Enemies As A Function of Social Science
The existence or perceived existence of a collective enemy tends to increase the cohesiveness of the group. However, the identification and treatment of other entities as enemies may be irrational, and a sign of a psychological dysfunction. For example, group polarization may devolve into groupthink, which may lead members of the "in" group to perceive nonmembers or other groups as enemies even where the others present neither antagonism nor an actual threat. Paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by the irrational belief that other people, ranging from family members and personal acquaintances to celebrities seen on television, are personal enemies plotting harm to the sufferer. Irrational approaches may extend to treating impersonal phenomena not merely as conceptual enemies, but as sentient actors intentionally bringing strife to the sufferer.
The concept of the enemy is well covered in the field of Peace and conflict studies, which is available as a major at many major universities. In Peace studies, enemies are those entities who are perceived as frustrating or preventing achievement of a goal. The enemy may not even know they are being regarded as such, since the concept is one-sided.
Thus, in order to achieve peace, one must eliminate the enemy. This can be achieved by either by:
- destroying the enemy
- changing one's perception of an entity as enemy
- achieving the goal the enemy is frustrating
Personal conflicts are frequently either unexamined (one's goals are not well defined) or examined only from one point of view. This means it is often possible to resolve conflict (to 'eliminate' the enemy) by redefining goals such that the frustration (not the person) is either eliminated, obvious, negotiated away, or decided upon.
Read more about this topic: Outlined Enemy
Famous quotes containing the words enemies, function, social and/or science:
“I will not adopt that ungenerous and impolitic custom so common with novel writers, of degrading by their contemptuous censure the very performances, to the number of which they are themselves adding—joining with their greatest enemies in bestowing the harshest epithets on such works, and scarcely ever permitting them to be read by their own heroine, who, if she accidentally take up a novel, is sure to turn over its insipid leaves with disgust.”
—Jane Austen (1775–1817)
“Philosophical questions are not by their nature insoluble. They are, indeed, radically different from scientific questions, because they concern the implications and other interrelations of ideas, not the order of physical events; their answers are interpretations instead of factual reports, and their function is to increase not our knowledge of nature, but our understanding of what we know.”
—Susanne K. Langer (1895–1985)
“... spinsterhood [is considered to be] an abnormality of small proportions and small consequence, something like an extra finger or two on the body, presumably of temporary duration, and never of any social significance.”
—Mary Putnam Jacobi (1842–1906)
“Man lives for science as well as bread.”
—William James (1842–1910)