Behavior Control - Issues of Responsibility

[TahitiNut]

Axiom: Every human being is responsible for his or her own behavior. One's behavior includes both actions and beliefs. Inaction is merely one kind of action. (Questions of whom or what any individual is responsible to are theological or contractual, not axiomatic.)

I doubt there's a single reader of the above paragraph who didn't form their own list of quibbles and exceptions almost instantaneously. Virtually every item on that list relates to some question of 'control' - the degree to which any person is able to exercise their will in making choices regarding their own behavior. We then get into the transitive aspects: how one person's behavior influences another's. We are steeped in such questions and considerations our entire lives, whether we recognize them or not, in virtually every relationship with another human being.

Beyond the questions of basic sanity and maturity, I'll quickly list some very common falsehoods:"He makes me happy."
"She makes me sad."
"I didn't have a choice."
"Because I said so."
"This <thing> will make you happy."
"The devil made me do it."It really shouldn't require an explanation to show why the above exemplars are totally and irrevocably false, yet far too many of us cling desperately to beliefs of these kinds. Indeed, even in clinging to these false beliefs, we (like crabs in a sand pit) tend to drag others down when they show how to reject them. Most seminally, our own individual happiness is a choice, one which cannot be taken away and can only be given away. We always have more choices than we choose to acknowledge. Even Sophie had more than one "Choice"!

Even disregarding the above falsehoods, this is a very large subject - one which has consumed and will continue to consume huge amounts of attention on this forum and, indeed, in virtually every conversation we have in our lives. I will, therefore, limit my further observations to those relevant to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by military guards. Even that's awfully ambitious, so please forgive my arrogance.


A prison is a totalitarian regime. Not to belabor the obvious, but those people who imprison others are responsible for imposing totalitarian power and depriving others of many choices of behavior, even those choices that would serve their own survival or well-being. Under any theory of equity and justice, the consequences of imposing such totalitarian power over others lie squarely on the shoulders of those who do so.


The military is an authoritarian regime. Such a regime is one within which people choose to behave as others direct them to behave, subordinating their own will to that of others. Such directions are both explicit and implicit, both general and specific. The choice to comply with such directions is made with each and every direction. Promulgating such directions over those who subordinate their will to that of others is also a choice. Thus, people who do so are responsible for those directions and the foreseeable impact of subordinated compliance.

We (the People) accept authoritarian regimes under some very clear and relatively unambiguous rules of equity and justice:

• No person can be absolved of responsibility for their own behavior, either in complying with directions or in promulgating such directions, whether those directions are explicit or implicit. (This, in essence, is the "Nuremberg Principle.")
• Anyone granted authority in such a regime also accepts accountability for the results of behavior which is in compliance with their direction, whether explicit or implicit.
• Anyone granted authority within such a regime has an affirmative duty to monitor both compliance with their direction and the results of such compliance.
• The senior authority in such a regime is accountable for the behavior of all persons (members and agents) acting on behalf of that regime, and is accountable for creating and maintaining a system of organizational controls that ensure knowledge of such acts. (Ignorance is no excuse.)

  In the military, this is called "Command and Control" (C²) or "Command, Communications, and Control" (C³). In corporations, this is called "Management Control."

It's very important to remember that duty, accountability, and responsibility for directions do not exonerate people (subordinates) from responsibility for their own behavior. The behavior of others never absolves us from responsibility for our own behavior. Nothing does. The false belief that this isn't so is at the heart of codependency - quite possibly the most rampant and pervasive mental/emotional illness in our society. Thus, in no way do the directions the guards received exonerate them from responsibility, both moral and legal. Likewise, the responsibility of the guards for their behavior does not immunize those who used their authority to enable or promulgate such behavior. Neither diminishes the other.

Torture and abuse are never justified, least of all within a totalitarian regime. Might never makes right. It cannot be justified on either pragmatic or moral grounds. To say something is "understandable" does not make it "right." Never. These are crimes. When promulgated by a regime they are crimes against humanity.

</rant>
Thank you for your patience.

[Karenina]

1. Teach your children well.

:toast:

[TahitiNut]

3. <grin>

Indeed, that's where it all flows down. When children are abused, they learn to abuse. When children are subjected to totalitarian parenting, they learn totalitarianism. When children are subjected to authoritarian parenting, they learn authoritarianism. It takes a long time to overcome being a child. Some never do.
"Fish will be the last to discover water." (Einstein) I've only begun gasping for air. :silly:


On edit: I can't imagine a more pithy reply as a demonstration of core comprehension of what I've attempted to convey. Awesome. Thank you, even though I cannot take any credit for conveying what one already understands.
:loveya:

[markomalley]

2. Very true points and a good analysis...

...but there is one issue you have left out. And that is the issue of brainwashing/ mind control. Each branch of the military has a brainwashing session that lasts between 6 and 12 weeks. It's called basic training. During that session, the person's basic individuality and sense of self is stripped away and replaced with a military/ warrior ethos. (This is not to say that this brainwashing always works, but it is there) The authoritarian regime you so accurately describe would not be possible if they did not initially perform that brainwashing on their entrants.

[I_like_chicken]

5. I don't think that absolves them of their responsiblities

unless it could be proven that this brainwashing led to severe pyschopathology rendering them unable to distuigish between right and wrong. Such brainwashing though would have to include such severe trauma that I don't think they would be able to function, let alone guard prisoners. If we are to believe Kant, then we can determine our morals a priori(I won't bother to explain this since I'm not sure I understand his proof completely), so these soliders should have been able to determine that what they were doing was wrong.

[markomalley]

6. I don't absolve them either...

...but this must be a part of our understanding of the psychology of the warrior...it sets up the environment.

[TahitiNut]

11. It is quite ordinary (and often fallacious) ...

... to defend/rationalize one choice of behavior by pointing to another choice of behavior, both on the part of another (reactive/responsive) or one's self (defensive). When that other choice of behavior is a belief, it's often called an "enabling belief." (Note the use of the term "enabling" as opposed to the term "supporting.")

One of the greatest inhibitors of individual growth is the continued defense and rationalization of our own choices in behavior/belief that we made when far less aware of the spectrum of our choices. Many of us live much of our adult lives defending and rationalizing choice we made as adolescents or nascent adults. Such a shame. Such a waste.

If it doesn't work, do something else. (It's amazing how we avoid this simple prescription.)

[markomalley]

13. No argument...

...but you have to admit that if an unbalanced person is put in an environment with extremely strong mores for acceptable beliefs and behaviors then that person is at risk...

I have seen enough of this type of behavior through a career (and have to one degree or another been guilty of it myself) to recognize it. I have never excused myself of missteps on my own part and am not doing so for other's missteps, but the environment one finds himself in makes a huge difference on how his personality flaws manifest themselves.

[TahitiNut]

19. While I agree ...

... I don't view this as exculpatory regarding the behavior of the guards (unless it can be shown they're unable to distinguish between right and wrong). People who cling to the codependent myth of not being responsible for their own behavior within authoritarian regimes are making a choice of beliefs - a choice that itself deserves condemnation (or treatment).

I view it as even more of a condemnation of the behavior of those with authority over subordinates. They have failed (with malice) in their duty to ensure that all actions undertaken by subordinates in their organization/regime are consistent with the intent of that organization/regime's leadership. Their failure is punishable equal to the punishment due for the actions themselves. That's the only reasonable definition of justice I can conclude.

[markomalley]

23. Definitely not exculpatory...

...but at the same time, we need to look at preventing this from happening again...

[TahitiNut]

25. Therein lies the challenge, of course.

In order to prevent or preclude certain behaviors, we need to know how the motives, methods, and opportunities enabling those behaviors were created or exacerbated or, if not created or exacerbated, were afforded the free rein in multiple units at multiple locations over a length of time (10-12 months?) that made those behaviors far more ordinary than can ever be tolerated by sane people.

No single 'solution' need be assumed. To the degree that people already with such propensities are accepted and placed in positions of trust, some preventative recruitment, promotion, and assignment controls would seem to be necessary. From my own experience in the military, I'm aware of no such formal controls.

To the degree that such behavior can be covertly or overtly seduced from otherwise 'normal' people, some failure, weakness, or corruption of command and control seems to exist, probably at the most senior levels. The manner in which prophylactic measures can be taken in this regard seems to be seminal to our now-devolved form of governance.

[TahitiNut]

7. I didn't leave it out.

The second sentence: "One's behavior includes both actions and beliefs."

Beliefs are choices - a form of behavior. We are each irrevocably responsible for our own beliefs. When we accept an authoritarian belief context, we choose to do so. (The only partial exception to this is childhood.) When those granted authority in such a regime direct the beliefs of subordinates (i.e. "believers" or acolytes), either explicitly or implicitly, they are responsible for that direction and accountable for the impact. That, however, does not exonerate those who accept such beliefs. So, this is covered inclusively in what I've described at the outset. I then focus on the more overt transitive behavior. (I even said I was doing this.)

That we, in concert as a nation, expect and encourage (enable) people to surrender themselves to the will of the military (in turn supposedly subordinate to the will of the nation) without accepting such "service" as a universal obligation (a duty congruent with such authority), is at the heart of yet another ubiquitous denial of responsibility and accountability - one which I've often pointed out.

[loyalsister]

4. It must be wonderful

to live in a simplistic world where there are no social dynamics at play.
One thing that is neglected above is the influence belief systems can have on behavior. Some belief systems are so rigid that people will not even question whether or not a behavior is right or wrong.
For example, take the fundamentalists who believe that it is reasonable behavior to harrass women who are entering women's health centers. It never even enters their mind that they may be doing something out of line. They don't question it.
The belief system the soldiers were offered was "with us or against us- everyone out there is a terrorist\evildoer." With the nationalistic climate you might even take it to a level of "prove you're a patriot kill as many as you can."
This does not justify or excuse anything that the perpetrators have done. This is only an attempt to understand this. There was a climate created where this behavior was not questioned. There has to be a basic belief system in place that dissuades people from noticing that there is something very wrong with what is going on.

[I_like_chicken]

9. I think that right there is the fundamental problem with America

We as americans are so eager to accept the status quo to ensure our own freedoms and privledges. Since it is percieved in American that everything seems to be going relatively fine, most Americans are willing follow blindly and not question authority (except of course the fine members here a DU). I think you're right in that "There has to be a basic belief system in place that dissuades people from noticing that there is something very wrong with what is going on." The question then becomes how do we create that system?? The answer I believe is that we must go out and challenge this system ourselves, since no one will be willing to put this system in place for us. How do we challenge this system, that is a question I'm still trying to find an answer to.

[loyalsister]

15. Principles.......

"America is the best country to live in"
"It could never happen here, we live in a Democracy"
"Love her or leave her"......

There are many more "words to live by" that run rampant. According to an author I read, it emerges by a careful detachment of language from "referent." That is the stuff. The further we get from actual physical content the less meaning language has. Words can become "phantoms" that refer to nothing or anything. Take the first statement. Context is everything. Best for who?
Can we refer to data and say The U.S. provides the best health care for all citizens? Can we say that The U.S. has the highest employment rate? etc.
POSSIBLY one way to challenge these "principles" is to provide concrete data. There are many people who will run from numbers, but others won't be able to. Most likely, it will be most effective if the data is relevant to their personal existance.
These ideas stem from a book called The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase. His interest developed as he watched the rise of the 3rd reich. VERY asute, relevant observations!!

[TahitiNut]

17. Greatness exists in the "becoming" ...

... not the "is." To reject a possible future based on a proclaimed past isn't growth: it's a eulogy!

(Go ahead, read that again. It's one of my more pithy posts.) :silly:
(Or just mental masturbation.)

[TahitiNut]

10. Beliefs are a form of behavior.

They are choices for which we are each responsible. (See above.)

On edit: It must be wonderful to read with self-servingly selective comprehension. :silly:

[loyalsister]

14. Are you sure about that?

Beliefs are part of intellectual development, and as you pointed out differential. Behavior exists regardless and is much more predictable.
Beliefs can be fixed at a level that is still not clearly understood. People believe things that defy all evidence. People believe things that are not true. People blieve things that do not follow logic.
Some have suggested that this is embedded in our language development.
Language itself sometimes presents fallacies much like that you have presented. The word "belief" may be an example. Behavior is concrete, observable, and can be measured, beliefs are not so tangible. They may be acted upon, but that does not translate into the behavior itself. You have created a massive literary fallacy here.
You interpret "belief" as behavior ignoring the fact that belief exists only internally in words. The very fact that a person has a choice to believe something or not makes it very different from behavior. There are behaviors that are unavoidable (reflexes). As we work to understand things like brainwashing and impulse\compulsion, we really don't fully understand the difference at this point.

[TahitiNut]

16. Well, it works for me.

:silly:

Seriously, we're presented with a world that's a vast buffet of prepared beliefs from which to choose -- or we can cook for ourselves. From the time we're born, our experiences offer us feedback in forming our beliefs and habits. My parents served my development as much by what they did "right" as by what they did "wrong" - as do all people with whom we come in contact. It's ours to choose. Even in not choosing, we choose. "I can't" is one such choice - an enabling belief. I find myself with no better choice at this point than to fully accept responsibility for my own beliefs, exactly as I do for my own actions. (Please note that I was fairly careful to deconstruct "behavior" as both "actions" and "beliefs.")

For me to deny my own responsibility for what I believe would be to deny my assumedly unlimited ability to improve upon those beliefs. That then fails the most fundamental test: Does it work?

That begs the question of what "work" (i.e. success) means - what goals we might have. For some, the implicit goal is not growth but stasis. I reject that goal as unhealthy. That's my "enabling belief." I also subordinate "security" to "growth." A corpse is "secure" within its burial vault, but it certainly isn't "growong."

I also reject a behavior on my part that would attempt to inhibit the choices of others. (This is part of my "Categorical Imperative.") What I present is neither prescriptive nor proscriptive; it's merely my choice. I reject dogma on that same basis. Dogma does not serve growth. (From a purely theological standpoint, I cannot accommodate the notion that Man can take away that which God grants: free will; choice. Such a contradiction invalidates itself.)

At the same time, I can see very little that's virtuous in behavior that is prescribed unless I admit that there's choice even in compliance.

When it comes to influencing the beliefs of others, we make choices that're precisely the same as influencing the actions of others. Hence, the congruence of actions and beliefs as behaviors works without differentiation.

When you speak of whether it's concrete or observable, you embark upon the question of enforcement (i.e. the formalized transitive behaviors), not personal choice or experience. I'm every bit as able to "observe" my own beliefs as I am my actions. Thus, the aggregation of both as "behavior" still works.


Personal note: I speak as one who experienced the breadth of military indoctrination, both at a military academy and as an enlisted man (draftee). So I know what "brainwashing" is from a recipient's perspective. While my comprehension may never be complete (in this or any other area), it's significant.

[loyalsister]

21. Point is

You are the ONLY person who is able to experience you own beliefs. That is an important aspect of this.
Only one person is capable of experiencing the degree to which they may influence behavior.
The fact that this is not a shared experience cannot be ignored when examining this situation. The fact that your learned behavior included experiences which presented a belief system that disuaded you from buying into full indoctrination prevents you from understanding the experience of a person who did not have the same advantage.

[TahitiNut]

22. We can, however, impute beliefs to one degree or another ...

... based not just on actions, but on what one says and what 'system' one subscribes to with some demonstrated awareness. (Yes, both are actions, too.)

What one believes, thinks, or knows is always relevant, if only in the "knowing right from wrong" test. That so much of our actions is premised upon beliefs makes it, at least for the purposes of discussion and judgment, worthy of inclusion in the suite of "behaviors" since it is a person's choice - if only as a rationalization. To do otherwise is to ultimately either (1) absolve ourselves of actions based on beliefs or (2) fail to consider actions that have Belief itself as the target, in order to motivate/enable actions as a consequence.


On edit: Perhaps some of the confusion might be reduced if I were to say that we are each responsible for our actions and beliefs, and can be held responsible for our actions, irrespective of our beliefs? (This distinguishes between being responsible and being held responsible. One is socially reflexive and the other is socially transitive. These are meaningful distinctions outside the scope of what I attempted to discuss, which was ambitious as it was. That's why I attempted to dispose of such considerations summarily before I first mentioned "the totalitarianism of a prison" - which is the beginning of the focus of my post.)

[haele]

8. Excellent post showing how egregious the breakdown of leadership is...

There's no excuse for the torture we've been seeing coming out of Gitmo, Afghanistan and Iraq - it can't be blamed on "just a couple enlisted men who didn't know better".
These behavioral issues were taught and discussed through role-play at the Chief Petty Officer/Senior NCO leadership training I was required to go through when I made Chief - and that was while I was in the reserves, so it can't be claimed that reservists don't get the same training required of their compatriots in the active duty.
The training is there. Even in bootcamp, a service member is taught that a mission or unit is equally composed of all it's parts and that rules such as the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ are there for a reason. Responsibility, be it personal and of the mission, is not just limited to the grunts doing the work or to those giving the orders.

All the leadership training in the world matters less than a glass of spit if responsibility both up and down the chain of command is not enforced.

These points of leadership are critical in rules of behavior for the corporate and civilian worlds - any hierarchal social system, including the basic family structure - not just in the military.

Haele

[G_j]

12. said with great clarity

thanks for an excellent post!

..bookmarked..

[bread_and_roses]

18. I have followed your development of the axiom and

the responses - especially loyalsister's - with great interest. While I think there is much that is useful in your perspective, I have several questions. I am thinking of everything I have read about the living conditions in our inner cities, and their effect on those coming out of that environment. I have to wonder if there are not social environments so "toxic" to human development that the cognitive framework for choices based on ethics cannot develop? (I am no psycologist, my question is based on reading and fairly close involvement with some people coming out of those environments.)

The other question relates to what I consider to be our still fairly primitive understanding about how the brain works and to what degree our behaviour reflects "hard wiring." For instance, the impulse to be accepted by the group seems to be almost innate in humans, but its' degree of force seems to vary among individuals. Do we even control the degree to which, as individuals, we are followers?

I will make the same disclaimer as others have: this is not to be construed as an excuse for the behaviour of the torturing guards. But I think these questions bear on the spectacle of a public willing to accept blowing children apart but shocked by the photos coming out of prisoner torture.

[TahitiNut]

20. Indeed, these are questions so worth examining that we ...

... humans invest a great deal of attention to exactly these issues. This is outside the focus of my original post, as so very much is.

There's no question (imho) that we have created subcultures and environments within our society wherein there are 'toxins' that inhibit growth both physical and psychological. What's even more relevant, however, is the fact that we as a society systematically exploit the very victims of such environments - specifically in populating the military. (At the risk of repeating myself, this is part of why I support a Universal National Service obligation.)

It has, however, been my experience that people so intoxicated have not lost their ability to choose as much as either {1} they choose to deny such abilities (i.e. adopting enabling beliefs) or {2} others would coerce them (by force) into making suboptimal choices. Those 'toxins' are learning-soluble and can be eliminated from the body-burden, unlike permanent damage or insoluble toxins.

As for the other (hard-wiring), I believe there's a great deal of difference between emulating a model of behavior and complying with an edict in an authoritarian sense (i.e. "following"). We are learners. "See and emulate" seems to be reasonably hard-wired as a (experiential) learning process. I doubt the other is. It doesn't "work."

[bread_and_roses]

24. I think the current evidence from child development

may pose a challenge to your first point re: not losing the ability to choose but the ability to distinguish between ethical and non-ethical behavior. There seems to be some evidence that if not developed by a certain age the individual seems to lose the ability to experience empathy for another - without which what we call "ethics" makes no sense, and the only inhibitor to violence is the fear of punishment. (I use many "seems" because it is a while since I read about this and I don't feel like looking it up now, and because I have no faith in the conclusions of the "soft" Social Sciences but only in what can be backed up by some sort of physical evidence.)

That said, I agree that in the context of an authoritarian environment, most individuals have the ability to consciously choose their response. Your axiom provides a responsible basis for dealing with their actions without condoning them to one degree or another - something I am not advocating.

As to the "hard wiring" conformity to the group I am thinking not so much of the acts of individuals but to our behavior as a group or society. Because I cannot find anything in your axiom that explains (at least to my satisfaction) how how individuals who would not themselves burn and dismember a living child will condone the group doing so at a distance. (This is where I think sister's points about language may come in also.) Our understanding of "how we work" is too primitive to be sure of much of anything, but I think it would be hard to make a case that the need to "belong" - to be approved by your group - is chosen. But its' power does seem to vary from one individual to another. Is that variance chosen, or is it a matter of the genes we are born with? I don't think we know yet.

[TahitiNut]

26. While I give credit to those studies and have seen atrophied empathic ...

... abilities, this reduces the empathic basis for making choices and thus skews the kinds of choices made but it does not eliminate one's ability to make choices themselves. (If I were color blind, I might make differing choices in household decor, but I'd still be making choices.) We may have concerns about the 'rightness' of those choices, but choices they are and responsbility for the chosen behavior remains with the chooser.

What's of concern to me is the possible presumption that violent behavior must only be inhibited. It seems to ignore the more fundamental idea that choices are made as much on what's attractive (easy, workable, etc.) as what's inhibited. (We're talking mutiplex approach-avoidance, not just avoidance.) In other words, it might be that it's sufficient to eliminate/reduce its motivation under those circumstances. I could also argue that atrophied empathic ability might also reduce the probability that one would choose violence in a sadistic fashion, since one without empathy doesn't get the same visceral 'appreciation' (payback) for its impact. (i.e. Such a person wouldn't be able to translate the victim's suffering into his own 'supply' since the empathic Rosetta would be absent.)

In a general sense, all behavior (not just criminal acts) has motive, method and opportunity. We obtain that behavior from subordinates in an authoritarian culture where the motive, method and opportunity associated with the choice of behavior we're seeking are most accessible to those subordinates.


FWIW... The very design of the methods chosen cleary indicate involvement of the command structure. I'm highly dubious that the guards were all that aware of Islamic culture and the taboos that made the methods chosen (nudity, dogs, sexual contact, debasement in front of women, etc.) so 'effective' in inflicting psychological pain.

In other words, they didn't freaking figure this out for themselves! So, the idea that it was the absence of personal, internal inhibitors that led to this behavior isn't supported. The methods were supplied to them so I can only infer the motives (approval, et. al.) and opportunities (leashes, hoods, wires, dogs, shackles, etc.) were also. This was facilitated and encouraged behavior.