Fear as A Political Motivator

[marct]

Hi AS,

What I am saying is that in the Middle East we have a nearly absolute Hobbesian "Natural State."

I am going to disagree with you in this - it is not a Hobbesian "Natural State" or even a "nearly" situation; there is at least one level of institutional interface between that and current reality in even the worst "hell holes" - the kinship / para-kinship system. This, BTW, appears to be the original solution that our species came up with (cf Marshal Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, esp. Chapter 5).

I maintain that there is sufficient aversion to a variety of situations, caused by a variety of actors, that are the philosophical equivalents of violent death that a Hobbesian bargain can be struck and we can see peace, or at least stability.

This is not manipulation of fear. This is how governments are formed.

Of course it is a manipulation of fear! And the manipulation of fear is one of the core ways in which governments are formed; denying that would be denying the reality of most state creation in human history.

To require Arabs to find a stable and liberal form of government without acknowledging and understanding the foundations of our own, and worse yet without allowing them to appeal to the same basic human motivations is hypocritical. It is like requiring a first time cook to bake a cake without looking at your recipe or using flour.

I totally agree with that .

This is social science. I am asserting clearly and unequivocally a traditional liberal political theory view of the Middle East. If this is not a valid theory I would like to hear about it, but on its own merits, not because of some aesthetic aversion to the word fear. And if it isn't valid then I would like to hear a counter-theory to the way governments and regimes form, so that we can test that, and perhaps advocate that as a way of resolving our small wars.

Umm, actually, it's not social science, it is social science theory; there is a difference. Personally, I don't have an aesthetic aversion to the word "fear", but I do have a distaste for the ineffective use of fear (or any emotion) as a motivational factor in politics. I also have a major distaste for the general use of "fear" without a consideration of its effects on the entire field of politics.

Let me pull this out a bit by asking a question. What is the social cost to an actor of engaging in a fear / terror campaign in Iraq? If the social benefit to the actor is higher than the social cost, then the tactic is "effective" and will, in all probability, be used (this is based on a simple variant of the Prisoners Dilemma game). The relative social weighting of a given tactic, in terms of social cost/benefit, is based in part on the social acceptance of that tactic and the fear that someone who uses that tactic will be slapped down by the rest of the social actors. This, BTW, appears to be hardwired into our brains (cf. Cosmides and Tooby on Evolutionary Psychology and the Cheater Module [and here]).

I got a little fired up in writing this. I hope I don't come across as too much of an ideologue. I really do want a discussion on this, because I believe that we are trying to create solutions without understanding what human nature and political nature are. Theorists and scientists are the people who help us understand the nature of the things we are dealing with. And that is why this post is in this forum.

No worries, mate .