Commentary

Paradoxes in Making Friends of Enemies

Richard Farson

It goes without saying, of course, that the best way to avoid terrorists’ attacks is to become less a target of their hostility. If we are to judge from the sharply increased hostility that much of the rest of the world feels toward us as a result of our invasion of Afghanistan, and our one-sided support for Israel, our government has so far not done too well in that department.

The short-lived Office of Strategic Influence, with its announced policy of providing disinformation did not help. Nor did the leak of the Pentagon report on the changed policy with respect to our use of nuclear weapons, naming seven countries including nuclear powers Russia and China as well as Iran and North Korea, all countries that had been moving toward better relations with the US. Even our allies were shocked. Our foreign policies, mainly our War on Terrorism, continue to deepen the hatred.

Having shot itself in both feet, the administration must rely more on the special office it created for advertising industry icon, Charlotte Beers. She is charged with the task of using modern communication techniques to create a positive image of America among the angry people of the Middle East. Essentially, she must transform strongly held attitudes, getting those who hate us come to like and respect us. Not an easy assignment. Even though new money is being appropriated to enable the Voice of America to reach more Arab countries, the attitudes we want to change tend to be held tenaciously. But attitude shifts are not impossible. Moreover they are not always gradual. They can even move from one pole to the opposite—as we often witness in politics, and among reformed individuals from all walks of life. Enemies can quickly become friends, and vice versa.

In the pursuit of those hearts and minds now locked in fundamentalist religions and passionate nationalism, Ms. Beers may have to incorporate some new strategies. What may make sense on Madison Avenue, may not work to meet this new challenge. To sell the American brand of values to our potential enemies she cannot rely only on the kinds of commercially successful techniques that Proctor and Gamble might use to sell soap. To create positive bonds between them and us she will probably have to embrace a few paradoxes.

The fundamental shift in thinking required for this task is to realize that direct efforts to make them feel positively about us are of limited value. Paradoxically, the task is not to get them to respect us, but to get us to respect them. If we can accomplish that, then the natural reciprocity of human relations will ultimately bring about a similar response in the other.

We frequently see this phenomenon in management. Bosses who operate to try to get their people to like them are less effective than those who operate so that they will like their people. This means, first, they must not feel victimized by their staff members, and so must take action to end any possible victimization. They do this by straight talk to the employees. But it also means that they become engaged with them, they get to know their people, because in most cases familiarity does not breed contempt, but friendliness. It is hard for employees not to come to like a boss who likes them. On the other hand, no technique can hide the truth if bosses really don’t like their subordinates. They will come to hate him for that.

That is perhaps the main reason why we are hated. We simply don’t respect these Middle Eastern people who seem so different, and so remote, from us. This means, of course, that much of Ms. Beers efforts must be directed at us, to provide the kind of information to our leaders and our citizens that could increase our understanding and consequently our respect, and yes, even perhaps our affection and compassion, for these angry masses. Like the effective manager, we need to both talk straight and offer friendly engagement.

Unfortunately for Ms. Beers, warfare is always conducted by painting the face of the enemy not just as hostile, but as evil, even subhuman. She will be up against a powerful undermining force in the propaganda that accompanies war fighting. The psychology employed to motivate soldiers to fight an enemy, is obviously very different from the psychology involved in creating bonds of understanding. But that is the fundamental nature of a paradoxical strategy—the ability to go in opposite directions at the same time.

We saw this strategy exercised in the war in Afghanistan where we dropped bombs and food at the same time. In a sense we do this with our diplomatic efforts, which continue throughout warfare. Diplomats must be cautious, skeptical, even wary and tough, but they do not, and cannot, share the soldier’s view of the enemy as monsters. It is entirely possible to operate on several levels of perception of the other. We do it all the time. To some extent, attitudes are determined by the roles we play and the situations in which we play them.

She might keep in mind some other paradoxes as well. People tend to like those whom they help, not those who help them. That truth runs counter to the whole idea of humanitarian aid, which, of course, we should not abandon in any case. Indeed, we should increase it. But the positive effects of such aid on increasing their affection for us are minor compared to how these people would feel about us if they could help us. They will change their attitudes toward us when they can have an impact on us, get us to understand something about them, educate us, change us in some way. That is why the Peace Corps works so well. It isn’t just the aid our program gives. The volunteers return changed, and consequently those they left behind in those countries are changed also.

It’s also important to remember that we tend to lose respect for those whom we can deceive. When we are successful in deceiving others we tend not to see the best in them. Indeed, we lose respect not only for the fooled individuals, but for people in general. Deception ultimately damages the deceiver more than the deceived. Disinformation backfires.

Finally, she might consider that the more important a relationship, the less skills and techniques matter. That is, efforts to build bonds between people that are not grounded in genuine attitudes are not likely to succeed. When one desires a lasting relationship it must be built on authentic feelings.

In that effort we may often not know exactly what to do, and feel vulnerable because of it. But that is all right too. We felt vulnerable on 9//11 and even countries with whom we had been at odds liked us better at that moment. It is not always a measure of strength to know what to do. For example, not knowing how to have a romance is what makes it a romance in the first place. If you always know what to do, it’s not a romance, it’s a seduction.

Our relationships with these Middle Eastern peoples are the most important we now have. Our lives depend on them. We cannot risk a seduction.