Religion and conflict

In recent book (The God Delusion), Richard Dawson takes a hard line as not just an atheist but as an anti-theist. He regards religious beliefs as dangerous in themselves for a variety of reasons which need not be considered here.

He seems to think the world would be a better place without religion. He would regard religion as a source of the worst conflicts, the poorest quality of thinking and the cause of the prevalence of non-humanist values. He might well think we would have fewer conflicts in a more skeptical world. I think he is an optimist. As a psychologist I understand that conflicts between groups, sometimes in the name of religion, result in widespread conflict and war. I don't agree with him that religion causes these phenomena.

Instead I think intergroup conflicts are an essential part of human group conduct. Religion, like politics or race, can be enlisted in the aid of group formation and inter-group conflict. In my opinion we would have precisely the same conflicts without religion, under different heading and flying different flags. Conflict is what we humans do to establish our membership in our group. The existence of other groups is necessary so that ours can have conflicts to strengthen our boundaries. We use religion to justify this set of boundary operations, but we can and do use lots of other justifications.

In my opinion, the presence or absence of religion has little effect on intergroup conflict, which is part of the human condition, at least in this stage of our development. Religion, in fact, is essentially irrelevant even though it sometimes promulgates benevolent ideas. It's unfortunate that the majority of people professing religious beliefs don't act on or embody those beliefs, so their religion is just something to make them feel more comfortable personally. The people who talk the loudest about the religious life and religious values don't seem to have any better moral sense than non-religious people. From my standpoint religion is pretty silly, and I'm sorry to see money wasted on religious items (such as churches) when such funds could be put to much better use helping the poor or improving medical treatment or research.

If we didn't kill each other in the name of religion, we'd just find some other excuse.

Passive resistance

"I forgot".
"I was busy."
"I didn't feel well."
"Huh?"
"You never told me to.. like... do it."
"You didn't tell me what you wanted".

We call this behavior "passive-aggressive", and in past years treated it as if it were a psychological disorder. People who did this a lot were described as "passive-aggressive personalities", or even "passive aggressive personality disorders". Over a period of years, however, we began to recognize that such behaviors, while immature in manner, are part of our regular repertory of behavior, and that we all use passive-aggressive behaviors at certain times. As a diagnosis, it's not included in the current DSM.

When do we observe passive-aggressive behavior, with its characteristic body postures, voice tone and facial expressions? The first and most obvious examples are easily seen in most teen-agers. Whatever they were told to do, they didn't do it, and they have a "reason" for not being compliant. The reasons are transparently dishonest in adolescents, but when adults use them they are not so transparent.

Passive-aggressive behavior is also easily observed in a variety of situations with adults. In jails and penitientiaries the prisoners use such excuses to the people in power. The guards use them with their bosses. Office workers may use this behavior with supervisors. Soldiers use this with their superiors.

What do these situations have in common? In all of the above there is a perceived strong power differential between the person giving the "order" and the person receiving it. This power differential includes the power to punish, and the person receiving the order does not feel able or willing to openly resist. The resistance, as manifested in passive-aggressive behavior, is indirect. It is designed to provide an "excuse" so that the non-compliant person doesn't get punished or have to directly oppose the person in power. In situations in which the "power person" is reluctant to punish or is ambivalent about punishing, the "excuse" plays on that ambivalence to give the power person an "out".

In couples counseling I often see passive-aggressive behavior on the part of one of the partners. A great deal of resentment builds up in both members of the partnership. Usually the passive-aggressive partner is reluctant to deal with the issue, and for exactly the same reason they are passive-aggressive: they fear retaliation, physical or emotional.

Passive-aggressive behavior is specific to a particular relationship or set of relationships. The same person who is passive-aggressive toward his wife may not be so toward other adults. The p-a behavior is in response to a perceived power differential, in which one partner is seen as having most of the power, even as being a bully. "Bullying", in this context, may mean physical mistreatment or emotional mistreatment in the form of rage, temper tantrums, tears, threats, or withdrawal.

The problem to solve is not in attempting to change the passive-aggressive behavior. It can only be solved by directly addressing the perceived power differential and confronting it. It is surprisingly difficult to get this issue to the surface, as cultural norms do not allow adults to admit easily that they fear being bullied, especially emotionally, by their partner.