You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
There are three pieces in this collection of film and theater articles: “Representations of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’” by psychologist Ian Miller; “The Ghost Landscape of Israeli Movies” by journalist Hannah Brown; and “Troubled Sleep” which I wrote. What unites the three is the theme of terrorism and while never mentioned, its underlying biologic organization.
The “fight/flight” response has won most, if not all, of its Darwinian battles. It is a survivor. And so, it is with good reason that a group's reaction to an attack is to define the enemy, locate the enemy, then kill or flee the enemy. “Circling the wagons,” “us-them,” and “the nature of evil” are all aspects of this process. But then a question arises which I think these articles address—what happens next? What does the strong society do after attack? Does it maintain fight/flight? And if so, for how long? And if so, at what level? Is there a point where we need to consider our enemy (as ourselves)? Is there a point where survival requires that we think in a way that goes beyond fight/flight? Is there a point where patriotic values become dangerous? And isn't there a danger, an evolutionary danger, in not trying to understand our enemies just as our enemies may, for whatever reason, be trying to understand us?
I have always been a little wary of patriotism, not because I don't love my country, but because I have learned to respect the awesome biologic organization that has come to be known as fight/flight. There is a danger to being unprepared, but there is also a danger to being prepared for too long. That truth holds for an individual and for a society.
Richard Brockman, M.D.
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
Columbia University
College of Physicians and Surgeons
Columbia Psychoanalytic Institute