(October 2001)
By Steven J. Onken, Cheryl L. Franks and Sarah J. Lewis, Columbia University School of Social Work
"…all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." (author unknown)
Since the events of September 11th, many of us feel impotent in our lives in understanding and taking action against the hatred and violence that is emerging. At the same time, this horrific event provides us an opportunity to reconnect with one of social work's basic tenets, that of social justice.
We must resist and take action against the increasing harassment and violence directed at certain individuals and groups. Although many of us believe this, we struggle with ways to incorporate these beliefs into action.
A first step is to apply a framework to help create a "system of meaning" to bring to this situation. One such framework is that of Moral Exclusion, derived from the study of the Holocaust. Moral exclusion is a way of determining who in our world is acceptable and who is not, and the reasoning process for supporting these decisions. We engage in this process on the individual level, within our groups, organizations and communities and at the socio-cultural level of our society.
Envision a circle and place yourself in the middle of that circle. This is your moral core. The boundary of the circle is the point of change. Those individuals, groups, nationalities inside your circle merit being treated as you yourself want to be treated, those outside do not. We rely on our own moral core and the moral compass we have developed in applying our moral core, to guide our decisions. Sometimes our boundaries are well defined, sometimes they are fuzzy. We vary individually and collectively as to where we place people and their actions. For example, we differ on how we view people who abuse substances and we vary regarding the issue of abortion. The further one places an individual or group outside of their boundary, the stronger the possibility of engaging in behavior that is outside the scope of what is acceptable to one's values, norm and beliefs. For instance, many people who opposed the death penalty made an exemption for Timothy McVeigh.
In the wake of the World Trade Center disaster, we are witnessing the process of moral exclusion, moving individuals, groups, nationalities, religion, nations away from our moral core in order to engage in behavior that is outside the realm of what is acceptable.
Through "disengagement practices" we move targeted individuals and groups outside of our boundary. Much of such disengagement practice is cognitive restructuring:
How do we disrupt this evolution of harmdoing using this framework for understanding? A constant vigilance of self-awareness is required. One accomplishes this through deconstructing the moment.
The internal dialogue is as follows:
These steps reengage one's moral compass and provide an opportunity to alter course that is in line with one's moral core.
So far we've discussed individual responses. How do we move this into our professional roles?
The following is a model currently being refined by a newly formed Coalition addressing hate and fear in the wake of the September 11th disaster. This model can be used in the classroom, in organizations with staff at all levels, and in the community. The model attempts to:
Introduction
Why are we here? The facilitator should prepare a statement of the purpose and anticipated goals of the dialogue (e.g., to provide an opportunity to dialogue about ethnic and racial conflicts that have arisen as a result of the World Trade Center disaster).
When presenting the purpose do not talk about the issues in a vague way. You must be straightforward and honest, and provide the necessary data to support this approach (e.g., 280 million Americans are Muslim and Christian Arabs).
The facilitator then establishes agreements and confidentiality (e.g., no one is obligated to talk, use"I" statements)
Fact Phase
The facilitator might begin by selecting a short article from the newspaper that describes violence against a certain ethnic group. Have participants read it out loud and ask for thoughts and reactions.
The facilitator creates a climate where participants can discuss their relationship to violence at this time: Has anyone witnessed anyone being a victim of an assault, verbal or physical? Has anyone been a victim themselves? What are participants seeing or hearing in the media? Use a few examples to help model for the group.
Feelings and Symptoms Phase
Encourage participants to share their feelings about their particular relationship to violence and harassment and any symptoms they may be experiencing as a result. You want to provide needed support during this phase. For example, many individuals are experiencing anger and that could be a normal response to the current situation.
Encourage participants' self-awareness around their own feelings and reactions of hate, fear, prejudice, and stereotyping.
End this phase by asking participants to say two words that describe how they are feeling right now. This will allow you to assess individual participants and the group as a whole. You can use this throughout the dialogue.
Education/Teaching Phase
Based on the group's needs and the purpose of the dialogue, use this time to teach about fear, anger, hate, stereotyping, and the nature of prejudice. A good starting point is teaching the framework of moral exclusion and the tenets of the self-awareness internal dialogue. Encourage discussion as to the ways one can take action as they witness verbal and physical harassment. Provide links to participant's individual situations and roles.
Action Phase
Establish a plan for further action. A part of this phase may focus on the micro level such as each participant developing an individual action plan. Another part of this phase focuses on the mezzo and macro level such as a group letter to the local newspapaper.
Some possible outcomes from the dialogue can include:
The facilitator answers questions and makes themselves available for individual contact. Facilitators should be prepared to check in, one to one, with any participant having difficulty with this experience. Referrals and resources are also a part of this phase. Facilitators should come prepared to make referrals to specific mental health providers if needed.
The framework and model presented here are only starting points. They can be used in one or more sessions. They are examples of strategies to actualize social justice. We encourage social workers to use this opportunity to discuss, develop and disseminate further ways to support a committment to brave actions in these difficult times.
For more information see the following Web sites:
These disengagement practices are interrelated and when unchecked result in the evolution of harmdoing (Stuab, 1989). Through the gradual weakening of one's moral compass, one's moral self-sanctions (society's moral compass and self-sanctions), hate talk becomes acceptable, incidents of hate action becomes the norm, the stage is set for more extreme actions of violence. Doing thing that don't seem "so" harmful, moves the bell curve such that it is more acceptable to an increased level of violence.
By taking action we trigger the reengagement of the offender's own moral compass. Taking action can mean anything from speaking-out when we witness an event to shopping at our local bodega run by a member of the "out" group.
The model intends to respond to the immediate climate of hate. It also recognizes the opportunity in crisis to move forward in our response to systemic issues of oppression, violence and hate.
The structure of the model is similar to that of critical incident stress debriefing. As with such debriefings, the model is intended to use in a group format.
Wrap-Up Phase
Educators for Social Responsibility
Special thanks to Laurie Sullivan
Small Steps: A Tolerance Program
American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
National Association of Social Workers
One America in the 21st Century. President Clinton's initiative on race: a discussion guide.