Peck on the My Lai Massacre

In this post, I'd like to talk about M. Scott Peck's discussion of the My Lai Massacre in his book, People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil.  Wikipedia defines the My Lai Massacre as: "the Vietnam War mass murder of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968, by United States Army soldiers of 'Charlie' Company of 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade of the America[n] Division.  Most of the victims were women, children, infants, and elderly people."  The American troops did this because they believed that these South Vietnamese civilians were helping out the Viet-Cong, which the U.S. was fighting.

To what does Peck attribute this act of group evil?  Peck says that the American soldiers had become accustomed to bloodshed on account of their experience in war.  He also states that they were under an extreme amount of stress, for they could be unexpectedly injured or killed by booby-traps, plus the enemy was hard to find.  Peck also notes that the massacre occurred in 1968, which was before the U.S. military forces in Vietnam consisted largely of draftees, and so the Americans in the Vietnam War at that time were mostly people who wanted to be there (the implication perhaps being that some of them gravitated towards a killing role), or they may have included people who were sent there because they were troublemakers.  Another consideration is the emphasis on following orders within the military culture.

But Peck also condemns U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in general.  He believes that it was narcissistic, as the U.S. became more deeply involved in order to save face.  Peck also disputes the narrative that we needed to contain Communism, as if Communism were an expanding empire, for Communist nations were not monolithic and often acted against one another.  Moreover, the U.S. was disingenuous to criticize Communism for its repressive regimes, when the U.S. itself supported oppressive regimes.  On a similar note, on pages 286-287 of The Different Drum, Peck portrays Ho Chi Minh as a nationalist up-riser against colonial imperialism, and Peck avers that the U.S. pushed Ho Chi Minh into the arms of Communist Russia by siding with Vietnam's colonizers rather than Ho Chi Minh's nationalist movement.

Another issue that Peck discusses in his chapter on the My Lai Massacre in People of the Lie is the avoidance of responsibility.  For one, compartmentalization passes the buck and thus enables people to avoid responsibility, for it's ambiguous where exactly the buck stops.  This is especially the case in governmental institutions.  Second, a number of Americans prior to 1969 were not invested in the Vietnam War, for they were not paying a significant amount of taxes to support it, plus not many of the American forces in the region consisted of draftees, but rather of volunteers.  According to Peck, it was when the draft became more of a looming force in people's lives that anti-war activism entered the mainstream.  Peck's point may be (and I'm open to correction) that the American people themselves bore some responsibility for the war in Vietnam, but certain factors enabled them to avoid recognizing their responsibility for it.

What are my reactions to Peck's analysis?  First of all, I could identify with Peck's statement that extreme stress can encourage people to compromise their morality.  Peck talks about when his wisdom teeth were pulled and he was especially self-centered and temperamental immediately after that experience!  It's a challenge to be considerate to others when one is under stress or in pain, physically and emotionally.  Consequently, I admire people I know who do not feel well, yet they still manage to be kind.  I stand in awe of that kind of strength.

Second, would I label the Vietnam War as evil?  I don't consider it to be an entirely narcissistic endeavor on the United States' part, for the U.S. was fighting Communism, which was a repressive force, and it also sought to assist South Vietnam's economy.  But there were evils that came out of it, the deaths of Americans and Vietnamese people perhaps being the greatest.  I agree with Peck that we were staying in the Vietnam War for a questionable reason, namely, to save face.  I can understand the argument that we need for other countries to respect us if we are to successfully stand up to evil and be a peacekeeper, but I often wonder if saving face is really worth the cost and sacrifice.  In The Different Drum, Peck says in his discussion about the arms race that someone needs to be the bigger person and back down (or Peck says something to that effect, if my recollection is accurate).  When I read that, I thought about Gorbachev, who was willing to dismantle the Communist empire in Eastern Europe.  Gorbachev probably had ulterior motives: he realized that Russia couldn't continue its involvement in the Cold War and sustain its economy at the same time.  But I admire Gorbachev for being a big person (which is not to say that I believe that leaders should always back down).

Third, do I agree with Peck on whether Communism was a real problem?  I don't know.  I've long heard the leftist narrative that we pushed revolutionary forces in other countries into the Communist camp through our own failure to support them.  But then there are right-wingers who come back and say that some of the revolutionary leaders made pro-Communist statements before we supposedly pushed them into the Communist camp.  Some attempt to correct me when I call certain revolutionaries Communists, for they tell me that the revolutionaries were nationalists, not Communists.  Whether they're entirely correct on this or not, they may be on to something, for I doubt that people became revolutionaries simply because they desired the expansion of the Communist empire; rather, there were serious problems in their country that they wanted to redress.  Do I agree with Peck that Communist nations were at odds with each other?  There were right-wingers who argued that Communist nations also cooperated on projects.  And yet, a significant assumption behind Richard Nixon's foreign policy was that Communist countries were not necessarily on the same side, so he could use them against each other in conducting the Vietnam War.

Completing The Different Drum

I finished M. Scott Peck's The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace.

My latest reading had a few paradoxes, even if Peck may not classify them as such.  He wants for groups to be inclusive, even politically, for he states that a Democrat seeking to form a group should include Republicans.  Yet, Peck wants for churches to take a bold stand against the arms race, which would probably alienate Republicans.  Peck is insistent that one should not leave a group, claiming that community is fostered when people stick with each other and work out their differences.  Yet, Peck earlier in the book tells the story about how he disappointed his parents by deciding not to continue his enrollment at an exclusive private school, choosing to go instead to another school, where he found genuine acceptance. This brought out the best in him.

I sympathize with Peck's emphasis on the importance of community, for I believe that, when people know each other, empathize with each other, value each other, and are open to learning from each other, things can be better than they would be otherwise.  But I myself would have difficulty participating in a number of communities, to tell you the truth.  Working through my differences with other human beings is sometimes easy for me, and sometimes it's not.  In my younger years, I one time wrote a letter to a leader of a group I was in detailing my problems with him, and he reprimanded me for not telling him about this stuff before----for not telling him at the time of his offensive behavior that he was acting inappropriately.  But it's not easy for me to process on the spot what my problem is with a person or a situation, and then to come up with the words to express my concern.  Moreover, unfortunately, I'm somewhat of a "don't rock the boat" sort of person, so I have an approach that Peck calls "pseudocommunity", which is different from open, honest community.  One reason is that I want for people to like me.  Another is that I fear starting an argument that I won't be able to win, for I want to save face in as many social situations as I can.  Plus, I feel awkward being confrontational.  These are characteristics that I have that are barriers to me achieving real community with others.

I think that leadership in a group is important.  Peck said that he was accused of being a weak leader, and sometimes in the book he seems to indicate that he believes leaders should step back, keep a low profile,  and allow group members to resolve their differences openly and honestly.  But, in my opinion, group leaders are needed to keep the more articulate, glib, and narcissistic members from dominating the discussion and to give everyone a chance to talk.  I get so annoyed when group leaders don't do their job (as I understand it, of course!).  Peck appears to have some sensitivity to this concern, though, for at one point he mentions inviting quieter members into the discussion.  I think that the best way to do group is to do what twelve-step groups do, and what one Asperger's Syndrome support group that I attended did: to allow people to share without interruption, one at a time, within a reasonable time limit.  There are weaknesses to this approach: for example, it's parallel sharing, as opposed to dialogue.  But perhaps we can permit people in their own shares to respond to what other people said, or we can create a situation in which a person shares a problem that he has, then people in the group would share, one at a time, their thoughts on the person's problem.

Spiritual Alienation, Yet Extroversion

I got a lot read of M. Scott Peck's The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace.  A significant part of this book overlaps with Peck's Further Along the World Less Traveled, in the sense that Peck discusses the four spiritual stages and tells some of the same stories.  That tells me that I'd probably do well to read Peck's People of the Lie next, and after that to move on to something else entirely.  I'm somewhat interested in reading about American socialist Norman Thomas, who was also a Presbyterian minister.

In my latest reading, I noticed a paradox.  On the one hand, spiritual growth can lead to greater loneliness, for a person who is spiritually mature does not always value what other people value.  On the other hand, spiritual growth can provide one with the tools to be a part of a community, to lay aside one's own selfish desires or prejudices for the good of others.

I've heard this sort of insight before.  For example, at an Intervarsity meeting that I once attended, a guest speaker was telling us that, as we spiritually grow, we will feel more and more that this world is not our home, and yet we will be having a redemptive effect on the world.

Do I identify with this, in terms of where I am now?  Well, I can't say that I feel at home in this world, but that's not so much because I'm spiritually advanced, but rather on account of my Asperger's----or whatever socially inhibits me and makes me appear unusual to others.  Not sharing certain interests with other people----such as sports----can also alienate me from them, somewhat.  Do I feel alone when it comes to my spiritual interests, as the men in Peck's book whom I mentioned yesterday did, leading to the formation of the Basement Group?  Yes and no.  I'd say "yes" in the sense that I don't feel that too many people value what I have to say when it comes to spirituality, and that can lead to a lonely feeling.  (UPDATE: I don't mean my church's Bible study here, since I am accepted there, whether people agree with me or not.)  But I'd also say "no" because there is no dearth of places where people can discuss spirituality, especially online, and one can probably find people who are roughly on the same page: for example, I can find places where the people discussing religion seek spirituality but don't particularly care for conservative Christianity.  Another point that I'd like to make is that, while I enjoy reading and listening to the insights of others because that can be edifying, I myself don't particularly care for discussing religion and the Bible with other people.  I like to read the Bible for myself, for in that context I'm not put down for being stupid or for "missing the point" (as if there even is "the point", as opposed to your point and my point).

I can't see into people's hearts, but I have met some who probably do feel that they are lonely because they are so spiritually advanced over others.  But, if they're so spiritually advanced, why are they impatient with those who are not on the same stage of the spiritual journey as they are? 

The Basement Group

In my latest reading of The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, M. Scott Peck talks about the Basement Group, a group that gathered together once a week to discuss spirituality.

In Peck's story, the Basement Group started with a psychologist named Ralph, who approached a minister named Peter right after the church service.  Ralph felt lonely because was a Christian and had no one with whom he could discuss spiritual matters, for people in his profession were not interested in religion, nor was his wife, who hated religion because she was recovering from her fundamentalist background.  Peter, meanwhile, did not feel feel that he could discuss spirituality with many of the people in his congregation.  Consequently, Ralph and Peter formed a Christian support group.  It drew more people, including a few atheists.  It also had to try to define boundaries, especially when one member, Ted, continually came to the group drunk.  What interested me is that, although this group was an accepting community, the members found that they did not particularly enjoy partying together, and so they decided to keep their focus on spiritual matters.

Problems in and Outside of Community

In my latest reading of M. Scott Peck's The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, I could identify with some of the people and problems Peck discussed.  Peck mentioned a man named Marshall who wanted to focus on abstract theology rather than community building.  Peck talked about man named Archie who spoke in poetry, and so people didn't understand what he was getting at.  Then there was a shy lady named Margaret who did not say anything in a group Peck was leading, and Peck thought that her experience was a failure, and yet she told Peck that her time in group was the most joyful experience she ever had.  And there was the problem of groups that had arrived at community coming to an end, and the group members having to go back to the cold world.

A Place Where People Can Be

I started M. Scott Peck's The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace.  I'd like to use as my starting-point something that Peck says on page 103, as he describes a hypothetical group that has entered into a state of community:

"When she is finished [speaking] there is a hush.  It goes on a long time.  But it does not seem long.  There is no uneasiness in this silence.  Slowly, out of the silence, another member begins to talk.  He too is speaking very deeply, very personally, about himself.  He is not trying to heal or convert the first person.  He's not even trying to respond to her.  It's not she but he who is the subject.  Yet the other members of the group do not sense he has ignored her.  What they feel is that it is as if he is laying himself down next to her on an altar."

What I've gotten out of Peck so far is that community is a place where people can be and share who they truly are, while finding acceptance.  As Peck notes, this is rare.  But it's beautiful when it does happen.

I wonder how it can happen, though.  That's the topic of this book, for it concerns how we can create community rather than just experiencing it on a hit-and-miss basis.  But I have a hard time envisioning how community can happen, or rather how I can fit into a community.  Don't get me wrong----there have been a number of groups in which I have felt comfortable.  But feeling free to bare my soul before others and to show them who I truly am?  That occurs very, very, very rarely!

I don't entirely blame others for this----their desire to hog the limelight and dominate the discussion, their judgmental put-downs, etc.----for I myself am part of the problem.  I myself can be quite intolerant.  I could identify with one guy Peck mentioned (and appeared to disagree with) who complained that he did not like how people in the group focused on their negative experiences, for he thought that they should share what was positive in their lives as well.  I've felt that way in Asperger's support groups!

Moreover, if people are free to be who they truly are, then that will entail that they will disagree with each other.  Peck is critical of what he calls "Pseudocommunity", in which people try to avoid rocking the boat.  But some people may take it badly when someone disagrees with them, seeing such disagreement as a put-down.  And, while one may say that they should then defend their positions, not everyone is glib or quick at debating. 

Peck says that people in groups should use "I" statements rather than making generalizations.  Rather than saying that divorce in general is bad, Ralph (to use a fictitious example) should say that his own divorce was hard on him.  Someone else may have had a different experience with divorce!  I think that this is an important point: that an essential part of community is recognizing that people are in different places and have had different experiences.  I don't think that this by itself creates intimacy, for I have been in groups in which people were required to use "I" statements, and, while such groups ran smoothly, there wasn't much intimacy among the people.  But perhaps it can set the stage for people to share and thus to become intimate.

To come back to the passage that I quoted at the beginning of this post, I'm the sort of person who would be hurt if someone talked after me without addressing what I had just said.  I'd see that as a rejection, as someone believing that my point was unworthy of consideration.  Why?  Because I'm insecure about whether or not I am accepted in groups.  But it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.  Suppose someone was sharing to place himself on the altar alongside of me----that he wasn't ignoring me, but we were taking turns at sharing who we are, and now it's his turn.  (This is rare in a number of groups.  Twelve Step recovery groups probably approximate it more than others, for many of them prohibit cross-talk and interruptions, but even in those groups there can be cliques and judgmental snark.)  And suppose that I felt accepted in a group, even if someone disagreed with me or ignored what I said.