Pure Hatred Essay Example for Free

Pure Hatred EssayIntroductionIt is so depressing to say that hatred, the most powerful of hu part sensations is bland rampant in todays world. Despite decades of struggles for civil rights, sad stories of hatred atomic number 18 still cosmos told. A lot of individuals break to locomote the streets of cities, the halls of schools and offices, and even the rooms of their own houses in fear. Around this world plurality ar still being attacked because of their expedite, their sex, or their religion. In this new millennium, is it going to be executable to create a safer environment for all people? Can each country become the Land of the Free? Sadly, individuals and groups that espouse abhor are still active in the country.The horrific events of September 11, 2001, and the terrorism that has followed in its wake have made it even more important now than in the past to under hold the nature of scorn. Given the overwhelming displays of shun currently being displayed in th e world, we have a responsibility to seek an spirit of shun, its causes, and its consequences and how to trash it and achieve a culture of peace (Brenes Du Nann Winter, 201 Brenes Wessells, 124).Typical Definitions of scornThe typical formulations of hate, those by Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, and Darwin are nonable for their contradictions. For Descartes (1694/1989), hate was an awareness of an object as something worse and an urge to withdraw from it. For Spinoza (1677/1985), it was a case of pain (sadness) accompanied by a cognizance of some external cause. For Aristotle (trans. 1954), the distinguishing phenomenological fact almost hate was that it is pain-free (in addition to being incurable by time and striving for the annihilation of its object). Hume (1739-1740/1980) argued that neither love nor hate evoke be defined at all, because both are irreducible feelings with the introspective immediacy of sensory impressions. Darwin (1872/1998) also saw hate as a surplus feeling, one that lacks a pellucid facial sign and humanifests itself as rage.Hatred is causes of bitter sorrow. We find ourselves in repugnance and anger in the presence of one we hate. The joy of hate is being caused by the suffering, loss of power and reputation of the hated individual. Shand (192) described hate as a syndrome, or a bundle of episodic dispositions united by a common emotional object or a common category of such objects. The key feature of such a syndrome is that a person may be legitimately characterized as having it with go forth being imputed whatsoever corresponding episodic state.Modern Conceptions of HateSternberg (123) recently proposed that both disgust and contempt are special kinds of hate, cold hate and cool hate, respectively (see also Oatley Johnson- Laird, 87, for a claim that hate is a derivative of disgust). Steinbergs proposal is part of a openhanded theoretical typology based on the principle that, like love, hate can be character ized in terms of three action-feelings components (a) intimacy (more precisely, the negation thereof), (b) passion, and (c) commitment. The feelings and actions associated with the first (negation of intimacy) component allow revulsion-disgust and distancing, respectively. Fight-or-flight is the action pattern, and anger-fear are the feelings attending the passion element.The last (commitment) component involves an attempt to devalue the target of hatred with contempt. On the basis of this triangular structure, Sternberg posited a variety of hates. there is, for example, the already mentioned cool hate, composed solely of disgust, and hot hate, composed solely of the anger-fear combination.There are also cold hate (devaluation through contempt alone), boiling hate (disgust + anger-fear), simmering hate (disgust + contempt), seething hate (passion + commitment also called revilement), and, finally, burning hate, which includes all three action-feelings components. True hate, he ar gued, is an emotion of intimacy, respect, and strengthThere can be no hatred in weakness (Solomon, 326) he saw this equality of power as part of hates special mythology, ensuring that the antagonism involves an element of mutual respect. Though Solomon referred to hate as an emotion, the general affective construct that appears to fit best his own characterization of hate kinetics is that of a syndrome.Types of HateHate as an EmotionThe hate as an emotion occurs based on the individual emotional get down. It is an emotion where people have to experience that affect the way they live. People come to hate other people whom have mistreated them.Hate that we learn as an IdeaIt is a long-standing hatred even of people they have never met, simply on the basis of belonging to groups in conflict or as an idea.Prejudice and divergencePrejudice is a negatively charged attitude toward an entire category of people, often an ethnic or racial minority. People who have an obvious difference t ake aim prejudice easier. If you resent your roommate because he or she is sloppy, you are non necessary guilty of prejudice. However, if you immediately stereotype your roommate on the basis of such characteristics as race, ethnicity, or religion, that is a form of prejudice. Prejudice tends to perpetuate false definitions of individuals and groups.One important and widespread form of prejudice is racism, the printing that one race is supreme and all others are innately inferior. When racism prevails in a society, members of subordinate groups generally experience prejudice, discrimination, and exploitation. In 1990, as concern mounted about racist attacks in the United States, Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. This law directs the Department of Justice to gather data on nuisances incite by the victims race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual predilection. In 2000 alone, more than 8,063 hate crimes were reported to authorities. Some 54 percent of these crimes against persons convoluted racial bias, whereas another 18 percent involved religious bias, 16 percent sexual orientation bias, and 11 percent ethnic bias (Department of Justice 2001a).A particularly horrifying hate crime made the front pages in 1998 In Jasper, Texas, three White men with possible ties to race-hate groups tied up a Black man, beat him with chains, and consequently dragged him cornerstone their truck until his body was dismembered. Numerous groups in the United States have been victims of hate crimes as well as generalized prejudice. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, hate crimes against Asian Americans and Muslim Americans escalated rapidly. Prejudice is also happening against Arab Americans and Muslims who live in the United States (226).The activity of organized hate groups appears to be increasing, both in earth and in virtual reality. Although only a few hundred such groups may exist, there were at least 2,000 websites advocating racial hatr ed on the mesh defecate in 1999. Particularly troubling were sites disguised as video games for young people, or as educational sites about crusaders against prejudice, like Martin Luther index, Jr. The technology of the net profit has allowed race-hate groups to expand far beyond their traditional southern base to reach millions (Sandberg, 105).Hate causes ViolenceHate is the most powerful human emotion exists that causes violence. It is a disease like tuberculosis. It may infect others, but it inevitably destroys the hater, diminishing his humanity and perverting the purpose and promise of life itself. A special case of seeming(a) formulation might be found in the concept of the so-called hate crime. Hate crimes can be defined as criminal offenses in which the defendants conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of another individual or group of individu als. A more extensive definition can be found in the California Penal Code, which says that Hate crimes . . . means any act of intimidation, harassment, physical force, or the threat of physical force directed against any person, or family, or their property or advocate, motivated either in whole or in part by the hostility to the real or perceived ethnic background, national origin, religious belief, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation, with the intention of causing fear and intimidation.Hate crimes are not separate offenses, however, and it is important to realize that many types of felonies can be prosecuted as hate crimes. Hate crime laws, which have developed during the past decade or two, simply enhance or increase the penalties associated with serious offenses that fall into the hate crimes category. At the 1994 is typical of such ordinance. The act provides for enhanced sentences where a federal offense is determined to be a hate crime. The federal Hate Crime Sta tistics Act, sign-language(a) into law by then-President Bush in April 1990, mandates an annual statistical tally of hate crimes throughout the country.Data collection under the law began in January 1991. every year statistics show approximately 10,000 reported instances of hate crimes, including about a dozen murders. Most hate crimes (approximately 65 percent) appear to be motivated by racial bias, while religious hatred (15 percent) and sexual orientation (12 percent) account for most of the remainder. Many hate crimes that are reported fall into the category of intimidation, although vandalism, simple assault, and aggravate assault also account for a fair number of hate crime offenses. Notable in recent years has been a spate of church service burnings throughout the south where congregations have been predominantly African-American. A few robberies and rapes are also classified under the hate crime umbrella in any given year. Hate crimes are sometimes also called bias crime s.One form of bias crime that bears special mention is homophobic homicide. Homophobic homicide is a term that refers to the murder of homosexuals by those opposed to their lifestyles. Some hate crimes are committed by organized hate groups. According to the Intelligence Project of the southerly Poverty Law Center (457) organized hate groups operated in the United States in 1999. Another so-called patriot organizations, many with separatist leanings based on race or ethnicity, existed throughout the country. Some hate crime laws have not passed constitutional muster, often because they have run afoul of First Amendment concerns over free speech.In 1992, for example, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a St. Paul, Minnesota, city ordinance designed to prevent the bias-motivated display of symbols or objects, such as Nazi swastikas or burning crosses. Also in 1992, in the case of Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, the Court held that a county requirement regulating parades was unconstitutional because it also regulated freedom of speechin this case a plan by an affiliate of the Ku Klux Klan to parade in opposition to a Martin Luther King birthday celebration. Some writers have noted that statutes intended to control hate crimes may contravene constitutional guarantees if they (1) are too vague, (2) criminalize thought more than action, (3) attempt to control what would otherwise be free speech, and deny equal protection of the laws to those who wish to express their personal biases.Examples of effective hate crime legislation can be found in a Wisconsin law that increases penalties for most crimes when the offender Intentionally selects the person against whom the crime . . . is committed or selects the property that is shamed or otherwise affected by the crime . . . in whole or in part because of the actors belief or perception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national orig in or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property, whether or not the actors belief or perception was correct.Wisconsins penalty enhancement statute was upheld in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell. In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that Mitchell, a black man whose severe beating of a white boy was racially motivated, could be punished with additional severity as permitted by Wisconsin law because he acted out of race hatred.The Court called the assault conduct unprotected by the First Amendment and upheld the Wisconsin statute saying, since the statute has no chilling effect on free speech, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad. In 2000, however, the Supreme Court, in the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey,struck down a New Jersey law that allowed judges to sentence offenders to longer prison terms for crimes motivated by racism or other bias. The law did not require that prosecutors prove to a jury that an offense was a hate crime under sta te law.Are there Any Cures for Hate?There is no magic bullet cure for hate. There are some(prenominal) possible steps, however. Indeed, Staub (240, 124) devised a program for intervening in cases of mass killings and violence (see also Veale Dona, 147). At the very least, one can start by modifying negative stereotypes, which can be done with some success (Blair Banaji, 219 Mackie, Allison, Worth, Asuncion, 156). In general, people need to understand the triangular nature of hate and its escalation with successive triangular components so that one can recognize its often subtle presence understand how hate is fomented through stories, often by way of propaganda understand how hate can lead to massacres and genocide through the translation of feeling triangles into action triangles combat feelings of impotence with constructive rather than destructive responses, and actagainst hate and its consequences rather than stand by as passive observers, as the world so often has done real ize that passive observation and often attempts at reason enacted in the hope that hate-based massacres and genocides will go away are perceived as weaknesses and tend to encourage rather than to discourage violence and combat hate with wiseness.There is no complete cure for hate. Cognitive comprehension of a destructive psychological process does not insulate people from experiencing it. But given the remnant hate has caused over time and geography, there is a need to understand it, its consequences, and ways to at least try to combat it through understanding and particularly through action. Indeed, there are few areas of psychology for which it equally can be said that action speaks louder than words. Many of the ways of combating hate are the homogeneous that one would use in resolving conflict situations and achieving peace (Christie, Wagner, Du Nann Winter, 238), including creation of win-win situations, building trust between groups, sharing information, each side asking questions of the other, generating sevenfold alternative options, and seeking understanding of groups to which one does not belong (Boardman, 149 Isenhart Spangle, 259).Sometimes when a group communicates to the other the story of what its members have experienced, they can come to an understanding of each other that is not possible when people stay silent and fail to communicate (Albeck, Adwan, Bar-On, 162). When wrongs have been committed, no solution may be possible unless both sides are willing to forgive (Azar Mullet, 95). Building tolerance and creating a culture of peace and a society in which people share equally in rights and in participation in the society can go a long way toward resolving problems of violence and hate (Christie Dawes, 2001 Miall, Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, 199 Montiel Wessells, 221). The question is whether people have sufficient good will to achieve this goal. Combating hate requires, first and foremost, taking responsibility for it, its perpetrators , and its consequences.Ultimately, the best way to combat hate may be through wisdom (Steinberg, 198). Intelligent people may hate wise people do not. People like Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and Nelson Mandela had the same human passions as any of us, but in their wisdom, they moved beyond hate to embrace love and peace. The balance theory of wisdom (Sternberg, 198) defines wisdom as the application of intelligence, creativity, and experience toward a common good by balancing ones own interests with others interests and institutional interests over the long and short terms. By definition, wise people do not hate others because they care about the individuals (or groups) wellbeing as well as their own or that of their group. They seek solutions that embrace the legitimate interests of others as well as of themselves.Someone who cares about anothers interests and well-being cannot hate that person, in part because he or she cannot dehumanize that other. School s typically teach children knowledge and to think intelligently. But they seldom teach for wisdom. Indeed, in many schools across the globe, they teach hate for one group or another. Ultimately, if society wishes to combat hate, its schools and institutions need to teach students to think wisely. They then will realize that hate is not the solution to any legitimate life problem. Indeed, it foments rather than solves problems. But to teach for wisdom requires wisdom, and so far, the possession of that wisdom is a challenge that many fail to meet, not because we cannot meet it, but rather, because we choose not to. It is to be hoped that, in the future, people will make the interrupt choicefor wisdom rather than for foolishness and the hate that can arise from it.ConclusionTo sum up, despite much recent attention to hate as a topic of discussion and intervention, there currently exists no generally accepted definition and cure of hate. More grievously, there is nothing approaching a consensus on how to delimit the domain within which such a definition would fall. Meanings of hate differ both across and within contexts. Thus, it remains unclear if varied authors are indeed discussing or intervening against the same thing. The situation raises a number of questions Why this cornucopia of meaning?How are psychologists to characterize the underlying disagreements? How they to sink which disagreements are are substantive and which are purely semantic? How are people to decide who is right and who is wrong? What would it mean to be right or wrong in this context? These are just some trying questions about hate, to which the answers are still unclear. But one thing is clear, definitely hate is not the answer and we have to control ourselves emotionally and change our minds for the better.WORKS CITEDAlbeck, J. H., Adwan, S., Bar-On, D. Dialogue groups TRTs guidelines for working throughintractable conflicts by personal storytelling. repose and contravene journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 301-322, 2002.Aristotle. The rhetoric and the poetics o fAristotk (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). New York ModernLibrary, 1954. (Original work written ca. 340 B.C.)Azar, F., Mullet, E. Willingness to forgive A study of Muslim and Christian Lebanese. Peaceand mesh Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 17-30, 2002.Blair, I. V., Banaji, M. R. Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 1142-1163, 1996.Boardman, S. K. Resolving conflict Theory and practice. Peace andConftict Journal of PeacePsychology, 8, 157-160, 2002.Brenes, A., . Du Nann Winter, D. terrene dimensions of peace The Earth charter. Peace and involution Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 157-171, 2001.Brenes, A., Wessells, M. Psychological contributions to building cultures of peace. Peace andConflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 7, 99-107, 2001.Christie, D. J., Dawes, A. Tolerance and solidarity. Peace and Conflict Journal of PeacePsychology, 7, 131-142, 2001.Christie, D.J, R. V. Wagner, R.V. Winter, D.D. 2001, Peace, Conflict and Violence PeacePsychology for the 21st Century Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall.,106, 2001.Darwin, C. (1998). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. New York OxfordUniversity Press, 1998. (Original work published 1872)Department of Justice. Hate Crime Statistics, 2000. Washington, D C U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 2001a (Accessed October 16, 2002).Descartes, R. On the passions of the soul (S. Voss., Trans.). Indianapolis, IN, 1989. (Original workpublished 1694)Hume, D. A treatise of human nature. Oxford, England Oxford University Press, 1980 (Originalwork published 1739-1740).Isenhart, M., Spangle, M. Collaborative approaches for resolving conflict. Thousand Oaks, CASage, 2000.Mackie, D. M., Allison, S. T., Worth, L. T., Asuncion, A. G. (1992). The generalization ofoutcome-biased counter-stereotypic inferences, journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 43-64, 1992.Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T. Contemporary conflict resolution. Cambridge, MA code Press, 1999.Montiel, C. ., Wessells, M. (2001). Democratization, psychology, and the construction ofcultures of peace. Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 7,119-129, 2001.Shand, A. F. The foundations of character (2nd ed.). London Macmillan, 1920.Solomon, R. The passions. New York Anchor Books, 1977.Spinoza, B.Ethics. In E. Curley (Ed.), The collected works of Spinoza (Vol. 1, pp. 408-617).Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press, 1985. (Original work published 1677)Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil The origins of genocide and other group violence. NewYork Cambridge University Press, 1989.Sternberg, R. J. Why schools should teach for wisdom The balance theory of wisdom ineducational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36, 227-245, 2001.Sternberg, R. J. A duplex theory of hate and its development and its application to terrorism,massacres, and genocides. Review of General Psychology , 7, 299-328, 2003.Veale, A., Dona, G. Psychosocial interventions and childrens rights Beyond clinical discourse.Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 8,47-61, 2002.