New technological means (technology of communication and mobility, internet, airplanes, etc.) that allow for a) new visions of the world, b) the ingathering of humankind (anthropological term for the coming-together of tribes, Ury, 1999) and c) for a continuous uprising of underlings

>

•  To summarize Ury (1999), most of humankind's history went by relatively peacefully, with small bands of hunter-gatherers cooperating within noticeably egalitarian societal structures. The available abundance of wild food provided hunter-gatherers with an expandable pie of resources and a win-win frame. Roughly 10,000 years ago, agriculturalism began to emerge, giving rise to hierarchical societies, framing life within a win-lose logic, and fuelling war. In the wake of the most recent transition, technological innovations enable humans to relate to their home, planet Earth, in profoundly new ways. People around the globe communicate and meet as never before. At present Homo sapiens is about to create a global knowledge society, says Ury, thus returning to the win-win frame of hunter-gatherers, and thereby regaining the potential for relatively peaceful egalitarian societal structures for the global "tribe" of humankind.
•  Ironically, we might add, the technological means for this most recent transition were provided not least by Homo sapiens' attention to warfare, which turns inappropriate, at least in its classic form, in the global village. And these technological innovations give underlings the tools to link up and form uprisings, for the first time in history, feeding a continuous uprising. All three features, the new vision of the world, the new means for coming-together, and the continuous uprising of underlings, represent new phenomena and in many ways make "lessons from history" obsolete. Profoundly new ways of thinking must be developed.

New visions of the world

>

•  Planet Earth has finally become visible as what it always was, a tiny planet in a vast universe, and home to all humankind. Television news programs around the world begin with the image of a turning globe, a view that no human being in the past had access to.

Ingathering of humankind (we could also label it globalization, or the coming-into-being of One single global village, which represents the coming-into-being of One single in-group of humanity)

>

•  The ingathering of humankind turns formerly rather separate entities into one single entity, where relationships play a more important role than before. No longer have separate entities merely separate "interests." The quality of their mutual relationships gains weight. In short, the decisive element for potential conflict moves from separate interests to the quality of relationships.
•  In an atmosphere of mutual respect, conflicting interests will be accommodated, in an atmosphere characterized by dynamics of humiliation, conflicting interests may be used to fuel violence.

Shift to a more
relational global life world , weakening of the Security Dilemma , shift from fear to humiliation

>

•  The term global village signifies that at the global level One single ingroup is currently emerging and that the notion of outgroups disappears; what emerges is One single family of humankind. As long as rather separate entities dominated the global theatre, the Security Dilemma was strong. It left no other option to people than continuous fear of unexpected attacks from outside. The coming-into being of One single ingroup, in contrast, brings people into mutual relations. No longer do they belong to separate entities that seem mutually opaque and incomprehensible. People enter into relationships, with all their potential outcomes, from forming friendships to feeling humiliated when respect and recognition are felt lacking. In the wake of a weakening Security Dilemma, fear of the unknown outsider, as dominant emotion, gives place to the desire to be recognized and appreciated by fellow human beings or to feelings of humiliation when respect, recognition and appreciation are perceived to be lacking.

Human Rights
(entailing two historically new elements, a) representing in-group ethics, now globalized, with out-group ethics losing their scope, and b) the historically first continuous uprising of underlings)

>

•  Human Rights ideals in many ways resemble the ethical norms that people usually apply within what they regard their ingroup. In tact with the ingathering (anthropological term for coming-together) of humankind, ingroup ethics apply to the entire world, and out-group ethics lose their scope.
•  Human Rights ideals in addition entail a revolution; their advocates drive a transition away from societies where ranked worthiness of human beings (lesser beings and higher beings) was normal, to the notion of equal dignity for all (Lindner has coined the term egalization for this revolution, matching the term globalization; globalization describes the trend towards the horizontal coming-together of humankind, while egalization describes the vertical coming-together of humankind, on one single level of equal dignity).
•  Equal dignity for all is a norm that turns a host of formerly appropriate strategies into violations. And these violations carry the potential to elicit feelings of humiliation. For example, security and peace can no longer be attained by parading "strength" and holding down people by sheer force. While this might have rendered humble underlings in former times, it does no longer.

Dynamics of humiliation (from honor-humiliation to dignity-humiliation; the phenomenon of humiliation gains significance through a) the emergence of Human Rights ideals, and b) as a result of the new and more relational reality of the world)

>

•  As soon as Human Rights ideals have entered the hearts and minds of people, the notion of humiliation changes profoundly as compared to pre-Human Rights contexts, and it gains weight. Formerly it was seen as the duty of underlings to accept being put down. They had no right to invoke feelings of humiliation. Only masters were permitted to label their privileged position as "honorable" and defend their honor against attempts to humiliate it. In Human Rights context the situation is turned on its head. Underlings are empowered, which means that they are permitted to use words such as oppression or humiliation to label their lowly state, while masters are told that they ought to descend from arrogating superiority and adopt the new humility of equal dignity, together with risen-up underlings.

Arrogation


Humility


Humiliation

Brigid Donelan kindly comments this model as follows (personal message, December 20, 2004), "This is a model with twin features: one a historical trend and the other a contemporary potential/choice. We may think of humanity evolving through stages of pride, honor and dignity. We can also see that each stage is 'alive and well' within each contemporary individual, as a choice/potential. The value of the model lies in clarifying the choice, and suggesting a trend towards emergence of a 'global knowledge society,' for which there is certainly evidence, and benefits for all."

Consequences of dynamics of humiliation

>

Feelings of humiliation may lead to
•  Depression and apathy
•  Urge to retaliate with inflicting humiliation (in humiliation entrepreneurs such as Hitler; genocide, terrorism)
•  Constructive social change (Mandela)
The dynamics of humiliation play out at all levels, at macro, meso, and micro interpersonal levels, and even at intrapersonal levels.

New public policies
for driving not only globalization but also egalization and create a peaceful and just world

>

•  New decent institutions have to be built, both locally and globally, that prevent and avoid dynamics of humiliation (Decent Society, Margalit, 1996).
•  New attention has to be given to maintaining relationship of equal dignity.
•  New social skills have to be learned in order to maintain relations of equal dignity. We need not least, a new type of leaders, Mandelas, who are no longer autocratic dominators and humiliation-entrepreneurs, but knowledgeable, wise facilitators and motivators, who lead toward respectful and dignified inclusion of all humankind as opposed to hateful polarization.
•  All three tasks, albeit informed by ideas and practices developed in the past, are historically new and unparalleled in their scope. To help render a future global society that is peaceful and just, where equal dignity for all is respected and dynamics of humiliation prevented, Lindner calls for a Moratorium on Humiliation to be included into new public policy planning.

•  Both at the global and local level, the paradigm of good quality policing of neighborhoods needs to replace the paradigm of war on enemies. The global village, as any village, needs to maintain its inner security by good quality policing. War is typically waged with neighboring "villages." In the case of the global village, there is no "neighboring village" left. Thus the paradigm of war loses its anchoring in reality, and the paradigm of policing is what is left. And good quality policing connects coercion with respect.
•  A combination of coercion and respect that has to be striven for by the international community, the United Nations, and bystanders in general. Resources for the prevention, containment, and resolution of conflicts around the world are to be increased. Overpowering numbers of blue helmets/global policepersons with credible overpowering mandates and well-devised overpowering strategies are required, embedded in an overall approach of respect.

For the downtrodden around the world, be it women or discriminated minorities of any kind, who wish to carry out a successful and constructive uprising and change their lowly lot, a Mandela would have another threefold advice. He himself implemented this strategy most wisely:
•  First, underlings who wish to change their lowly situation constructively, have to psychologically step outside of the master-slave dyad and learn to think autonomously.
•  Second, they have to stop merely re-acting to the master's actions and definitions, and begin to act.
•  Third, underlings must teach their master elites that change is necessary and unavoidable, both normatively and practically, and that a peaceful transition is preferable to violence and war.

For third parties who are trying to secure peace around the world, yet another threefold approach seems significant:
•  First, it is important to identify the fault lines between moderates and extremists in opposing camps. Not the Singhalese or Tamils, for example, are the parties to reckon with, but the Mandelas (moderates) as opposed to the humiliation-entrepreneurs (extremists) on both sides.
•  Second, third parties need to facilitate alliances between moderates of both camps to transform violent reactions to feelings of humiliation among extremists.
•  Third, humiliating living conditions of the broad masses must be minimized, because otherwise frustrated masses will be open to recruitment by humiliation-entrepreneurs.

Sultan Somjee, Kenyan ethnographer honored by the UN for his efforts to preserve indigenous people's peace traditions, says in response to the Iraqi Prisoner Abuse of 2004, "Humiliation does not have nationality, religion, color or gender. Humiliation of one human being humiliates humanity and our dignity of being." I would add, only if we avoid institutions, attitudes, and behavior with humiliating effects will we create a future for our world in the spirit of Kofi Annan's promotion for the Olympic Games of 2004, namely "celebrate humanity."