding environment has a lasting effect and we subsequently seek to recreate in the present day group a holding environment that will provide us with the sort of psychological and social support that we experienced in the maternal holding environment. Perhaps not surprisingly the societal (or organizational) holding environment consists of both a social or external part and a psychological or internal part. These two levels are in constant interaction: what goes on in the minds of members of a society is partly a reaction to what goes on around them in the external holding environment but is also very much pro-active. Members of societies ideas and their ways of thinking—the internal holding environment—influences the way that members of a society act upon their external holding environment to bring about change. Seen from the added perspective of society-as-a-whole the result is the way things are done around here, or societal culture.

Having demonstrated the importance of the maternal holding environment in the process of personality development, I shall now develop the concept of a “societal holding environment”. In much the same way that we interrelate with the maternal holding environment, so we interrelate with the societal holding environment. We use it to supply the same needs as the maternal holding environment and we apply the same affect to it and create similar defences when it is seen as “not good enough”. There is never total independence, the healthy individual does not become isolated, but continues to be related to the environment in such a way that the individual and the environment can be said to be interdependent. In much the same way as there is a need for a “basic trust” in the maternal holding environment and for what Winnicott termed a “good enough holding environment” if the infant is to develop, so there is a similar need here in the societal holding environment. As with the mother, such “basic trust” is developed as a result of the perceived experience of the societal holding environment by the members of the society.

In the same way that unconscious forces operate in the maternal holding environment so they are also at play here in the societal holding environment. Consequently, it is not only helpful but also necessary to view the societal holding environment as consisting of two parts. In this respect, the “iceberg” analogy previously used by other writers to describe culture may be a useful way of viewing things. The physical or sociological part of the holding environment is that part which is exposed or is conscious. This is the external holding environment which consists of: the formal structures and strategies of those responsible for the management, leadership and administration of political, economic and social institutions; the roles...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• PREFACE
• CHAPTER ONE The field of study: societal cultures
• CHAPTER TWO The parallel worlds of Globalization and global Muslim terrorism
• CHAPTER THREE The Industrial Revolution: the first Globalization
• CHAPTER FOUR Globalization
• CHAPTER FIVE The effect of Globalization on Western societies
• CHAPTER SIX An analysis of the effects of Globalization on non-Western societies
• CHAPTER SEVEN Exploring the effects of Globalization on inter-cultural relationships and relatedness
• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
• ABOUT OPUS
• ABOUT AGSLO
• REFERENCES
• INDEX