Weaponized Empathy in the Protest Toolbox
Nov. 8th, 2011 02:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flamingswordLet's have a discussion!
I think the combative tone of our culture's political rhetoric has colored our expectations of what protest is supposed to look like; we are skewed towards interpersonal violence that diminishes the humanity of both parties. I would like to offer a new vision: we use human cognitive biases against them. Our brains are strange places with lots of firmware programming that we don't like to think about. Reciprocation, empathy, the enticement of inclusion, the pain of shunning: these things are hard-wired in for most of us. Getting a statistical majority on our side will be easier if we change a few tactics.
We should be nice to the people we're protesting. If we make it clear that we are suffering where they have to see it because their participating in the reform will make them better, happier people, they will be touched by the courtesy, and then they will be confused. Confused is great! Confused is not polarized against change, it's not combative: it gives us grey area to dialog inside of. Part of the confusion is that when we are nice to them, their instincts will tell them to be nice to us. Humans reciprocate, especially in person. We don't like eating in front of others who are not eating, and we don't like feeling indebted. Extending our empathy to include them will make it hard to not reciprocate. And once they empathize with us, even a little, we become part of their peer group.
Not that the V masks are not awesome, but the principle of anonymity would be working against us if we were all wearing masks. The fact that some of us have jobs that would be threatened by our identities becoming known is understandable. But it is also true that it is easier to dehumanize someone without a face, and to then commit violence on the Othered individual. Refusing to treat police and the opposition like enemies will erode their combative paradigm. Their actions will look and feel out-of-context, and we will use their awkwardness as a tool to restructure our civic dialog. We need Anonymous for the support of the faceless and those who must work in secret, but we need more human faces whose body language isn't defensive or aggressive, whose message is that there are no enemies, only a bunch of people in different parts of the same mess.
We need to be *for* things, not just *against* things. Complaining and being angry a lot gets old. Accentuating the positive is like a Jazz riff - some people can go all night. People like being positive about mutual goals, they like joining things and feeling like they have a common purpose. People will do a lot for peer-group inclusion, and if we start divesting the rich of their social currency, stop treating them with such deference, wean ourselves off of the cult of celebrity, perhaps they will feel pressure to align their goals with ours.
Think tactically about these emotions for a bit. What's missing? What have I proposed that won't hold water? I would like to workshop this a bit before bringing it before the Occupy Dallas General Assembly.
I think the combative tone of our culture's political rhetoric has colored our expectations of what protest is supposed to look like; we are skewed towards interpersonal violence that diminishes the humanity of both parties. I would like to offer a new vision: we use human cognitive biases against them. Our brains are strange places with lots of firmware programming that we don't like to think about. Reciprocation, empathy, the enticement of inclusion, the pain of shunning: these things are hard-wired in for most of us. Getting a statistical majority on our side will be easier if we change a few tactics.
We should be nice to the people we're protesting. If we make it clear that we are suffering where they have to see it because their participating in the reform will make them better, happier people, they will be touched by the courtesy, and then they will be confused. Confused is great! Confused is not polarized against change, it's not combative: it gives us grey area to dialog inside of. Part of the confusion is that when we are nice to them, their instincts will tell them to be nice to us. Humans reciprocate, especially in person. We don't like eating in front of others who are not eating, and we don't like feeling indebted. Extending our empathy to include them will make it hard to not reciprocate. And once they empathize with us, even a little, we become part of their peer group.
Not that the V masks are not awesome, but the principle of anonymity would be working against us if we were all wearing masks. The fact that some of us have jobs that would be threatened by our identities becoming known is understandable. But it is also true that it is easier to dehumanize someone without a face, and to then commit violence on the Othered individual. Refusing to treat police and the opposition like enemies will erode their combative paradigm. Their actions will look and feel out-of-context, and we will use their awkwardness as a tool to restructure our civic dialog. We need Anonymous for the support of the faceless and those who must work in secret, but we need more human faces whose body language isn't defensive or aggressive, whose message is that there are no enemies, only a bunch of people in different parts of the same mess.
We need to be *for* things, not just *against* things. Complaining and being angry a lot gets old. Accentuating the positive is like a Jazz riff - some people can go all night. People like being positive about mutual goals, they like joining things and feeling like they have a common purpose. People will do a lot for peer-group inclusion, and if we start divesting the rich of their social currency, stop treating them with such deference, wean ourselves off of the cult of celebrity, perhaps they will feel pressure to align their goals with ours.
Think tactically about these emotions for a bit. What's missing? What have I proposed that won't hold water? I would like to workshop this a bit before bringing it before the Occupy Dallas General Assembly.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-08 02:33 pm (UTC)In my opinion, this is a good way to go. But I have a malfunctioning theory-of-mind gland, so I may be wrong.
If the Occupy participants treat the police they encounter as allies, that may work with that human cognitive bias you talked about. Police officers have difficult jobs for not enough pay, and they are scared and confused too.
Wow...Night Watch, anyone?
no subject
Date: 2011-11-08 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-09 04:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-09 07:03 am (UTC)In large measure, the success or failure of the entire protest movement will not be a conflict with police, or city authorities, or judges, but between those two factions.
Also, something that might shed a little more light on the "frivolous arrests"... When you have a large gathering of people - be it a sports event, parade, protest, concert or state visit - the tolerance for casual disregard of the law dwindles. If an officer establishes a police line, and one person crosses it, it may be just a verbal reprimand and on with business as usual. Add 999 more people, however, and suddenly everything is setting a precedent. Then you potentially have a thousand people who will disregard the police line, and you may have to either arrest all 1000 or none of them at all. And so, to avoid that slippery slope, the first person gets busted as hard as possible to keep the rest adhering to the rules. It's unfair, but historically it has been necessary. People forget that.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-09 07:15 am (UTC)Actually, it reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from my childhood. When someone commented on how different Native Americans were from white people, a rather awesome American Indian fellow I knew replied, "Not really. The only big difference between our people is when something goes wrong. The Indian says, 'How can we fix this.' The white man says, 'Who can I blame for this?" Currently, OD seems to have a few too many cowboys, and not enough Indians. :)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-09 01:33 pm (UTC)Dealing with the police is a different issue from getting the message across. I wonder if chanting "Tiananmen Square" when attacked would make some people think, because protesting against the communists is, of course, laudable.
I'm not convinced on the "human beings reciprocate" argument for the rich. They are used to having waitstaff and other lackey-class people being nice to them, and that seems to put them under absolutely no compunction to be nice back. I think many see it as a sign of weakness. Social Darwinism is very much alive.
I'd ask them "Do you have any rope to sell?" but history was probably an elective they passed over in school.
(my friend Raas linked me over here)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-10 08:31 am (UTC)I have a plan for decapitalizing the rich of their social currency. But that will be more along the lines of a social movement and it will take years. A lot of the things OWS hopes to achieve will have to be social movements, but we need the legal changes to start the ball rolling on the social movements.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-10 12:54 pm (UTC)Identifying those myths and teaching people to systematically demolish them would chip away at that social currency, I think.
My pet peeve right now is "The rich create jobs, the rich are productive."
Maybe 100 years ago, when they'd build a factory or railroad. Now they simply play with money. With corporate takeovers and leveraged buy-outs, the productive capacity of this country has been destroyed piece-by-piece over decades. Perhaps "playing with money" should be taxed at a different rate. Say, 90% or 110%?
A service economy is not a sustainable thing. I can mow your lawn and charge a million dollars. You can come over and mow mine for the same deal. If that's all we've got, we will both starve.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-10 01:58 pm (UTC)