By Roland Weierstall, an assistant professor of clinical psychology at the University of Konstanz
Congolese rebels have been accused of cannibalism by the UN
The recent case of a Syrian rebel appearing to take a bite from an opponent's heart seems utterly shocking and disturbing. But is this incident more inhuman than all the other countless atrocities that have already taken place in this war?
We are used to reports of mass graves, torture, killings and mutilations of civilians, and the eradication of complete villages.
But this particular barbarous act has attracted special attention. Cannibalism seems to contradict common moral and ethical beliefs on what is acceptable in war scenarios and what is not. So has the violence really reached a new dimension and what motivation underlies these acts?
Our research unit at the department of psychology, University of Konstanz, is dedicated to understanding the mechanisms motivating cruelty.
In interviewing more than 2,500 former combatants in Uganda, Rwanda, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, we found evidence that the numerous outrages that are committed in these regions - beyond the glare of Western publicity - are no less brutish or less inhuman than this recent incident from Syria.
On the contrary, when moral barriers fall and violence is legitimised in the context of war, the inhibition towards intra-species killing breaks down. Seeing the victim suffer can be a sufficient reward for violence, irrespective of secondary rewards like honour, status or material rewards.
There are two basic motivations that foster such violent behaviour.
Firstly, there is violence that results from negative emotions like rage and hatred and that appears as a response towards a threat. And secondly, there are "positive" emotions like excitement or hedonistic pleasure.
Comments
Post a Comment