NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY:THE IMPACT OF FEAR ON

INDIVIDUALS, INSTITUTIONS,AND SOCIETIES, PART II

SANDRA L. BLOOM, CommunityWorks

ABSTRACT This is the second in a series of four papers that look at the ways that mindsand bodies of individuals are affected by severe stress and use that as a way of developinga deeper understanding of what happens to stressed individuals who come together toform stressed organizations and the impact of this stress on organizational leaders. Theseries will also explore the parallel process that occurs when traumatized individuals andstressed organizations come together to form stressed societies. Part I focused on thebasic human stress response. In Part II, we will begin exploring the more extended impactof severe, chronic, and repetitive exposure to stress on the functioning of the emotionalsystem, the ways in which human beings tend to adapt to adversity and thus come to normalize highly abnormal behaviour.

UNMANAGEABLE AFFECT ANDAGGRESSION: LOSS OF ‘VOLUMECONTROL’

Infants are born with a number of raw‘affects’, the word used to describe the bio-logical building blocks of emotional expe-rience. At birth we have only two settingsfor our internal emotional ‘switch’: on andoff. As a child develops, caregivers, andlater peers, model and teach the manage-ment of these raw affective states so thataffective arousal comes to match the degreeof importance of the stimuli. As early as 11weeks, babies have already learned tomatch their mother’s expressions ofsadness, anger, fear and happiness and have begun to join these expressions with

behaviours that suggest that matching ismeaningful. They are also beginning thelifelong process that involves using infor-mation about emotion to make decisionsfor their own behaviour, including lookingto other people to know whether theyshould engage in certain behaviours(Salovey and Sluyter, 1996).

As a result of this complex process, bythe time we reach adulthood losing a penshould not arouse the same intensity of lossas losing a beloved pet; a neighbour’s doggoing through your trash (probably) doesnot arouse the same degree of anger as theneighbour smacking your child; a terrorismalert in another country does not producethe same level of fear as it does when the same alert occurs nearby. We call this

Psychotherapy and Politics International, 2(3) 212–228, 2004 © Whurr Publishers Ltd212

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 212

emotional modulation our ‘volume control’,using the analogy of a knob on a radio oramplifier. Although there is enormous cul-tural variation in the methods each cultureuses to manage specif ic affect states, allcultures teach their children to do so.Emotional management is critical to learn-ing and the capacity to exercise reasonedjudgement. Emotions prioritize thinking bydirecting attention to important informa-tion. Emotions are sufficiently vivid andavailable to be used as aids for judgementand memory. Emotional mood swingschange one’s perspective, encouraging mul-tiple points of view, and emotional statesdifferentially encourage specific problemapproaches (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).

Children who are exposed to repeatedexperiences of overwhelming arousal donot have the kind of safety and protectionthat they need for normal brain develop-ment and therefore they may never developnormal modulation of arousal, and thisseverely compromises their capacity foremotional management. As a result theyare frequently chronically irritable, angry,unable to manage aggression, impulsive,and anxious. This compromised emotionalmanagement interferes with learning andthe development of mature thoughtprocesses. Emotional dysregulation is adangerous handicap for the individual andfor the group because it is so likely to leadto violence directed at the self or others.

Children – and the adults they become –who experience compromised emotionalmanagement will experience high levels ofanxiety when alone and in interpersonalinteractions. They will understandablytherefore do anything they can to establishsome level of self-soothing and self-control. Under such circumstances, peoplefrequently turn to substances, like drugs oralcohol, or behaviours like sex or eating or

risk-taking behaviour, or even engagementin violence, including self-mutilation, all ofwhich help them to calm down, at leasttemporarily, largely because of the internalchemical effects of the substance or behav-iour. Human beings, human touch, couldalso serve as a self-smoothing device, butfor trauma survivors, trusting humanbeings may be too difficult.

As children or as adults, the experienceof overwhelming terror destabilizes ourinternal system of arousal – the internal‘volume control’ knob that we normallyuse to regulate our emotions. People whohave been traumatized lose this capacity to‘modulate arousal’ and ‘manage affect’.Instead of being able to adjust their‘volume control’, the person is reduced toonly an ‘on-or-off ’ switch, losing allcontrol over the amount of arousal theyexperience to any stimulus, even one asunthreatening as a lost pen or a neighbour’sdog. They tend to stay irritable, jumpy, andon-edge. It takes only a relatively minimalfearful stimulus for them to experienceterror and their own typical defensive reac-tions to fear.

To complicate the situation further –emotions can kill. It is possible to die offright or to die of a broken heart. Mostfrightened people do not die, however,because of the built-in ‘safety valve’ thatwe call ‘dissociation’. Dissociation isdefined as ‘a disruption in the usually inte-grated functions of consciousness,memory, identity, or perception of the environment’ (American PsychiatricAssociation, 1994). Dissociation buffersthe central nervous system against life-threatening shock. Through the dissocia-tion of affect we are able to cut off all ouremotions and in extreme cases of repetitiveand almost unendurable trauma this isknown as ‘emotional numbing’. We can

Neither liberty nor safety 213

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 213

214

also dissociate from the overwhelmingevent itself so that there are no words avail-able to even recall the event (amnesia). Thefailure to remember the events or toconnect the emotions associated with theevents with the memories of the events candoom the person to re-enact the traumaticevents later in life (Van der Kolk, 1989;Terr, 1990). Emotions are built-in, part ofour evolutionary, biological heritage andwe cannot eliminate them – we can onlysuppress them and this may not generallybe a good thing to do. There is an abun-dance of evidence from various sourcesthat unexpressed emotions may be verydamaging to one’s mental, social, cognitiveand physical health (Pennebaker, 1997).

The failure to develop healthy ways ofmanaging emotional arousal also interfereswith relationships. Mature emotional man-agement endows us with the abilities tointerpret the meanings that emotionsconvey regarding relationships, to under-stand complex feelings, and to recognizelikely transitions among emotions. Thegradual acquisition of this emotional intel-ligence allows us to monitor emotions inrelation to ourselves and others whilegiving us the ability to manage emotion inourselves and others by moderating nega-tive emotions and enhancing pleasant oneswithout repressing or exaggerating theinformation they convey (Mayer andSalovey, 1997).

Compromised emotional managementskills are also one mechanism of intergen-erational transmission since these skillsbuild up over time in the interactionbetween parent and child. Parents who havecompromised skills will be unable toprovide the important emotional learningexperiences that their children require.Instead, the children will adapt to theparental style of managing emotions.

LOSS OF ‘VOLUME CONTROL’ INAN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

How does an organization ‘manage’ emo-tional states? It does so through the normalproblem-solving, decision-making, andconflict-resolution methods that must existfor any organization to operate effectively.Although most organizations within oursociety function in a fundamentally hierar-chical, top-down manner, in a calm,healthy, well-functioning system there is acertain amount of natural democraticprocess that occurs in the day-to-day opera-tions of solving group problems, makingdecisions in teams, and resolving conflictamong members of the organization. Themore complex the work demands, thegreater the necessity for collaboration andintegration and therefore the more likelythat a system of teamwork will evolve. Fora team to function properly there must be acertain level of trust among team memberswho must all share in the establishment ofsatisfactory group norms. These are thenorms that enable the group to tolerate thenormal amount of anxiety that existsamong people working on a task; tolerateuncertainty long enough for creativeproblem solutions to emerge; promote bal-anced and integrated decision making sothat all essential points of view are synthe-sized; contain and resolve the inevitableconflicts that arise between members of agroup; and complete its tasks.

For groups, as for individuals, emotionsroutinely inform the thought processes ofthe group and are critical to group learningand judgement; therefore group emotionalprocesses must be constructively managedand contained. This is frequently the criticaljob of leadership. The more at ease the leaderis with promoting democratic processes and transparency while minimizing the

Bloom

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 214

potentially negative impact of hierarchicalstructures, the more effective the groupproblem solving is likely to be. In exertingdemocratic leadership he or she is therebyreducing the abusive use of power whilepromoting more creative problem solvingand diverse input enabling the evolution offar more complex strategies. The greaterthe availability of conflict resolution tech-niques, the greater the willingness on thepart of all group members to engage in, andeven welcome, conflict as a stimulant forcreativity and change. When there is lessconflict avoidance there are likely to be farfewer long-standing and corrosive buriedresentments.

In organizations under stress, however,this healthier level of function is likely tobe sacrificed in service of facing the emer-gency. Hierarchies can respond morerapidly and mobilize action to defendagainst further damage. Problems similar tothose we witness in individuals underchronic stress occur, however, when thisemergency state is prolonged or repetitive.Organizations can become chronicallyhyperaroused, functioning in crisis mode,unable to process one difficult experiencebefore another crisis has emerged.Hierarchical structures concentrate powerand, in these circumstances, power caneasily come to be used abusively and in away that perpetuates rather than attenuatesthe concentration of power. Transparencydisappears and secrecy increases under thisinfluence. Communication networksbecome compromised as those in powerbecome more punishing, and the likelihoodof error is increased as a result. In such asituation, conflicts tend to remain unre-solved and tension – and resentment –mount under the surface of everyday groupfunctioning. Helplessness, passivity, andpassive-aggressive behaviours on the part

of the underlings in the hierarchy increasewhile leaders become increasingly control-ling and punitive. In this way the organiza-tion becomes ever more radically split, withdifferent parts of the organization assumingthe role of managing and/or expressing dif-ferent emotions that are then subsequentlysuppressed. This is not a situation thatleads to individual or organizational healthbut instead to increasing levels of dysfunc-tion and diminished productivity.

In an organization under stress the loss of‘volume control’ or ‘affect modulation’ isevident in emotional extremes and highlevels of prevailing tension. At one extremethere may be an emotional numbing, with asevere constriction of emotional expres-sion. Walking into such an environment,one can sense an atmosphere of depression,apathy, a lack of energy, silence and constriction. An absence of humour, cama-raderie, and playfulness is evident. In sucha depressed organization, an employee canbounce into work in the morning, on top ofthe world, and upon entering the off iceexperience a sense of clouded miseryaccompanied by the sensation of an oppres-sive weight dropping down like a mantleover one’s shoulders. Activity may beslowed, workloads become suffocating,thinking is banked down to a minimum,productivity declines. There is also likely tobe a high level of illness among themembers of the organization.

At the other extreme is the volatile organization, characterized by too littlecontainment of unruly emotions. In such anenvironment there may be a great deal offree-floating hostility and aggression. Thisis a climate that supports and encouragesbullying and other forms of overtly destruc-tive behaviours. It may also be a climatethat supports the use of addictive sub-stances and behaviours. Humour may be

Neither liberty nor safety 215

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 215

216

present but used as a weapon and thereforelikely to be brash, provocative, and fre-quently aimed at a vulnerable individual orgroup. Volatile organizations are readilyprovoked to heightened arousal and minorcrises are blown up to be major threats. Itrequires little provocation for a volatileorganization to attack an external enemy.Organizations that respond to stress in thisway are likely to become ‘addicted tocrisis’ and if external forces are not assail-ing them, internal conflicting forces willtake over the role to guarantee that nothing

gets focused on except the response to theimmediate threat. Such climates are likelyto tolerate excessive drug and alcohol useand misuse, workaholism, and other formsof self-abuse.

Chronically stressed organizations, likeindividuals, may go through recurrentcycles of these emotional management dif-ficulties. The organizational style is likelyto be greatly influenced by the emotionalmanagement style of the leaders and like-wise, the leaders may be chosen as aresponse to the emotional management

Bloom

‘September 11 may go down as one of themost tragic events in modern history notonly because of the thousands of deaths itcaused but also because it so seriously dis-torted American perceptions about itselfand the world. It has knocked Americadown into a dank and dangerous cul desac, making it susceptible to apocalypticvisions of darkness rather than motivatingit toward high visions of human possibil-ity.’ (Garrison, 2003, 45)

‘We are truly “sleepwalking throughhistory”. In my heart of hearts I pray thatthis great nation and its good and trustingcitizens are not in for a rudest of awaken-ings. To engage in war is always to pick awild card. And war must always be a lastresort, not a first choice. I truly must ques-tion the judgment of any President whocan say that a massive unprovoked mili-tary attack on a nation which is over 50percent children is “in the highest moral

traditions of our country”. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to behaving a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly.Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhapsthere is still a way if we allow more time.’ (US Senator Robert Byrd, speech to the USSenate, 21 February 2003)

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 216

style of the organization. When there is aloss of volume control, minor threats maybe blown up into major security breaches,crisis follows and creates crisis. Rumoursfly, hasty conclusions are drawn. Prop-aganda and misinformation can have itsmost powerful impact on an organization inthis state. All combine to urge action thatmay be precipitous.

Conflict in a group is inevitable and aslong as suff icient resources for conflict resolution exist, conflict is a spur to con-structive change and growth. However,under stress, groups experience conflict asdangerous and impedance to unified groupaction. Parties who dissent from groupaction are likely to be silenced aggressivelyand in this way emotional conflict is suppressed. The resulting negative and dis-tressing emotions, however, cannot be tolerated to remain within the group sincethey are so contagious. Instead, the anger isdisplaced outward onto an external enemy.This form of group affect management caneasily lead to conditions that become fertilefor warfare between groups, particularly iftwo groups are both utilizing the same pro-jective mechanisms to manage intragroupconflict.

Organizations under stress may engage ina problematic affect-management processthat interferes with the exercise of goodcognitive skills, known as ‘groupthink’.When groupthink is occurring members tryso hard to agree with one another that theycommit serious errors that could easilyhave been avoided. An assumed consensusemerges while all group members focus onthe ways they are all converging andignores divergence. Counterarguments arerationalized away and dissent is seen asunnecessary. All group members share in asense of invulnerability that is conveyed bynothing except the fact that they are in it

together – such a group of intelligentpeople could not be mistaken. At least tem-porarily, the group experiences a reductionin anxiety, an increase in self-satisfaction,and a sense of assured purpose. But in thelong run, this kind of thinking leads todecisions that spell disaster (Janis, 1982;Forsyth, 1990).

Conformity is another potentially prob-lematic affect management process thatoccurs in group settings and was well docu-mented by experiments conducted bySolomon Ash. He demonstrated that whenpressure to conform is at work, a personchanges his opinion not because he actuallybelieves something different but becauseit’s less stressful to change his opinion thanto challenge the group. In his experiments,subjects said what they really thought mostof the time, but 70% of subjects changedtheir real opinions at least once and 33%went along with the group half the time(Forsyth, 1990).

LOSS OF ‘VOLUME CONTROL’ IN ASOCIOPOLITICAL CONTEXT

The inability to manage emotions properlycan be recognized on a national and inter-national level as well. In a society notdoing well with ‘volume control’ we wouldexpect to see a high frequency of self-destructive coping skills like alcoholism,drug abuse, sexual addiction, compulsivespending, greedy acquisition, a preoccupa-tion with risk-taking behaviour and violence. Anger is a particularly difficultemotion to manage in a chronicallystressed individual, organization, orsociety and therefore chronic stress pre-dicts heightened levels of aggression; apreoccupation with weapons, violentamusements, and violence connected withsexual behaviour.

Neither liberty nor safety 217

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 217

218

Simultaneously, there may be an atmos-phere of gloom, loss of humour andextreme gravitas. Alarms are sounded,rumours fly, misinformation abounds. Allurge forward action with little considera-tion of the long-term consequences or ‘col-lateral damage’ of the actions taken.Meanwhile, under the impact of stress, thevoices of moderation in any group areignored or remain silent, succumbing to theheavy psychological and emotional atmos-phere. The negative emotions that aboundin such an atmosphere are contagious, andare exacerbated by the extremist verbalattacks played out on talk radio andadvanced by TV pundits.

In the United States, since 11 Sept-ember, power has become enormouslyconcentrated in the Executive branch ofgovernment, and dissent has been stifleddirectly and indirectly. Governmentsecrecy has escalated to unparalleledlevels. The repetitive nature of the securityalerts that alarm the public without pro-viding any directions for specif icresponse, produce both heightened fearand anger that is contagious and a sense ofhelplessness that eventually may result innumbness to response. The Patriot Act,hurriedly approved – and largely unread –by a Congress exiled from its anthrax-contaminated offices, combined with the

Bloom

‘. . . after 9/11, George W. Bush squan-dered a unique moment of national unity.That instead of rallying the countryaround a program of mutual purpose andsacrifice, Bush cynically used the tragedyto solidify his political power and pursuean agenda that panders to his base andserves the interests of his corporatebackers.’ (Franken, 2003, xv)

‘There was a sort of groupthink, anadopted storyline: We are going to invadeIraq and we are going to eliminate Saddam Hussein and we are going to havebases in Iraq. This was all a given even bythe time I joined them, in May of 2002, thediscussions were ones of this sort ofinevitability. The concerns were only thatsome policymakers still had to getonboard with this agenda. Not that thisagenda was right or wrong – but that we

needed to convince the remaining holdovers.’ (From an interview with US Air Force,Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski in Cooper, 2004)

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 218

Homeland Security Act, has compromisedcivil liberties and seriously disturbed thesystem of checks and balances that is sonecessary for a healthy democracy.Meaningful conflicts in basic assumptionsabout the nature and appropriate responseto the situation cannot be adequatelyworked through because a culture ofinquiry is not tolerated – criticisms of theBush policies are labelled disloyal or unpa-triotic (Susskind, 2004). Conformity to this‘party line’ is strenuously promulgated. Asa result, problem-solving and decisionmaking – largely confined to a small circleof right-wing ideologues – and the repeti-tive and now chronic stress state of theentire nation, is creating a situation that isdangerously undermining to the function ofa democratic system.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESPONSE:LOSS OF VOLUME CONTROL

When the potent impact that trauma has onthe emotions of survivors is recognized, theobvious need is to develop techniques forhelping people manage their emotionsmore effectively. With individuals we canuse psychotropic medications to helppeople more effectively manage their emo-tions while they are making long-lastingchange. But it is diff icult to imagine aneffective medical response for an entireorganization, much less a society.

What we can do is educate people aboutthe nature of stress and its impact on humangroups, warning them about the potentialnegative outcome of crisis-based decisionmaking, the tendency to silence dissent, theinclination to project onto an externalenemy in order to solidify group cohesion,and the subsequent loss of complexproblem-solving skills. Systems arerequired that build and reinforce the acqui-

sition of what has been termed ‘emotionalintelligence’, including the development ofimportant stress-management techniquesthat help groups of people ‘think through’ acrisis situation, and inhibit unnecessaryaction that may do more harm than good(Goleman et al., 2002). The group can agreeto a ‘meta-rule’ that insists that any rule orpolicy created under conditions of stresswill be in force for a time-limited periodand then reviewed after the crisis haspassed. This can help protect an organiza-tion against the kinds of knee-jerk changesin policy, position, or philosophy that caneasily occur in a crisis situation but that ifleft in play can adversely affect the well-being of the organization as a whole. Agroup can learn to recognize the powerfuldrive to develop command hierarchiesunder stress, a tendency that can be resisted,or utilized only to the extent that such acommand structure facilitates rapidresponse in times of real need. With thistype of conscious recognition democraticprocesses are less likely to be eroded.

In a crisis when people’s affect manage-ment is obviously compromised, it is important to provide accurate and balancedinformation, to root out false rumours.Sensationalistic reports provide short-termexcitement but over the long haul tend toproduce apathy. The role of the media in acrisis is critical. Television and radioreporters especially have influence overtheir tone of voice, facial display of emo-tions, and body gestures as well as theactual content of the material they are deliv-ering. Emotional contagion is a very realphenomenon and happens within one-twen-tieth of a second (Hatf ield et al., 1994).Balanced, calm reporting may not be whatpeople want, but it is what they need.

In times of crisis, people look to theirleaders for guidance about how to manage

Neither liberty nor safety 219

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 219

220

the fear that threatens to overwhelm themand that can dangerously inhibit logicalreasoning. Leaders can model a balanced,calm approach or a radical, raging anddichotomized approach. Those seekinggreater power are likely to seize themoment of crisis as an opportunity toenlarge their scope of influence. Regardlessof their previous history, when they voicesentiments that cater to the instinctualneeds of crisis-focused human beings –even when those instinctual desires are notnecessarily in the best interests of long-term survival – they are far more likely tobe heard and given what they want by apopulace desperate for someone strong totell them what to do. Crisis is an opportu-nity for bullies to gain ascendance withinany organization because their sense ofconfidence, outwardly directed aggression,and willingness to take control appeals topeople who feel helpless and scared.

Leaders can, of course, model an entirelydifferent approach in recognizing anddirectly countering the effects of stress inthe people they govern. Leaders rise topositions of leadership in part because theyseem able to manage their own emotionsmore successfully under stress thanmembers of the more general population.But often their apparent superiority is amatter of having better skills at disguisingstress rather than not experiencing theeffects of stress. In bringing diverse voicestogether in a crisis, in encouraging reason-ing and careful deliberation, in solicitingmany ideas, in calling upon people toprovide mutual support, by inspiring every-one to hold to a higher vision, leaders canprovide everyone in the organization witheffective affect management tools that donot lead to a systemic abuse of power.

Any organization and the society as awhole can increase its level of emotional

intelligence by taking seriously the impor-tance of emotional management and settingexpectations that everyone – from the bossto the new employee – will learn to managetheir own emotional states effectivelywithout overly suppressing them. Theinsufficient containment of social anxietyleads to bouncing stock markets, panickybehaviour, and increased calls for actionregardless of how dangerous to futuresafety and security that action may be.Under such conditions there is an increasedlikelihood that ‘groupthink’ mechanismswill be put into play. Bullying and otherforms of organizational aggression sotypical of life in America are as importantto stop in the workplace and in the societyas in the classroom. A national example ofthis problem is located in the Americanequation that more guns equals moresafety, while denying the clear reality thatmore guns equal more deliberate and inad-vertent deaths and an overall increase insocietal danger. This is similar to the equa-tion individual victims make when theyequate enhanced coping with cocaine oralcohol abuse and thus compound theirproblems for the sake of short-term relief.

Many of the maladaptive symptoms thatplague our social environment – substanceabuse, risk-taking behaviour, suicidal andother forms of self-destructive behaviour –result from the individual’s attempt tomanage overwhelming emotions related torepetitive exposure to overwhelming stress.These solutions, though effective in theshort-run, are clearly detrimental in thelong term. However, many of our organiza-tional and societal responses are punitiverather than corrective. It makes no sense tofurther punish the already downtrodden.Punishment frequently rebounds back onthe punishers sooner or later, often creatinga situation worse than the original one. For

Bloom

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 220

example, in developing an increasinglypunitive response to drug abusers, we havegreatly increased prison and costs tosociety, overburdened the criminal justicesystem, imprisoned a significant percent-age of historically oppressed minoritygroups, and failed to inhibit drug abuse.Meanwhile, money that could have goneinto preventing the development of condi-tions that promote exposure to violence ofthe nation’s children is funnelled into thispunitive and largely unsuccessfully system.If we fail to protect children from over-whelming stress, then we can count on creating life-long adjustment problems thattake a toll on the individual, the family, andsociety as a whole. If we expect people togive up their self-destructive addiction tosubstances and damaging behaviour, thenwe must be willing to substitute supportivehuman relationships. Managing aggressionthat is directed either at the self or others isthe most challenging aspect of develop-ing health promoting systems that can adequately address the needs of trauma survivors. Creating environments that con-sistently endorse and model social normsof non-violent interaction are critical(Bloom, 1997, 2000).

ADAPTATION TO ADVERSITY:HELPLESSNESS

Human beings deplore being helpless. Infact a situation is not traumatic unless weare helpless to prevent it. Placed into situa-tions of helplessness we will do anything toescape the situation and restore a sense ofmastery. If we are helpless, we are out ofcontrol. The sense of losing control overwhat is happening to us and of not beingable to protect ourselves triggers risingfeelings of fear that edges into panic. Fearprecipitates the compulsion to fight or flee

but when you can do neither the biologi-cally induced state of hyperarousal, with itsaccompanying feelings of fear and aggres-sion, is toxic to mind and body. Too muchstress can kill you. Frozen by the forbiddenpossibility of taking action, the stressedperson can do nothing but adapt to thechanged and aversive conditions.Helplessness in the face of danger threatensour survival and our carefully establishedsense of invulnerability and safety. Underconditions of repeated exposure to help-lessness we are compelled to adapt to thehelplessness itself, a phenomenon that hasbeen termed ‘learned helplessness’(Seligman, 1992).

Like animals in a cage, with enoughexposure to helplessness we will adapt toadversity and cease struggling to escapefrom the situation thus conserving vitalresources and buffering the vulnerablecentral nervous system against the negativeimpact of constant overstimulation. Later,rather than change situations that could bealtered for the better, we will change ourdefinitions of ‘normal’ to fit the situationto which we have become adapted. Evenwhen change is possible, our formerlyadaptive response of simply buckling downand coping can create a serious obstacle topositive change, empowerment, andmastery. This may contribute to thedynamic of revictimization.

As a result of this adjustment, peoplewho have had repeated experiences of helplessness will exhibit a number ofapparently contradictory behaviours. Onthe one hand they are likely to demonstrate‘control issues’ by trying to control otherpeople, themselves, their own feelings –anything that makes them feel less helpless.At the same time, they are likely to bewilling to turn over control to substances orbehaviours that are frequently destructive.

Neither liberty nor safety 221

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 221

222

They are also likely to turn over their ownsense of authority to anyone who appearsconfident, seems to ‘know what they aredoing’ and who promises to restore a senseof safety and security. Under conditions ofdesperation and fear, people may have dif-f iculties discriminating between abusiveand healthy authority and may be willing togive up control to abusive authorities.

The adjustment to adversity also keepsthem from making positive changes whenthey could do so. Once a human being hasadjusted to adverse conditions, these condi-tions are accepted as normative. Changedconditions become a habit. We are basicallyconservative creatures and we resist chang-ing habits once we have developed themand the more the habit formation has beenassociated with danger and surviving athreat the less likely we are to change it andthe more likely we are to resist attempts toget us to change. Instead we shift our inter-nal norms. For people who have had toadjust to repeated threats, their internalalthough usually unexpressed normativeand guiding philosophy is ‘better the devilyou know’ and ‘things can always getworse’. Once we have reset our norms, wetend to repeat the past over and over again,which only works when the past is worthyof being repeated. When the past is a traumatic one then we are likely to be vic-timized again and again in a progressivelydownward spiral, while we internallybelieve that there is really nothing we cando about it – it’s just the way things are.

ADAPTATION TO ADVERSITY INAN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

In an organization that is adapting to adversity we are likely to see escalatingexperiences of helplessness, passivity, andpassive-aggressive behaviour on the part of

employees, while those in authority tend tobecome increasingly controlling. Healthyand active responses to problematic situa-tions may actually require relinquishing orsharing control but organizations in thegrip of this dynamic are unable to ade-quately respond and will actively resistpower sharing. This situation lends itself tothe emergence of controlling and evenabusive authority f igures, while thosereporting to these f igures may becomeincreasingly obedient, even to directivesthat they believe are ill-advised, unethical,or just wrong.

Bloom

‘Privacy is the bedrock of other free-doms – to think, to differ, to worship, tocreate households, to pursue intimaterelationships. It depends on a tacitassumption that the government will notbe watching or listening to what we seekto shield from public view . . . After9/11, the administration proposed anarray of new interventions into theprivacy of daily life . . . Liberty can beeroded in many small steps as well as afew big ones. And the administration’szeal for privacy erosion continues in newproposals for ever greater surveillancemeasures. (Kathleen M Sullivan, ‘Undera watchful eye: incursions on personalprivacy’ – Leone and Anrig, 2003)

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 222

Under crisis conditions, obedience toauthority may be life saving. Someone in aposition of authority, or someone with theconf idence to assume authority, givesorders that may help us to survive and weautomatically and obediently respond.However, if the authority is abusive,wrongheaded, or leading us ‘down thegarden path’, the outcome for the individu-als involved and for the group as a whole,may be disastrous. After World War Two, psychologist Stanley Milgram wantedto understand how so many otherwise reasonable people could have willingly par-ticipated in the Holocaust. What he foundwas startling and disturbing. In the experi-mental setting, 65% of his experimentalsubjects would obey an authority andadminister shocks to another person evenwhen the victim cried in pain, even whenhe claimed heart trouble, even when hepleaded to be freed. When assured byapparently legitimate authority that therewas good cause for the experiment theyoverrode their own sensory impressions,empathic responses and ethical concernsand automatically obeyed authority with-out questioning the grounds on which this authority is based or the goals of

established authority. In his conclusion,Milgram warned: ‘A substantial proportionof people do what they are told to do, irre-spective of the content of the act andwithout limitations of conscience, so longas they perceive that the command comesfrom a legitimate authority’ (Milgram,1974).

Dissenting voices are silenced. Overtime, there is a loss in what are frequentlyquite natural democratic processes withinthe organization. This leads to a loss ofability to deal with complex situations.Dichotomous thinking increases as doesprojection onto external enemies and evenformer allies become enemies. As this situ-ation continues, it further compromises theability to resolve complex problems.

The erosion in previously held democra-tic norms within an organization does nothappen overnight. There is an insidiousprocess of adjustment and readjustment ascontrol measures are instituted, thenumbers of rules and regulations areincreased, and punitive measures forresponding to infractions in these rules areinstituted. Because the change is gradual,not sudden, the entire organization adjuststo the adverse conditions, which are always

Neither liberty nor safety 223

‘The government of the United Statesreacted to the terrible events of September11, 2001 with sweeping policy departuresat home and abroad. To date, there hasbeen remarkably little debate about manyof the changes in national policy,especially those that have signif icantlycompromised the civil liberties of US citi-zens. Yet history teaches us that bypassingpublic deliberation almost inevitably leadsto outcomes that the nation ends up regretting.’ (Richard C. Leone, ‘The quiet republic:the missing debate about civil liberties after 9/11’ – Leone and Anrig, 2003)

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 223

224

created in the name of ‘safety’ or ‘security’from some perceived negative environmen-tal force or ‘control’ over negative influ-ences within the organization itself. As thechanges are accepted they become the newsocial norms and therefore the very defini-tions of normal, expectable conduct withinthe organization change, even while actualbehaviour is becoming increasingly aber-rant and even ineffective. When someonementions the fact of the changed norms,about the differences between the waythings are now and the way they used to be(when the organization was more func-tional), the speaker is likely to be silenced

or ignored. As a result there is an escalatinglevel of acceptance of increasingly aberrantbehaviour toward clients, toward andamong staff, and toward leaders.

ADAPTATION TO ADVERSITY IN ASOCIOPOLITICAL CONTEXT

The issue today is the same as it has beenthroughout all history, whether man shall beallowed to govern himself or be ruled by a smallelite. (Thomas Jefferson)

Socially as well as individually, we adaptrapidly to adverse conditions and the more

Bloom

‘The struggle against terrorism could con-tinue for generations, and we run the riskof finding ourselves on a slippery slope,making decisions in which freedoms thatare set aside for the ‘emergency’ becomepermanently lost to us. In the end, the freedoms we abridge in the interests ofsecurity will be largely the result ofchoices that we, not the terrorists, make.’(Richard C Leone, ‘The quiet republic: themissing debate about civil liberties after9/11’ – Leone and Anrig, 2003)

‘September 11 introduced a discontinuityinto American foreign policy. It created asense of emergency that the Bush admin-istration skillfully exploited for its ownpurposes. Violations of American stan-dards of behaviour that would have beenconsidered objectionable in normal timescame to be accepted as appropriate to thecircumstances, and the president hasbecome immune to criticism, because itwould be unpatriotic to criticize himwhen the nation is at war with terrorism.’(Soros, 2003, 13–14)

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 224

stressful the circumstances are, the morereluctant we are to change that adaptationonce we have made it. As a result, weadjust to appalling situations and thensimply accept them as unchangeablenorms. At a societal level, apathy andpassive acceptance of the status quo canbecome so great that people do not evenbother to vote, as so frequently happens inthe United States. In refusing to performthis basic civic duty, people demonstratenot only their protest but also their sense ofhelplessness.

As they refuse to exert the influence theyhave as citizens it gives license to the moreinjured elements in society to give free reinto their destructive impulses leading to afurther deterioration in social norms. As

vast numbers of people adjust to changedsocial norms, only rarely does anyone callto memory that not only was it not alwaysthis way, but it doesn’t have to be this waynow. The changes are simply accepted asinevitable. In fact, the voices of those lessinjured parties, those who do believe thatthe present reality could be changed for thebetter, are first ignored and ridiculed, thenlabelled as divisive, even dangerous, mal-contents who should be censured, or aresimply called naïve, absurd ‘utopians’,wishing for a society that never did andcannot ever exist.

A crisis may mobilize participation butthe stressed state of the leaders may havethe unfortunate consequences of silencingopinions that challenge their own. This is

Neither liberty nor safety 225

‘People are not aware of how dramatic thechanges are partly because the changesare seen as a continuation of tendenciesthat have been in effect for some time andpartly because they are seen as concomi-tant of the war on terrorism. YetSeptember 11 marks a transition when theabnormal, the radical, and the extremebecame redef ined as normal.’ (Soros,2003, 16)

‘We parents spend much of our timeabsorbed in nurturing thoughts aboutschool and doctors and the perfect playdate – but very little time thinking aboutthe world these painstakingly brought-upchildren will face as adults.’ (Hirsh, 2003,xiv)

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 225

226

particularly true when those voices areattempting to bring to mind past socialnorms that endorse calm deliberation, col-laboration, and reasoned action and howthese are being threatened by the emergingcrisis. As leaders become more focused ontaking aggressive action, the social normsconsistent with a warrior culture will beused to counter voices of dissent and callsfor reason to prevail in the situation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESPONSE:ADAPTATION TO ADVERSITY

The fact that human beings adapt so quicklyto adversity and then are slow to makechanges, even when they are able to do so,suggests that they form habits easily, partic-ularly when a particular behaviour has beenassociated in some way with threats andsurviving those threats. Changing thosehabits will take experimentation, multipletries, and much repetition. Exposure tohelplessness means that interventionsdesigned to help people overcome trauma-tizing experiences must focus on masteryand empowerment while avoiding further

experiences of helplessness. The prolongedhyperarousal and the loss of the ability tomanage emotional states appropriately, bothof which accompany traumatic exposure,imply the need to understand that manybehaviours that are socially objectionableand even destructive are also the individ-ual’s only method of coping with over-whelming and uncontrollable emotions. Ifthey are to stop using these coping skills,they must be offered better substitutes –most importantly, healthy and sustaininghuman relationships.

One does not have to be a Luddite tobelieve that changing is not always for thebest, that in fact we seem to often ‘throwout the baby with the bathwater’. As individuals and in groups we commonlyfluctuate between extremes instead offinding a moderate place of planned, orga-nized, and constructive change based on avision of where we really want to go.Stressed organizations and stressed soci-eties do not take the time to envision thefuture in anything but the vaguest of termsand it is difficult to get somewhere if youhave to idea where you want to go.

Bloom

‘The history of civil liberties in America,like the history of civil rights, is a story ofstruggle. Even in peacetime, Americanshave engaged in an ever-changing negoti-ation between the demands of liberty andthe demands of order and security . . . Inmost crises, governments have [used] theseriousness of their mission to seizepowers far in excess of what the emer-gency requires. At such moments, it hasbeen particularly important that vigilantcitizens make the case that the defense ofour liberties is not an indulgence but rather an essential part of our democratic life.’(Alan Brinkley, A familiar story: lessons from past assaults on freedoms, in Leone andAnrig, 2003, 23)

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 226

Likewise, it is hard to discern the potentialrisks and obstacles involved in gettingwhere you want to go without understand-ing how you got to where you are.

Since habit formation and changingnorms happens so readily and usually outof conscious awareness, healthy organiza-tions and societies must assess how theyhave arrived at the present in order to for-mulate a strategy for moving into thefuture. A healthy response to changedsocial norms is to create a new, internallyconsistent, values-based vision for every-one to strive toward. A ship that has headedoff course may require time and the expen-diture of significant energy and resourcesto steer back on course. A healthy plan islikely to involve a combination of retainingthe old and achieving something new –evolution not revolution.

This requires the ability and willingness tolook at the patterns of the past, includingreviewing past mistakes and poor judge-ments. Given enough information and a suf-ficient number of intelligent, reasoning, anddiverse minds, it is possible to anticipatefuture outcomes of present decisions. To doso however, requires curbing the powerfulhuman tendency under stress to see oneselfin only positive terms while demonizing theother. Beating the tribal drums and demoniz-ing a sabre-toothed tiger serve the interestsof the tribe. Demonizing an entire class,race, nation or religion is a prescription fordisaster. Unlike the tiger, ‘they’ are alwaysjust as smart and vengeful as we are.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Clay Bennett cartoons reproduced withpermission from The Christian ScienceMonitor (www.csmonitor.com). Copyright© The Christian Science Monitor. Allrights reserved.

REFERENCESAmerican Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourthedition. Washington: American PsychiatricAssociation, 1994.

Bloom S. Creating Sanctuary: Toward theEvolution of Sane Societies. New York:Routledge, 1997.

Bloom S. Healing from systematic abuses of power.Therapeutic Communities: The InternationalJournal for Therapeutic and SupportiveOrganizations 2000; 21: 67–91.

Cooper M. Soldier for truth: exposing Bush’stalking-points war. In LA Weekly 2004; 20–26February.

Forsyth DR. Group Dynamics. Second edition.Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole, 1990.

Franken A. Lies and the Lying Liars Who TellThem: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.New York: Dutton, 2003.

Garrison, J. America as Empire: Global Leader orRogue Power? San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler,2003.

Goleman D, Boyatzis R, McKee A. PrimalLeadership: Realizing the Power of EmotionalIntelligence. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress, 2002.

Hatfield E, Cacioppo J, Rapson RL (eds) EmotionalContagion. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1994.

Hirsh M. At War With Ourselves: Why America isSquandering its Chance to Build a Better World.New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Janis IL. Decision making under stress. InGoldberger L, Breznitz S (eds) Handbook ofStress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. NewYork: Free Press, 1982, pp. 69–87.

Leone RC, Anrig G (eds) The War on ourFreedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age ofTerrorism. New York: Public Affairs Press,2003.

Mayer JD, Salovey P. What is emotional intelli-gence? In Salovey P, Sluyter DJ (eds) EmotionalDevelopment and Emotional Intelligence:Educational Implications. New York: BasicBooks, 1997, pp. 3–31.

Milgram S. Obedience to Authority. New York:Harper Colophon, 1974.

Pennebaker J. Opening Up: The Healing Power ofExpressing Emotions. New York: Guilford Press,1997.

Neither liberty nor safety 227

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 227

228

Salovey P, Sluyter DJ. Emotional Development andIntelligence. Basic Books, New York, 1996.

Seligman M. Helplessness: On depression, develop-ment and death. New York: WH Freeman, 1992.

Soros G. The Bubble of American Supremacy:Correcting the Misuse of American Power, NewYork: Public Affairs, 2003.

Susskind, R. The Price of Loyalty: George W Bush,the White House, and the Education of PaulO’Neill. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.

Terr L. Too Scared to Cry: Psychic Trauma inChildhood. New York: Harper & Row, 1990.

Van der Kolk B. The compulsion to repeat thetrauma: reenactment, revictimization, andmasochism. Psychiatric Clinics of North America1989; 12: 389–411.

Correspondence: Sandra Bloom, 13 Druim MoirLane, Philadelphia, PA 19118, USA.Email: S13132020@msn.com.

Bloom

PPI_2.3_3rd 10/8/04 11:26 AM Page 228