How do daily habits lead to political violence? | Christiane-Marie Abu Sarah

Transcriber: Leslie Gauthier Reviewer: Camille Martínez

Translator: Ditte Christensen Reviewer: Emma Toft

So I'm starting us out today with a historical mystery.

Jeg vil starte med et historisk mysterium.

In 1957, there were two young women,

I 1957 var der to unge kvinder.

both in their 20s,

De var begge i 20erne,

both living in the same city,

de boede i den samme by

both members of the same political group.

og de var begge medlemmer af den samme politiske gruppe.

That year, both decided to commit violent attacks.

Det år besluttede de begge at begå voldelige angreb.

One girl took a gun and approached a soldier at a checkpoint.

Den ene kvinde tog et håndvåben, og gik op til en grænsesoldat,

The other girl took a bomb and went to a crowded café.

den anden kvinde tog en bombe med til en travl café.

But here's the thing:

Det interessante er,

one of the those girls followed through with the attack,

at kun én af disse kvinder, fuldførte sit angreb,

but the other turned back.

mens den anden skiftede mening.

So what made the difference?

Hvad gjorde forskellen?

I'm a behavioral historian, and I study aggression,

Jeg er adfærdshistoriker og studerer aggressivitet,

moral cognition

moralsk erkendelse

and decision-making in social movements.

og beslutningsprocesser i sociale bevægelser.

That's a mouthful. (Laughs)

Det er noget af en omgang. (Griner)

So, the translation of that is:

Oversat betyder det,

I study the moment an individual decides to pull the trigger,

at jeg studerer det øjeblik, hvor et individ beslutter sig for at handle,

the day-to-day decisions that led up to that moment

de små beslutninger, der leder op til det øjeblik,

and the stories that they tell themselves about why that behavior is justified.

og de historier, som individet benytter til at retfærdiggøre sine handlinger.

Now, this topic --

Dette emne

it's not just scholarly for me.

er dog ikke kun videnskabeligt for mig.

It's actually a bit personal.

Det er også personligt.

I grew up in Kootenai County, Idaho,

Jeg voksede i Kootenai County, Idaho,

and this is very important.

og det her er meget vigtigt.

This is not the part of Idaho with potatoes.

Det er ikke den del af Idaho, der har en masse kartofler.

We have no potatoes.

Vi har ingen kartofler.

And if you ask me about potatoes,

Og hvis du spørger mig om kartofler,

I will find you.

skal jeg nok finde dig.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

This part of Idaho is known for mountain lakes,

Denne del af Idaho er kendt for bjergsøer,

horseback riding,

ridning,

skiing.

skisport.

Unfortunately, starting in the 1980s,

Fra 1980erne blev den uheldigvis

it also became known as the worldwide headquarters

også kendt som Aryan Nations'

for the Aryan Nations.

globale hovedkvarter.

Every year, members of the local neo-Nazi compound

Hvert år marcherede medlemmer af det lokale nynazistiske bosted

would turn out and march through our town,

gennem vores by,

and every year,

og hvert år

members of our town would turn out and protest them.

protesterede byens folk imod dem.

Now, in 2001, I graduated from high school,

Jeg blev student i 2001

and I went to college in New York City.

og flyttede til New York for at studere.

I arrived in August 2001.

Jeg ankom i august 2001.

As many of you probably are aware,

Som mange af jer nok ved,

three weeks later,

blev World Trade Center bombet

the Twin Towers went down.

kun tre uger senere.

Now, I was shocked.

Jeg var chokeret.

I was incredibly angry.

Og jeg var utrolig vred.

I wanted to do something,

Jeg ville gøre et eller andet,

but the only thing that I could think of doing at that time

men det eneste, jeg kunne komme på på det tidpsunkt,

was to study Arabic.

var at studere arabisk.

I will admit,

Jeg vil gerne indrømme,

I was that girl in class that wanted to know why "they" hate "us."

at jeg var den pige i klassen, der ville vide, hvorfor "de" hadede "os."

I started studying Arabic for very wrong reasons.

Jeg begyndte at studere arabisk af de helt forkerte årsager.

But something unexpected happened.

Men der skete noget uventet.

I got a scholarship to go study in Israel.

Jeg fik et stipendium til at studere i Israel.

So the Idaho girl went to the Middle East.

Så pigen fra Idaho tog til Mellemøsten.

And while I was there, I met Palestinian Muslims,

Mens jeg var dér, mødte jeg palæstinensiske muslimer,

Palestinian Christians,

palæstinensiske kristne,

Israeli settlers,

israelske bosættere

Israeli peace activists.

og israelske fredsaktivister.

And what I learned is that every act has an ecology.

Og jeg lærte, at alle handlinger har en årsag.

It has a context.

Det sker i en kontekst.

Now, since then, I have gone around the world,

Jeg har sidenhen rejst rundt i verden,

I have studied violent movements,

jeg har studeret voldelige bevægelser,

I have worked with NGOs and ex-combatants in Iraq,

jeg har arbejdet med NGO'er og tidligere soldater i Irak,

Syria,

Syrien,

Vietnam,

Vietnam,

the Balkans,

Balkan

Cuba.

og Cuba,

I earned my PhD in History,

jeg har opnået en PhD i historie

and now what I do is I go to different archives

og nu besøger jeg forskellige arkiver,

and I dig through documents,

hvor jeg graver rundt efter

looking for police confessions,

tilståelser fra kriminelle,

court cases,

retssager,

diaries and manifestos of individuals involved in violent attacks.

dagbøger og manifester fra individer, der har deltaget i voldelige angreb.

Now, you gather all these documents --

Og hvad kan man så lære

what do they tell you?

fra alle disse kilder?

Our brains love causal mysteries,

Det viser sig, at vores hjerner elsker

it turns out.

små mysterier.

So any time we see an attack on the news,

Så når vi ser et angreb i nyhederne,

we tend to ask one question:

stiller vi ét spørgsmål:

Why?

"Hvorfor?"

Why did that happen?

Hvorfor skete det?

Well, I can tell you I've read thousands of manifestos,

Nu har jeg læst tusindvis af manifester,

and what you find out is that they are actually imitative.

og jeg ser, at de faktisk er imitationer.

They imitate the political movement that they're drawing from.

De imiterer de politiske bevægelser, som de er inspirerede af.

So they actually don't tell us a lot about decision-making

Så egentlig siger de ikke meget om

in that particular case.

beslutningsprocesser specifikt.

So we have to teach ourselves to ask a totally different question.

Derfor skal vi lære at stille helt andre spørgsmål.

Instead of "Why?" we have to ask "How?"

I stedet for "Hvorfor" skal vi spørge "Hvordan"?

How did individuals produce these attacks,

Hvordan udfører individer disse angreb,

and how did their decision-making ecology contribute to violent behavior?

og hvordan førte årsagen bag deres beslutninger til voldelig adfærd?

There's a couple things I've learned from asking this kind of question.

Jeg har lært forskellige ting, ved at stille den slags spørgsmål.

The most important thing is that

Det allervigtigste er,

political violence is not culturally endemic.

at politisk vold ikke er indgroet i kulturen.

We create it.

Vi skaber det.

And whether we realize it or not,

Og hvad enten vi ved det eller ej,

our day-to-day habits contribute to the creation of violence

så medvirker vores daglige vaner til at skabe vold

in our environment.

i vores omgivelser.

So here's a couple of habits that I've learned contribute to violence.

Jeg har fundet nogle forskellige vaner, der fører til vold.

One of the first things that attackers did

Noget af det første folk gør,

when preparing themselves for a violent event

når de forbereder dem selv til en voldelig begivenhed er,

was they enclosed themselves in an information bubble.

at placere sig selv i en informationsboble.

We've heard of fake news, yeah?

Vi har alle hørt om "fake news" [falske nyheder].

Well, this shocked me:

Noget overraskede mig:

every group that I studied had some kind of a fake news slogan.

Hver gruppe, som jeg har studeret, har et udtryk for "fake news".

French communists called it the "putrid press."

Franske kommunister kaldte dem "den rådne presse",

French ultranationalists called it the "sellout press"

den franske ekstreme højrefløj kaldte det "svindelpressen"

and the "treasonous press."

og "den forræderiske presse."

Islamists in Egypt called it the "depraved news."

Islamister i Egypten kaldte dem "fordærvede nyheder"

And Egyptian communists called it ...

og egyptiske kommunister kaldte dem...

"fake news."

"fake news."

So why do groups spend all this time trying to make these information bubbles?

Hvorfor bruger grupper så meget tid på at skabe informationsbobler?

The answer is actually really simple.

Svaret er faktisk ret simpelt.

We make decisions based on the information we trust, yeah?

Vi baserer vores beslutninger på information, vi stoler på.

So if we trust bad information,

Så hvis vi stoler på dårlig information,

we're going to make bad decisions.

tager vi dårlige beslutninger.

Another interesting habit that individuals used

En anden interessant vane, som individer brugte,

when they wanted to produce a violent attack

når de ville udføre et voldeligt angreb,

was that they looked at their victim not as an individual

var, at de ikke så deres offer som et individ,

but just as a member of an opposing team.

men som et medlem af det modsatte hold.

Now this gets really weird.

Nu bliver det ret sært.

There's some fun brain science behind why that kind of thinking is effective.

Lidt sjov hjerneforskning kan forklare, hvorfor denne tankegang er effektiv.

Say I divide all of you guys into two teams:

Som et eksempel, kan vi dele jer i to hold:

blue team,

Blå hold

red team.

og rødt hold.

And then I ask you to compete in a game against each other.

Derefter beder jeg jer om at konkurrere mod hinanden.

Well, the funny thing is, within milliseconds,

Det sjove er, at allerede efter få millisekunder

you will actually start experiencing pleasure -- pleasure --

begynder I at opleve glæde,

when something bad happens to members of the other team.

når der sket noget dårligt, for deltagerne på det andet hold.

The funny thing about that is if I ask one of you blue team members

Hvis jeg så beder et medlem om at skifte fra det blå til

to go and join the red team,

det røde hold,

your brain recalibrates,

så omjusteres personens hjerne,

and within milliseconds,

og inden for millisekunder

you will now start experiencing pleasure

oplever personen nu glæde,

when bad things happen to members of your old team.

når der sker dårlige ting for de tidligere holdkammerater.

This is a really good example of why us-them thinking is so dangerous

Dette er et godt eksempel på, hvorfor "os og dem"-tænkning er så farligt

in our political environment.

i vores politiske miljø.

Another habit that attackers used to kind of rev themselves up for an attack

En anden vane, som personer brugte som forberedelse til et angreb,

was they focused on differences.

var at fokusere på forskelle.

In other words, they looked at their victims, and they thought,

Med andre ord, de så på deres ofre og tænkte,

"I share nothing in common with that person.

"Jeg har intet tilfælles med den person.

They are totally different than me."

De er helt anderledes end mig."

Again, this might sound like a really simple concept,

Igen kan dette lyde som et ret simpelt koncept,

but there's some fascinating science behind why this works.

men det er funderet på fascinerende videnskab.

Say I show you guys videos of different-colored hands

Hvis jeg viser jer en video med hænder i forskellige farver,

and sharp pins being driven into these different-colored hands,

der bliver stikket med nåle.

OK?

Okay?

If you're white,

Hvis du er hvid,

the chances are you will experience the most sympathetic activation,

så er der størst change for, at du føler mest sympati

or the most pain,

eller mest smerte,

when you see a pin going into the white hand.

når du ser en hvid hånd blive stukket med en nål.

If you are Latin American, Arab, Black,

Hvis du er latino, araber eller sort

you will probably experience the most sympathetic activation

oplever du nok mest sympati,

watching a pin going into the hand that looks most like yours.

når en hånd, der ligner din, bliver stukket med en nål.

The good news is, that's not biologically fixed.

Den gode nyhed er, at det ikke er en biologisk medført adfærd.

That is learned behavior.

Det er noget vi lærer.

Which means the more we spend time with other ethnic communities

Hvilket vil sige, at jo mere tid vi bruger sammen med andre folk,

and the more we see them as similar to us and part of our team,

der ikke ligner os, og jo mere vi ser dem som en del af vores hold,

the more we feel their pain.

jo mere sympatiserer vi med deres smerte.

The last habit that I'm going to talk about

Den sidste vane, som jeg vil nævne,

is when attackers prepared themselves to go out and do one of these events,

er, at når personerne forberedte sig på at udføre angrebet,

they focused on certain emotional cues.

fokuserede de på særlige følelsesmæssige signaler.

For months, they geared themselves up by focusing on anger cues, for instance.

I måneder fokuserede de for eksempel på vredessignaler som opmuntring.

I bring this up because it's really popular right now.

Jeg nævner dette, fordi det er meget populært lige nu.

If you read blogs or the news,

Hvis du læser en blog eller nyhederne,

you see talk of two concepts from laboratory science:

ser du folk snakke om to koncepter fra laboratorievidenskab:

amygdala hijacking and emotional hijacking.

amygdala-kapring og følelsesmæssig kapring.

Now, amygdala hijacking:

Amygdala-kapring er,

it's the concept that I show you a cue -- say, a gun --

når jeg viser dig et signal, det kan være et håndvåben,

and your brain reacts with an automatic threat response

og din hjerne reagerer med et automatisk trusselssvar

to that cue.

til det signal.

Emotional hijacking -- it's a very similar concept.

Følelsesmæssig kapring er meget lig dette.

It's the idea that I show you an anger cue, for instance,

Det er, når jeg for eksempel viser dig et vredessignal

and your brain will react with an automatic anger response

og din hjerne straks reagerer med et automatisk vredt svar

to that cue.

til det signal.

I think women usually get this more than men. (Laughs)

Jeg tror, kvinder ofte forstår dette bedre end mænd (griner).

(Laughter)

(Latter)

That kind of a hijacking narrative grabs our attention.

Den slags kapring fanger vores opmærksomhed.

Just the word "hijacking" grabs our attention.

Ordet "kapring" alene fanger vores opmærksomhed.

The thing is,

Pointen er,

most of the time, that's not really how cues work in real life.

at det meste af tiden, er det ikke sådan signaler fungerer i virkeligheden.

If you study history,

Hvis du læser historie,

what you find is that we are bombarded with hundreds of thousands of cues

lærer du, at vi bombarderes med hundrede tusinder af signaler

every day.

hver dag.

And so what we do is we learn to filter.

Derfor lærer vi at filtrere dem.

We ignore some cues,

Vi ignorerer nogle signaler

we pay attention to other cues.

og fokuserer på andre.

For political violence, this becomes really important,

Dette er utrolig vigtigt, når det handler om politisk vold,

because what it meant is that attackers usually didn't just see an anger cue

fordi det betyder, at angriberne ikke kun så et vredessignal

and suddenly snap.

og gik agurk.

Instead,

I stedet,

politicians, social activists spent weeks, months, years

brugte politikere og sociale aktivister uger, måneder og år

flooding the environment with anger cues, for instance,

på at fylde omgivelserne med for eksempel vredessignaler

and attackers,

og angriberne

they paid attention to those cues,

var opmærksomme på disse signaler,

they trusted those cues,

de stolede på disse signaler,

they focused on them,

de fokuserede på dem,

they even memorized those cues.

de lærte dem endda udenad.

All of this just really goes to show how important it is to study history.

Alt dette viser, hvor vigtigt det er at studere historie.

It's one thing to see how cues operate in a laboratory setting.

Én ting er at se, hvordan signaler fungerer i et laboratorium.

And those laboratory experiments are incredibly important.

Disse laboratorieeksperimenter er utrolig vigtige.

They give us a lot of new data about how our bodies work.

De giver os en masse ny viden om, hvordan vores kroppe fungerer.

But it's also very important to see how those cues operate in real life.

Men det er også vigtigt at se, hvordan signalerne fungerer i virkeligheden.

So what does all this tell us about political violence?

Hvad kan dette fortælle os om politisk vold?

Political violence is not culturally endemic.

Politisk vold er ikke noget kulturelt.

It is not an automatic, predetermined response to environmental stimuli.

Det er ikke en automatisk, forudbestemt reaktion på en miljømæssig stimulering.

We produce it.

Vi producerer det.

Our everyday habits produce it.

Vores daglige vaner producerer det.

Let's go back, actually, to those two women that I mentioned at the start.

Lad os vende tilbage til de to kvinder, som jeg nævnte i begyndelsen.

The first woman had been paying attention to those outrage campaigns,

Den første kvinde havde lagt mærke til disse vredessignaler,

so she took a gun

så hun tog et håndvåben

and approached a soldier at a checkpoint.

og gik op til en grænsesoldat.

But in that moment, something really interesting happened.

Men i det øjeblik, skete der noget meget interessant.

She looked at that soldier,

Hun så på soldaten

and she thought to herself,

og tænkte for sig selv,

"He's the same age as me.

"Han er på min alder.

He looks like me."

Han ser ud ligesom mig."

And she put down the gun, and she walked away.

Og hun gemte sit våben væk og vendte om.

Just from that little bit of similarity.

Alt dette på grund af lille smule lighed.

The second girl had a totally different outcome.

Den anden kvinde havde en helt anden historie.

She also listened to the outrage campaigns,

Hun lagde også mærke til disse vredessignaler,

but she surrounded herself with individuals

men hun omgav sig selv med individer,

who were supportive of violence,

der støttede vold,

with peers who supported her violence.

og med venner, der støttede hendes vold.

She enclosed herself in an information bubble.

Hun befandt sig i en informationsboble.

She focused on certain emotional cues for months.

I måneder fokuserede hun på særlige følelsesmæssige signaler.

She taught herself to bypass certain cultural inhibitions against violence.

Hun lærte at ignorere visse kulturelle hæmninger imod vold.

She practiced her plan,

Hun øvede sig på sin plan,

she taught herself new habits,

hun lærte sig selv nye vaner

and when the time came, she took her bomb to the café,

og da øjeblikket kom, gik hun til caféen med en bombe

and she followed through with that attack.

og sprang det hele i luften.

This was not impulse.

Dette var ikke en impuls.

This was learning.

Det var indlært.

Polarization in our society is not impulse,

Polarisering i vores samfund er ikke en impuls.

it's learning.

Det er indlæring.

Every day we are teaching ourselves:

Denne indlæring finder sted hver dag:

the news we click on,

De nyheder, vi klikker på,

the emotions that we focus on,

de følelser, vi fokuserer på,

the thoughts that we entertain about the red team or the blue team.

de tanker, som vi har om det røde og det blå hold.

All of this contributes to learning,

Alt dette lærer os noget,

whether we realize it or not.

selvom vi måske ikke lægger mærke til det.

The good news

Den gode nyhed er,

is that while the individuals I study already made their decisions,

at i modsætning til de individer, som jeg studerer,

we can still change our trajectory.

så kan vi stadig ændre vores fremtid.

We might never make the decisions that they made,

Vi tager måske aldrig de beslutninger, som de tog,

but we can stop contributing to violent ecologies.

men vi kan stoppe med at deltage i opbyggelsen af vold.

We can get out of whatever news bubble we're in,

Vi kan kravle ud af den nyhedsboble, som vi befinder os i,

we can be more mindful about the emotional cues

vi kan være mere opmærksomme på, hvilke følelsesmæssige signaler,

that we focus on,

vi fokuserer på og

the outrage bait that we click on.

hvad, vi klikker på på netter.

But most importantly,

Vigtigst af alt,

we can stop seeing each other as just members of the red team

kan vi stoppe med se hinanden som medlemmer af det røde

or the blue team.

eller det blå hold.

Because whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist,

For hvad enten vi er kristne, muslimer, jøder, ateister,

Democrat or Republican,

demokrater eller republikanere,

we're human.

så er vi mennesker.

We're human beings.

Vi er mennesker.

And we often share really similar habits.

Og vi deler ofte lignende vaner.

We have differences.

Vi er forskellige.

Those differences are beautiful,

Disse forskelligeheder er smukke

and those differences are very important.

og de er vigtige.

But our future depends on us being able to find common ground

Men vores fremtid afhænger af, at vi kan finde ligheder med dem

with the other side.

på den anden side.

And that's why it is so, so important

Og det er derfor, at det er så vigtigt,

for us to retrain our brains

at vi uddanner vores hjerner til

and stop contributing to violent ecologies.

ikke at deltage i opbyggelsen af vold.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)