BY MULUGETA GUDETA
In order to understand the psychology of hate, one has to go into a brief examination of the mental mechanisms that give rise to hateful feelings in a person. Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud is believed to be the first person who gave a scientific insight into the nature of personal or group hate.
According to Freud, “conflicts repressed into the unconscious are retained. From time to time they may overcome repression and reemerge into conscious appreciation, precipitating anxiety or panic. To counteract this, the individual unconsciously produces various defense mechanisms, which become part of that person’s character. Examples of defense mechanisms include projection, where the individual ascribes to others his or her own unconscious desires (“I hate you,” for example, becomes “You hate me”), and reaction formation, where the individual adopts a pattern of behavior directly opposed to a strong unconscious drive.”
Freud observed similar psychological mechanisms at work in the case of group or ethnic hate that is born and develops right in people’s mind. In a way, hate is born in the mind as feeling of hostility and then grows into something that shapes human behavior only to end up becoming a group or ethnic consciousness manifestation of repressed conflicts in the human unconscious. Freud was basically a scientist who radically and successfully approached human personality and how it is shaped and influenced. However, Freud was also interested in the arts and culture as well as their relations to human character.
His findings have also proved relevant to events in the course of human history when the forces of evil took the upper hand and forced human communities to act in ways that influenced by feelings of hatred and hostility to one another particularly in the last two wars. His understanding of hate and its devastating consequences can also be of use in our times when human communities in many parts of the world where conflicts claim the lives of innocent people.
Freud devoted much of his time developing his theories of personality but also applied his theories to other disciplines. According to other sources, “After the onset of World War I Freud devoted little time to clinical observation and concentrated on the application of his theories to the interpretation of religion, mythology, art, and literature. Among his later writings are Totem and Taboo (1913), Ego and the Id (1923), New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1933), and Moses and Monotheism (1939).”
Commenting on the nature of Nazism, and the difference with Freud’s vision, US writer Thomas Pynchon once quoted as saying, “Yes, you hate me. But didn’t I try to atone? If I had been a real Nazi, I’d have chosen Jung…But I chose Freud instead, the Jew. Freud’s vision of the world has no Buchenwalds in it.”
We can perhaps extend the theories of conflicts in the unconscious mind and its manifestations in hate mongering in particular and apply it to analysis of ongoing group or ethnic and the ideological perpetrators of this kind of behavior with their hate speeches and calls for violence in order to fuel ethnic hatred and violence.
According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia, “Ethnic hatred, inter-ethnic hatred, racial hatred, or ethnic tension refers to feelings and acts of prejudice and hostility towards an ethnic group in various degrees.
There are multiple origins for ethnic hatred and the resulting ethnic conflicts. In some societies it is rooted in tribalism, while in others it originates from a history of non-peaceful co-existence and the resulting actual disputed issues. In many countries incitement to ethnic or racial hatred is a criminal offense. Often ethnic conflict is enhanced by nationalism and feeling of national superiority—for which reason inter-ethnic hatred borders with racism, and often the two terms are conflated.”
Hate speech is therefore the driving engine for inciting ethnic hostilities and that is basically why in many countries, including in Rwanda in 1994, where hate speech by the media led to the 100-days genocide in which close to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus lost their lives. Here in Ethiopia too, ethnic hatred and hate speech are used to foster deadly violence between various ethnic groups by extremists and media activists. “Ethnic hatred has often been exploited and even fueled by some political leaders to serve their agenda of seeking to consolidate the nation or gain electorate by calling for a united struggle against a common enemy (real or imaginary). An example for ethnic hatred is the hatred of the Romani people in Europe. The Romani people, also known as Gypsies are the marginalized and persecuted ethnic groups in Europe.”
“Media persuasion plays a role in dissemination of ethnic hatred. Media presence spreads underlying messages that negatively portrays certain ethnic groups to the eye of the public. For example, political elites use media exposure to influence the views of the viewers towards a certain propaganda.”
This was what happened in those tragic days in Rwanda almost 30 years ago, when the radio station infamously known as Radio Mille Collines systematically spread fictitious stories and stereotypes about the Tutsis in order to saw hatred in the hearts and minds of Hutus who were mobilized for the genocide. This is also what is happening in countries like Kenya and Ethiopia where ethnic extremists are using social media to do the same job.
According to the same sources, “The continuous use of mass media as an apparatus to spread negative image of ethnic groups is seen throughout variations of history. Most media hate speech that amplified worldwide attention are experienced in Rwanda and Yugoslavia… Today, social media plays a role in ethnic conflicts in Kenya. Ethnicity is a big part in determining voting patterns in Kenya; however, many associate ethnicity with grievances that mobilize patterns of differences, hatred, and violence.”
History has recorded enough evidence as to the need to effectively deal with hate speech and the role of the media in promoting this major vice or crime. According to Ethiopian law, “Hate speech” means speech that deliberately promotes hatred, discrimination or attack against a person or an discernable group of identity , based on ethnicity, religion, race, gender or disability; “Disinformation” means speech that is false, is disseminated by a person who knew or should reasonably have known the falsity of the information and is highly likely to cause a public disturbance, riot, violence or conflict”
Various legal instruments and enforcement mechanism were invented around the world to stop hate speech as a dangerous and criminal exercise. The objectives of Ethiopian law against hate speech aims at ensuring that in their exercise of freedom of expression, individuals will not engage in speech that incites violence, is likely to cause public disturbance or promotes hatred and discrimination against a person or an identifiable group or community based on ethnicity, religion, race, gender or disability; promote tolerance, civil discourse and dialogue, mutual respect and understanding and strengthening democratic governance; control and suppress the dissemination and proliferation of hate speech, disinformation and other related false and misleading information.
Freedom of speech and hate speech are contradictory concepts and practice that are also mutually exclusive. Free speech has also legal limitations in even the most democratic countries in the world. In the US for instance, “Freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, both oral and written, from governmental prior restraint, except as such expression constitutes libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, or criminal conduct such as bribery, perjury, or incitement to riot. In the U.S., this freedom is protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and is considered essential to the vitality of representative government. At the core of 1st Amendment concerns is the protection of expression that is critical of government policies.
In a 2020 study published by Aron Dekol and Bebizuh Mulugta, and entitled “Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech in Ethiopia: Observations” we read the following: “In the Ethiopian case, ‘Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation No. 1185/ 2020’ has been enacted. The Proclamation indicates prohibited acts of hate speech and its exceptions. In particular, the generic terms contained in the definition given to ‘hate speech’ need to be carefully examined. However, the implications of provisions that set exceptions to ‘hate speech’ in the new law have not yet been subject to adequate academic discourse.”
Not only academic circles but also the media and the public have not yet come to terms with the legal and practical implications of hate speech and the issue has particular relevance at this critical time when ethnic conflicts and violence are arbitrarily exercised as if they were constitutional rights and not constitutionally prohibited practice. A lot remains to be done in this area by all citizens alarmed by hate speech and ethnic conflicts that are threatening to reverse the little gains that are made in the last four years since the onset of the political reform movements in Ethiopia. The advent of the social media outlets might have made the challenges all the more formidable. However, the time might have come to launch a public debate as to what constitutes legally offensive or criminal speech and what represents constitutionally sanctioned freedom of speech.
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD FRIDAY 8 JULY 2022
