And that's what makes people who don't grovel brave. Because most of us, under similar circumstances, couldn't do it. If everyone could, then there's no bravery in it, nothign remarkable about it.
Yeah, I'm going with your first point, that it's horribly offensive. Begging for your life isn't ignominous. It's human. And people under torture will do all sorts of things, because pain and fear and god knows what else will really alter your mental state.
I agree with the previous commenter. What makes heroes heroic is precisely that they do things that most of us wouldn't be capable of. To disdain someone for not being heroic is almost inhuman.
In the original draft of the post, I had a sentence about how this was an interesting case, because the people who beg for their lives are clearly not acting in accordance with our ideal of action under the circumstances, but we rightly hold them blameless anyway.
But...those ideals can make a difference, and societies that value honor will produce more people who act with it. Maybe it's too small a sample and just convenient for me that the man who didn't want to die like a dog was Italian. But he was. And in Iran I met people who sure as hell seemed normal, and sometimes even meek, and then I would find out that they'd been to prison, and been tortured, but hadn't cracked. And the ones who had, well, they were a little ashamed, and diminished, and that--I'm sorry--is how it should be.
Hm. I don't know if I think people should feel ashamed of being human, or weak. But yes, I do agree that there is something admirable about a society that holds up those standards. I suspect, though, that the standards aren't "honor" per se, as much as perhaps a sense of social/community responsibility? B/c the problem, it seems to me, is that in "letting" oneself be used that way, one allows one's perfectly understandable desire for self-preservation overcome one's sense of responsibility to the group?
Just thinking aloud.
Hmm, I don't feel I have any right to make a judgment on somebody in this situation because I can't even begin to imagine myself in it.
Quattrocchi's death makes for better theater than Hassan's pleas, sure. I don't see that it makes much effective difference.
Even if (though) it is perfectly normal for someone to plead with one's captors in such a circumstance, it still makes sense that someone would feel diminished by having done so, because normally we aren't brought up against our (perfectly ordinary) weakness so starkly. I think that would be true even if the community standards were rather lax.
I agree with ogged and Ben W. It's a question of what behavior we aspire to. It's more than simple stoicism here, it's a questioning of foiling the intentions of evil people. Of course, my overwhelming response is "thank heavens it isn't me, and may some miracle preserve this poor woman." As I think ogged's is as well.
Right, baa. The apostropher's is the human, empathetic response, and absolutely proper; but there is something else, as you and bphd note: group obligations and ideals. As Americans, we've swung almost completely in the apostropher's direction, and what I was trying to note--indelicately, to be sure--is that we've lost something.
If I'm ever (God forbid) in that position, I don't think I'm going to spend too much time worrying about appearances. If I felt that not participating in their little bit of theater would let me live a little longer, I might do it. But, as a captive, exactly how much power do you have to foil anyone's evil plans?
As to the underlying issue of group vs. individual obligations, there's a balance to be struck there, but I suppose I'm typically modern American in my resolve to keep the dial set closer to the individual side of the scale. I argue this issue often with a good friend of mine who's studying law, but we never really manage to shift each other's opinion.
The apostropher's is the human, empathetic response, and absolutely proper
Not arguing the basic point, but semantics: "I can't even begin to imagine myself in it" != empathetic.
I'm not sure I get your point, you-guys-at-unfogged. You're saying that some people break, and some don't, and that if we promulgated more, I dunno, bushido fewer people would break in these circumstances?
During Gulf War I, a couple of RAF guys got shot down and had the crap kicked out of them by Saddam's bully-boys, and were then both propped up for some propaganda video. Now, the RAF has more esprit de corps than your typical civilian contractor or aid-worker, but one was clearly broken and the other tried with mixed success to make it look obvious that he was just reading off a cue-card.
American GIs after WWII must have had stones the size of bowling balls, but North Korean torture still managed to break an unfortunate few who then featured in NK propaganda, not begging for their lives, but just lying about their role in the Korean War.
Are you saying our civilians are too soft? That they shouldn't be put into harm's way without adequate counter-interrogation training? Or that Western society is too soft, and that we should brainwash our citizens with steely-eyed resolve so that they will never co-operate for one single moment with those they perceive as the enemy? That last one might be a little tough to sell to the residents of, say, Okinawa, a major portion of whose population threw themselves off cliffs when occupied by the US thanks to the influence of their leaders.
I dunno, I must be missing something, for your point seems trite and obvious and unhelpful.
I like Ben's point about facing our limitations being shaming, regardless of community standards. And I do think you're indulging in a kind of easy "Americans are such selfish bastards" thing. I think in fact that the response of "you can't blame someone for wanting to live" is an expression of more solidarity with others than the "what a selfish bitch" response (which isn't yours, i'm oversimplifying grossly for the sake of constructing a clear dualism). There's plenty of evidence for the American cult of individualism, but I think that emotive responses of the kind that the Hassan case taps into actually undermine that (false, rationalist, hypthetical) belief that we're all islands and reveals that we're essentially social animals.
And now I'm just babbling.
Um, she's not American. She's British-Irish and has lived mostly in Iraq for the last thirty years.
Everything I've read indicates that people who are tortured always crack, always say what the person wants them to say, etc. I'm thinking primarily of works relying on Scarry's The Body in Pain (which I have not yet read directly). People will confess to things they didn't even do under torture. Those who do not crack under torture may not have displayed more bravery than others; instead, perhaps they weren't tortured as severely as others.
I suppose that I take the position that putting the moral burden on the torture victim is not the way to go. The Mel Gibson movie standard of standing up under torture is not realistic for most human beings -- and a person who has been tortured is going to have enough psychological difficulties without being looked down upon (however subtly) by society.
You know, this is hard to explain. Yes, I called it ignominious, and I think that's right, but I don't say it by way of blame, but as a reminder to us that it's possible to have standards of behavior, even for people in these situations, even when we don't expect them to be met. Can I say persuasively what I think the beneficial consequences of our code of honor will be? No. But I do worry (and have blogged this in the past), that we're too quick to think that possible death is the very worst thing, and that that belief makes policies emphasizing greater "security" easier to implement. There are ways to live that are worse than staying alive, and it's only when we're not in a life-or-death situation that we can discuss this, and try to steel ourselves.
Hey, lay off ogged.
I feel the same thing when I see a fat person. We need to shame them more.
Okay, no more sarcasm, but ogged - I speculate the reason you squeam when watching the groveling is that deep down you fear that you would do it, too, and you are disgusted with yourself.
If the US military can't prevent cracking under torture what effect do you think public shame will have?
No, I suspect that the reason ogged doesn't like it is that a) begging for your life is obecetively undignified, b) behaving in such a way as to fulfill *precisely* the objective of murderous victimizers is objectively ignominious. The primary purpose of such an observation isn't to blame this poor woman, or to suggest that one would do better in her stead, but rather to point to the ideal conduct. The secondary purpose might be to suggest a proper attitude for observers of such a spectacle.
Yes. We can acknowledge that one might not be able to resist the ignominious behavior while thinking that one would be better were one to resist. (All the more so because in these actual cases, the begging doesn't change the outcome.)
And it's right to acknowledge moral luck here: the reason we haven't debased ourselves is just that we haven't been given the chance. This is yet another way in which torture is awful. It prompts shameful action that isn't really the agent's responsibility, in one sense.
It's degrading to beg for your life on TV, but it's not ignominious. The kidnappers abduct these people in order to force them to beg on TV and demand the withdrawal of troops.
In most cases, its' very unlikely that a hostage's plea to withdraw troops will have any bad effects. It would be different if the hostage were someone with a lot of power and influence whose pleas might actually incite people to give in to terrorists. Let's say that Peter Jennings got kidnapped. It would be much worse for him to beg for troop withdrawals than it would be for an ordinary person because he might actually sway people.
It would also be different if someone were a passionate supporter of a cause. Denouncing that cause might be ignominious, especially if you were thereby betraying comrades or setting back the struggle.
But if you're just an ordinary person kidnapped by terrorists, I say, do what you've got to do. There have been a few cases where people have been released after begging on TV. I'm sure they and their families are glad to endure a little degradation in exchange for survival.
I'm a bit put off by the "suggest a proper attitude" part of baa's post (which with ogged agrees)--what attitude is proper? One that takes into account the ignominy/shame in capitulating and thinks less of the person, or what? That I would find offensive, even though in other respects I agree with ogged.
What you actually believe that we should withdraw our troops? Of course, I wouldn't want the US to pull out because terrorists forced me to beg them to do it.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem so ignominious to comply with a demand to say something you already believe--if you might thereby save your life.
Re. "undignified." Well, duh. Being tortured is undignified. And isn't "undignified" an aesthetic reaction, rather than a moral or practical one? Maybe part of the discomfort here is a turning away from one's own disgust at the spectacle, or a displacement of the disgust onto the person who is the occasion for the spectacle: "don't beg for your life, because it's degrading and ugly, and I feel uncomfortable watching it, and it would be nobler for you to spare us all that discomfort because we all know that your begging will have no probable effect on your fate."
I'm thinking about it like this: I would hope not to beg for my life, b/c I know my kid would see it, and I would want to spare him that spectacle. Perhaps what ogged is wanting is for us all, collectively, to be spared that spectacle--to demonstrate the noble-mindedness of wanting to spare others, even at our most trying hour.
Still babbling.
If you know for sure that your hour is up, then you might as well take it like a man, so to speak. I certainly hope I wouldn't beg if I was sentenced to die and I knew there was no chance of clemency. Tim McVeigh was a repugnant human being. Perhaps his only redeeming characteristic was the fact that he bore himself with such dignity at his execution.
Getting kidnapped by terrorists is a lot more chaotic and uncertain. You don't know if they're really going to kill you right away, or whether they want to keep you for ransom, or whatever. Rescuers might actually be on the way. The most recent aid worker hostage is still alive, right? If I was kidnapped by terrorists, I'd want to do whatever I thought might help me survive. I wouldn't care what it would look like on TV or whether it would give my tormentors additional satisfaction.