Anybody's Son Will Do

This week’s reading - especially the two first articles 'Anybody's Son Will Do' and 'Peer Power’ - really challenged me in a particular way. I did not grow up in the American culture, and therefore a lot of the mechanisms and means of pressure mentioned in the readings are not what I am familiar with. I will try to show some of the differences in the comments about each article.

First, 'Anybody's Son Will Do' is quite insightful, when it comes to explain a process of change that changes a person from an individual of an otherwise individualistic culture to becoming a part of an cohesive close knit group, that is moving and acting in total accordance with their fellow members on the orders received. Once the stages of identity dissolving, adopting and initiating into the group have been passed, there is not much of an individual left. Armies are a tool for warfare and the generals in command rely on its absolute functioning according to their definitions only in times of war. Therefore, the military instructors have to make sure that all its newly trained cadets march in the same rhythm and follow in the same tune.
The article explains this process quite clearly. Through a chain of manipulative moves the new cadet loses his individual sense first: he is put into a uniform, receives the same haircut as those around him and is systematically humiliated to apprehend that he is on the receiving end of the order. To make the cadet accept these rather invasive measures, the instructors make it clear that the reward is affiliation with the group, here the Marines, motivating the new soldiers through small victories  like overcoming an obstacle or passing a certain 'difficult test' in the training. It is quite surprising to read that these obstacles and tests are in reality psychological schemes that are part of the game of 'the stick and the carrot' (being the carrot here). As a result, anybody's son will do indeed, as there is little selection, but lots of malleability, especially in times of war and crisis.
While noticing quite some technical differences with my home country, Egypt, what stroke me most was the motivational background of the soldiers. The author writes at some point '…when the moment actually arrived, for the United States of America, or for the sacred cause of Communism, or even for their homes and families; If they had any choice in the matter at all, they chose to die for each other and for their own vision of themselves…'
This is certainly not the case in my culture, as people have a predisposition through a shared religion which would put their motivations rather in the area of defending their home, families and homeland, than the institution they signed up for to serve. Maybe this is related to the fact that the Egyptian army is a mix of professional soldiers and drafted ones, as we have compulsory military service for all men. But I still believe that it has a lot to do with culture and belief that rewards human beings with the highest rewards in the sense of spiritual rewards, if they give or risk their lives to defend their nation and homes. It also comes to my mind in this context, that contrary to the US, Egypt did not fight wars abroad, but had to fight on its own soil and land and therefore the situation of defense is much more real than it might be for American soldiers, who fight in foreign countries, while their own is rather geographically isolated and far from the actual conflict zone. Another reason might lie in the fundamental opposition of cultural types of individualism versus collectivism.
However, given that nowadays soldiers anywhere in the world today fight in a world of modern warfare, all soldiers also have to learn about group loyalty and interdependency as a mean to survive war to a certain degree. Their psychological course might sometimes include the measures that were mentioned in the text: manipulation through the honor of belonging versus the abolishment of individuality and the right to question orders. I agree that these instruments are used to train to some extend anywhere; however I do not believe that it is always done for the same reasons. Belonging can mean the belonging to a group called military, but this is not the only attractive group to belong to, as we usually see -even as a soldier- the belonging to the nation and the defense of our people as a pivotal factor of  why we want to belong and why we are there in the first place.



Reading 'Peer Power' was like a glimpse in a different world, one that I feel I might know a little about only from American movies. I think it is the dynamic of 'popularity' that makes this model so unique or different from my experiences.
I am not saying that there is no clique building and dynamics in my culture, there certainly is, but it does not revolve around a value called 'popularity'. From my understanding of the text, 'popularity' is intrinsically linked to the perception of 'being nice' and 'being able to manipulate the people around oneself' in a way that fosters one's own 'popularity' and serves the position within a group, once one succeeded to enter the group. Without being willfully negative, but reading this, I could not help thinking of the various school shootings in US schools and colleges, or the high suicide rates of adolescents one sadly reads about too often. The dynamic here seems to follow the ridiculing and bullying versus the somehow rewarding sense of belonging: carrot and stick principle again. However the values seem hollow and tend towards destroying an individual’s self-worth and dignity. Imagining that a -by nature- soul and identity searching teenager has to undergo regular seasons of shameless dissemblance from their real feelings and ideas to gain approval, and to execute strategies of vilification for the sole purpose of power maintenance within a group that is not even based on real values and contents, but on the stale worth of ‘popularity’, which is a completely arbitrary worth that -as the reading shows- can be destroyed form one moment to the other, is a very unsettling thought. What lessons are actually learned from this and how can it serve the individual in the future?
Pondering about this article made me remember my -admittedly long ago- youth in a clique of friends that I was leading in Cairo. We were all in school, and the basic common value we had was that we all wanted to maintain good grades and find opportunities for learning besides school, like fixing engines or building radio transmitters etc. There was no bullying involved in this and usually the one with the most (practical and technical) knowledge would lead. We were not about excluding anyone, however, not everyone would be interested in doing what we are doing and would rather adhere to other groups with other interests. Again, and also considering the friend-environment of my children and its dynamics, I tend to believe that it has to do with our culture and religion; there is a general and strong consensus that people cannot be excluded from a group, to a degree that our teachings say: ‘When three people meet, two are not allowed to talk together with the exclusion of the third person present' in order not to psychologically create an obstacle that shuns the third person to participate in the conversation. We do not accept any discrimination by race or ethnicity or class as a religious credo and if someone (accidentally or purposely) does, one will be usually present to remind the other. Moreover, friends should be a source of support to each other, and we are not in this world for shallow things like possessions or popularity and prestige.
The insight into 'Peer Power' left me saddened and wondering how a society can get to a point where young people find an environment that allows them to live out such destructive behaviors under the knowing eyes of their instructors (as the reading shows) and (possibly unsuspecting) parents.


"Civilize them with a Stick' reminded me of the conversation I once had with a Native American here in Nashville. She has been a teacher of our children for several years, and at some occasion she told us about the conditions that she experienced in boarding schools and generally in the schools that had been established at her time on the Indian territories; she is in her fifties now. This is a very sad story of 'education' gone wrong, because the goal of this process was not to educate but to forcibly assimilate members of a different culture into another one that considers itself superior. The self-righteousness and bigotry of the instructors is at the root of the mistreatment of helpless children that were given into their care.  Their goal was to destroy the part of their identity that connects them to their genuine culture and life-style, but even more heinously, without accepting them into the new one. Consequently, the individuals who exited this ‘education process' were robbed of all personality and identity, and were likely to slide towards self-destructive behaviors.
Furthermore, the article, a personal experience report, demonstrates that pressure for the sole purpose of submission and obedience without other incentives does not work well, not even in unexperienced children. The avoidance of punishment as a motivator is weak, and will at some point be overcome. Teaching or convincing (here tried to make the chidden adhere to a religion) cannot be achieved this way. If human beings are not allowed to practice a minimum of free will and decision making, and do not experience a minimum of respect and affection, they will not be strong carriers of what they were supposed to learn. This is proven, among others, by the fact that over generations children were likely to run away from the institution or revolt in a different manner, as the author illustrates so well in her own story. This is especially true, if the individual has knowledge of another -personally preferable- culture and life-style, which these children experienced before entering the boarding school.
At the root of these problems are several issues of social fairness and justice originating in the particular position and history of the Native American communities. Personally, I do not understand while in the 21st century these communities are still not allowed to live a productive and rewarding life within their culture and values, just like other groups in the US do today.