The child dressed as a 'baby bomber'

The child dressed as a ‘baby bomber’, Daily Mail, Friday June 28,2002

1. The article depicts a Palestinian child clothed as a ‘suicide bomber’, with the underlying assumptions of inter-group discrimination between groups, social learning theory and conformity.

One of the few certainties of the conflict is the discrimination between the two ‘groups’. The attitude of the Palestinian side can be seen from the article, “a large bomb making factory and more than a hundred devices” as that of the Israelis, “Israeli forces swarmed into Hebron”. From the situation it is clear ethnocentrism has been exploited. M.Sherif (1956) summer camp experiments suggest that just being in a group is enough to create ethnocentrism. Tajfel (1970) conducted ‘The Minimal Group Studies’ with the minimal group paradigm using empirical research involving 14 to 15 year olds boys, creating two situations, which give rise to ethnocentrism. Tajfel (1970) defined the situations as in-group out-group discrimination.

Social learning theory, Bandura et al (1961) attempts to explain the ‘baby bomber’. This accentuates the study “Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models”. Israeli leaders believe that ‘Palestinian children are being taught hatred from an early age’ thus creating a cycle of revenge, retaliation and retribution. Two hypothesises proposed were ‘learning is transferable’ and ‘those exposed to the aggressive model will be more aggressive’.

Conformity is very much linked to the third assumption. As with so many terrorists, Palestinian children have a problem of violent authority figures, “kindergartens in the Gaza Strip were indoctrinating children as young as five to support suicide bomb attacks”. The “Behavioural Study of Obedience” conducted by Milgram (1963), conducted as a single blind quasi experiment researched obedience. Although the experiment examined figures of scientific authority it can be applied, as it’s the respect commanded by the figure that creates the obedience thus children will obey violent authoritarians. The article itself shows how obedient to authority some Palestinian people ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

2. Tajfel (1970) in his experiment maintained that trivial matters such as art preference assigned by someone else could trigger discrimination between groups. However the ecological validity of his experiment is questionable as it is not representative of real life. In Israel it is the land that is in question and both lay claim to it. Problems over the land has lead to prejudice which then becomes discrimination that appears to have risen from inter-group rivalry over the disputed land. Despite the experiment being dogged by demand characteristics (participants possibly guessing the variable at study), the relevance of the general results shows the readiness of discrimination between participants unknown to each other.

Aggressive role models are probably the most serious of the three assumptions. With the terrorists and army respectively the two state leaders Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon both engage in aggressive politics. Bandura Ross & Ross (1961) supported their two hypothesises and another showing that those exposed to non aggressive models displayed non aggressive behaviour. It could be concluded that the Palestinian youth are pre-disposed to prejudice and aggression at an early age and thus may not develop a sense of reason. It is also clear that imitation and reinforcement are key concepts in this behaviourism approach.

The issue of conformity or to be more precise obedience is very much key to break the cycle. Milgram’s (1963) experiment sparked an ethical debate and also one over its ecological validity. Orne (1962) suggested that the participants were not deceived but were responding to the demands of the social psychological. Support did come from Hoffling et al (1966) where nurses were asked to administer lethal injections to patients and 21 out of 22 appeared to do it and through Sheridan and King (1972) where people were asked to deliver shocks to a puppy, with the request met with no disobedience despite obvious stress to the animal. The willingness of people to conform is relevant in an area where figures from politicians to terrorists are revered.

3. The easiest solution to the first assumption and the conflict would be the handing over of land from Israel to Palestine, as UN resolutions and international pressure have suggested. It is the inter-group rivalry that created the prejudice leading to discrimination that defines the two people as in and out groups. Besides the land, Israeli incursions and Palestinian terrorists create further flashpoints for inter-group rivalry, ultimately leading to discrimination from both sides.

The effect of role models in the conflict is profound. One certainty is that of the aggressive role model and how it has influenced both parties. I suggest that Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat should promote themselves as ‘assertive’ rather than ‘aggressive’ leaders, thus by doing so it is hoped they would become non-aggressive models. In reference to Bandura et al (1961) younger generations should support these figureheads.

Milgram’s study implies that people are inclined to adopt obedient behaviours with regard to authority figures. Therefore I propose that a useful solution and application of the study would be to establish non-aggressive leaders within Israeli politics. Instead of ‘removing’ obedience or conformity non-aggressive models could channel both re-directing them from aggressive models. As with all the suggestions this would take time and a rest bite in the conflict.