INTERFERENCE IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTHER COUNTRIES

Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D.      9-13

 

ABSTRACT:  The psychological underpinnings of one group or country interfering in the affairs of another are explored.

KEY WORDS:  motivation, politics, fear of others, conformity

Human beings have always been concerned about the behavior of other human groups around them, and there are various motives that might cause them to wish to or attempt to interfere with the affairs and behavior of those other groups.  It may be useful to clarify the psychological needs that are served by these various motives to interfere.  This was perhaps less of a problem when people had less power to actually affect other groups, but with the increase in weaponry and the “shrinking” global world, there seems to be more interference lately by countries in the affairs of other nations.  As a result of our desires to interfere, we want others either to be more like us or to change regarding certain specific behaviors that frighten or threaten us.

Two relatively benign motives for concern and interest in the behavior of other groups are curiosity and imitation.  Since other people have a tremendous influence on the quality of the lives of each of us (starting with our parents), we “naturally” want to know what others are doing and what they are likely to do.  Since much of our behavior is adopted through imitation, we are always alert to behaviors of others that we would like to imitate in order to increase our effectiveness in the world or increase our self-esteem.

Compassion or sympathy can motivate us to interfere also, when we observe that others are suffering and that nothing is being done about it.  We then delegitimize the “inadequate” group leadership or government and seek to intervene.  We use our own standards, of course, for what is excessive suffering, which is not always the same in the other country.

Greed motivates much of our interference, as we can see in the history of conquests, both military (Alexander, the Romans, the Mongols) and economic (the European domination of trade and resources in the 17^th through the 20^th centuries).  Whether the trade is in slaves, cotton, precious metals, or rare earths, people are always interested in bettering their lives materially, even at significant cost to those whose resources they want.   It is noteworthy that moral concerns almost never interfere with our desires to take from others outside our own group, since most people do not view their morals or standards as applying to anyone outside their own group.

Fear is perhaps the most salient motive for interfering in the affairs of other countries.  When our sense of security is threatened, as when we fear that others may attack us or force us to do things differently, we are motivated to act, sometimes even proactively as we saw with U. S. actions in Iraq.

In order to be able to feel secure with others, human beings need to be able to predict others’ behavior—at least to “know” that they are unlikely to act negatively toward us in the near future.  This need is served within a society by developing cultural expectations and rules, so that everyone knows what to expect from everyone else, at least as long as they are conforming to those expectations and rules.  This creates a wish within us for others (both inside and outside our own group) to conform to our expectations and rules, and we are willing to coerce or force others to conform, so that we can feel more secure.  This coercion to conform takes place in families, communities, nations, and even globally now, with United Nations charters and resolutions creating a global set of expectations.

In a slightly different regard, we also feel and create group pressure toward uniformity, since this can simplify our process of deciding which people are likely to conform to our expectations and which are not (and are therefore a potential danger).  Human beings fear differences, since these make people less predictable, so even though we say we value individuality, we prefer people to be uniform.  To live with or close to people with quite different ways of looking at the world can be disorienting to some, if they feel the pull to conform to differing sets of expectations or worldviews.  Others react by angrily defending and justifying their own ways.

People are also motivated to interfere to protect their sense of self-esteem.  If another group espouses a belief that they are “better than” us for some reason (religion, race, etc.), then we will be motivated to fight against that belief and interfere in the affairs of that group if necessary in ways that reduce the power of that belief.

Taking the current U. S. ambivalence about interfering in the internal affairs of Syria as an example, to various degrees people in the U. S. (1) are moved by the suffering of the civilian population during the civil war, (2) fear loss of U. S. dominance (and therefore safety) if it does not punish Syria for using chemical weapons, (3) fear becoming embroiled in the Syrian civil war and therefore losing more American lives (after Iraq and Afghanistan), (4) fear that the reach of Al-Qaeda will be strengthened if it should end up ruling Syria, (5) are confused about and do not understand the cultural worldview of Arabs or that of followers of Islam and therefore would like to move them toward being more like us, (6) fear a potential threat to their self-esteem from Islam becoming more dominant in the world, since most believe that as a religion Islam sees world domination as its mission, and (7) fear any society that does not espouse democracy, since political and economic systems seem always to fight each other to create uniformity.  Greed and self-benefit do not seem to play a significant role in public opinion on the Syria matter, since most Americans do not know of anything that Syria has that we want, and only a few Americans connect the governance of Syria with the larger and future oil needs of the U. S. 

The integration of all of these emotions and motives will determine U. S. actions with regard to Syria, even though the psychological motives will be publically covered up or rephrased (fear becomes righteousness, for example).  As a psychologist I believe strongly that better decisions come from greater self-awareness and from expression of our true feelings and motives to others involved.  More open expressions of fear, envy, feeling threatened, desire for others to be like us, etc., will allow us to be more centered in ourselves about why we wish to do what we want to do.  Expressing our desire for others to be more like us (even just among ourselves and not necessarily to the other nation), for example, allows us to “own” our fear and therefore to be able to moderate that wish for others to be more like us, instead of allowing unacknowledged emotions to result in war or other unfortunate outcomes. 

In a similar vein, the more we know about the other nation, including the worldview (or range of worldviews) of the people, the nature of its government, the fears of the people, how the people are managing financially, morally, and culturally, and what would ease their fears and anxieties, the more those people can seem human and real to us and the more we can “relate” to them because we have many of the same feelings and problems.  In the past I have suggested the formation of a government office (or “desk”) to gather this information about each nation and major cultural group objectively and comprehensively and to keep it up to date so that our nation can have the benefit of it immediately when the need for difficult decisions arises.  Normal “news” reporting (even in our best newspapers) does not accomplish this, as we are told what happened but rarely why.  Occasionally more in-depth articles in secondary publications do better (journals on international relations, etc.), but these usually cover only one aspect at a time, whereas we would do much better to see it as a comprehensive picture.

As individuals, we can improve our decision-making with regard to our group’s relations with other groups by adding the considerations above to our thinking.  How are my emotions and conclusions being affected by empathic concern that I am feeling for others?  What am I afraid of in the thinking and behavior of the other group?  Are my conclusions influenced by ignorance or unwarranted assumptions that I have about the other group?  Are my emotions and conclusions being distorted by my desire for economic gain from the territory or resources of the other group?  Am I feeling a threat to my self-esteem from the thinking or behavior of the other group?  Is my desire for the other group to change (or even my willingness to force them to change), so that I can feel more comfortable, justified by the true seriousness of the threat?  Honestly considering these issues will allow for more objective and humane conclusions and decisions.

 

essays\interferingwithothercountries