Radical disposal of the disagreeable, the undesirable and the unbelievers

Coming Out as a Radical -- or Coming In? (Part #12)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

The argument above stressed the immense difficulty, whether individually or collectively, of handling whatever is recognized as different -- despite the curious fascination with other cultures and the seemingly desperate quest by science for life in other parts of the universe. In the latter respect it is amazing to note how little attention is given to the possible challenge of communicating with "aliens", despite that of communicating with the Taliban, Al-Qaida or ISIS -- or the aliens within developed societies, including alienated youth, the homeless, beggars, etc (Communicating with Aliens: the psychological dimension of dialogue, 2000). The preoccupation, which appears increasingly as indicative of a high order of naivety, is with achieving universal agreement -- however that is to be understood, despite the constraints of relativity.

The experience of "disagreement" is of course readily transformed into one of "disagreeable", as it most evident in democratic discourse and the negative campaigning it evokes.

Radicalism of any kind, whether religious, scientific, philosophical, artistic, political, or otherwise, raises the question as to how any mainstream can best arrange for the "disposal" of what is experienced as disagreeable. As noted above, the maneuvers by other parties in response to Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump offer a striking illustration of efforts in that regard.

Most striking in that case of the political radicals responsible for a particular form of terrorism is the increasing interest in their "eradication" (Eradication as the Strategic Final Solution of the 21st Century?, 2014). This of course follows in the remarkable tradition of the efforts by the Nazi regime to eradicate the Jews. It might be asked what those in favour of the application of this policy to ISIS learned from the Nazi initiative.

Other approaches, presumably to be understood as less radical, include:

• collective resettlement on "reservations": This approach has been widely used by colonial powers to handle indigenous peoples whose integration into western culture was seen as an impossible challenge, or one to be addressed by future generations. Recent examples include incarceration in "concentration camps" in time of conflict as with Japanese Americans
  
• brainwashing: Notably as developed by Communism and subsequently adapted to western countries, and now evident in the shock treatment of correctional boot camps
• sterilization and lobotomisation: As practiced in the first case at different periods (eunuchs), and as recommended by the psychiatric profession in the last century in the second (Alexandra Minna Stern, That Time the United States Sterilized 60,000 of its Citizens, The Huffington Post, 7 January 2016).
• execution and euthanasia: As continues to be extensively practiced in the first case, following use of burning at the stake in centuries past. Euthanasia remained a significance policy in the early part of the part century -- culminating in the Holocaust.
• carpet bombing of a civilization: As notably practiced in the past century, but with recent threats of "bombing back to the Stone Age" (Nick Cullather, Bomb them Back to the Stone Age: an etymology, History News Network, 10 June 2006)
• amputation and stoning: As characteristic of sharia law.
• psychiatric hospitalization: As characteristic of the treatment of dissidents in the UssR, and potentially to be recognized in the incarceration by the USA at Guantanamo Bay
• reframing as inhuman or a target of "fair game": One of the most grisly examples of this occurred in Nazi Germany, where the metaphorical depiction of the "Jewish problem" in terms of illness allowed Nazi leaders to suggest a "final solution" designed to eradicate this metaphorical "disease" Sontag (1978, pp. 82-84)
• targetted assassination of leadership: As a characteristic response to the Taliban, Al Qaida and ISIS.

The mindset through which such initiatives are envisaged and implemented recalls that with which wild animals have been hunted -- even to the point of extinction -- as an emotionally justified threat to human lives and livelihoods. Examples include: crocodiles, snakes, tigers, and sharks. Any issues real ting to terrorizing of animals are considered ridiculous and irrelevant, except where it affects the quality of slaughtered animals as foodstuffs.

More generally the mindset may be understood as an extension of policies of waste disposal, despite extensive evidence regarding the degradation of the environment, as in the case of the Great Pacific garbage patch. It can be explored in terms of remaindering as a metaphor (Reintegration of a Remaindered World: cognitive recycling of objects of systemic neglect, 2011).

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]