Buddhist-Muslim clashes in Myanmar show that no one is immune to the fierce emotion that drives intergroup conflict.
Bald monks in orange robes meditate in a quiet garden in the rugged mountains of East Asia. These thoughtful pacifists live simply, seek enlightenment, and are kind to everyone. This is the classical caricature of Buddhists.
It
may be surprising that a mob of about 1,000 ethnic Rakhine Buddhists torched
several stores and homes in a Rohingya Muslim-majority section of a Burmese
village in August. Sectarian violence is often perpetrated by Buddhist factions
against Muslims in Myanmar, which has been going on for over a year now,
killing about 250 people and displacing 140,000, Russia
Today reports.
One
nationalist monk stands accused of inflaming tensions and igniting sectarian
conflict across the country. He has reportedly
warned that with such a high birth rate, Muslims may become the majority in
Myanmar and overtake the existing Buddhist majority.
This
conflict is not purely religious. It also contains overt ethnic and nationalist
elements and. A report by Human Rights Watch even accused
the Myanmar government of complicity in ethnic cleansing campaigns against the
Rohingya Muslims. Nevertheless, the idea of a prominent monk preaching violence
does not fit popular society’s image of Buddhists. It also highlights one of
the mistakes many people make when they think about religion.
We
tend to assume Buddhists don’t commit violent acts, and that Muslims are highly
aggressive. Of course, most people try not to think like this, but it still
happens, if not consciously, then by mistake.
All religious
groups have a capacity for violence.
We
don’t generally think of Christians as especially violent. In the West, even
non-Christians have been exposed to Christianity so much that they don’t
typically see its followers as threatening.
But
when looking at the historical evidence, maybe that perception isn’t entirely
justified.
In
“Atrocities,” a reference book that lists the worst episodes of human-caused
death in history, Matthew White tallied the 30 deadliest religious killings and
found that 18 of them involved Christians, eight included Muslims and five
involved Jews. Eastern religions’ adherents and pagans were also responsible
for mass deaths, but didn’t cause the same level of destruction perpetuated by
followers of the Abrahamic religions.
This is not an indictment of religion or any specific groups. Any belief system has the potential to be a violent flashpoint and any group of people is capable of committing atrocities under the right circumstances. In fact, any difference between groups that becomes socially significant can become a basis for prejudice, discrimination, resentment, and violence.
Behavior is easily influenced due to our social tendencies.
A
1954 sociological study
conducted by Muzafer Sherif brought 22 white, middle class, 12-year-old boys to
the Robber’s Cave summer camp and split them into two teams: The Eagles and the
Rattlers. Each team performed tasks requiring cooperation of fellow members and
then competed against the other team in contests. Open hostility between the
Eagles and Rattlers escalated quickly, resulting in cursing at the opposite
team, burning the other team’s flag, and food fights.
Not
only is it easy to create a new identity out of thin air, but the same can be
done with status and beliefs about one’s abilities.
In
just a few minutes, researchers at the University of Iowa convinced
participants in an experiment
that their dominant hands indicated they had weak mental abilities. In a high-stress
situation, this led to lower scores on an intelligence test compared to
subjects who weren’t told anything about their mental faculties.
Through
stereotyping, status can help build hierarchies, which gives higher status
people power over lower status people, and we’re usually inclined to follow the
top dogs.
Think
of religious leaders, charismatic politicians, economists, and doctors. How
likely are most people to believe and follow what they say?
For
better or for worse, the answer is “extremely likely.”
Shortly
after World War II, the world was astonished with the Germans’ complicity in
the Nazi Party’s systematic persecution and cleansing of ethnic minorities and
political dissidents.
This
served in part as the inspiration for Stanley Milgram’s famous 1963 experiment about obedience to authority figures.
Researchers would put a participant in the role of a teacher and told him to
press a button, electrically shocking the learner on the opposite side of a
thin, movable wall when he answered incorrectly on a word game. With each
incorrect response, the teacher was instructed to increase the voltage.
Unbeknownst
to the teacher, these shocks were fake and the learner was an actor. The
teacher could hear the learner complaining and asking to be removed from the
study, mentioning a serious heart condition. When the teacher addressed
concerns to the researcher in the room, the experimenter would calmly tell the
participant to please continue. Eventually, the learner would stop audibly
responding to shocks.
Of
40 participants, 26 followed the researcher’s instructions for the entire
experiment, administering the maximum voltage of 450 volts to the learner.
Milgram’s
experiment showed that authority figures can make people enact punishments they
thought themselves incapable of doing with nothing more than a calm request to
continue.
There
was no explicit threat, no gun to the head, no threat of retribution, just a
few simple words.
Human nature may
have its dark side, but there are positive aspects.
Conflict
and antagonism between opposing groups is unavoidable, but the summer camps
experiment did find a method to diffuse such situations.
On
one especially hot day, researchers shut off the water supply for the camp and
asked for volunteers from the Eagles and the Rattlers to solve the problem.
Members of both groups agreed to help. Once the task was complete, the boys
shared the water with everyone.
When
confronted with a common threat, conflicting groups can work together to
achieve a common goal.
While
groups are often suspicious and hostile toward one another, within the group,
there is often substantial solidarity and sympathy for fellow members.
The
unity and loyalty of U.S. soldiers belonging to the same squad is legendary.
Religious congregations often come together to support members when they’re
struggling. When people love one another, they’re pretty swell.
Although
authority figures can use their power and status to make people commit the most
abominable acts, there are certain circumstances under which followers refuse
to follow orders.
Milgram
wrote in his 1974 book, “Obedience to Authority” that variations on his
original shock experiment found that participants’ compliance decreased when
the researcher was more distant (like over the telephone) and/or when the
participant was physically closer to the actor. In one case, it involved
holding the learner’s arm down on a shock plate. The greatest decline in
compliance occurred when two actors assumed the roles of teachers alongside the
participant and “refused” to continue with the study.
Obviously,
not all authority figures use their power to get people to commit heinous
crimes.
They
can inspire a nation to invest in science like President Kennedy, lead
liberating social and political movements like Nelson Mandela or Mohandas
Gandhi, or lead a mass dissident movement against a corrupt and abusive church
as Martin Luther did.
Human
nature is neither inherently good nor bad, and it’s impossible to escape the
social forces that influence our behavior, no matter how hard we try. What
matters is that we are mindful of outside factors that affect what we think and
do, but recognize that we won’t catch everything before it’s too late. We will
make bad decisions because we conformed, judge people for what was beyond their
control, or make false over-generalizations about certain groups of people.
Sometimes, we’ll never even know we made such mistakes.
Even
the Buddhists, as much as we may admire what they strive for and what they
represent, are still capable of committing the worst of crimes. They too are
human. Just like the rest of us.
Jon Overton is the Media Editor for Iowa Peace Network and an undergraduate at the University of Iowa studying Ethics & Public Policy and Sociology. He also writes for The Daily Iowan.
No comments:
Post a Comment