We are in the 3rd month of social unrest in Hong Kong. What started as a protest about a single issue--the extradition bill--has rapidly evolved into a massive movement that some have gone so far to describe as a revolution, or terrorism--depending on where you get your news.
In its initial weeks, the street protests were contained in several locations and took place over the weekends. But more recently, we’ve seen them expand to multiple districts, including the blockade of the city’s international airport, which is one of the busiest in the world. While the events are largely peaceful, we’ve also seen many nights of violent clashes between the police and protesters, as well as between protesters and alleged gang members.
The crisis is political first and foremost but along the way we’ve witnessed many psychological processes that have contributed to its evolution. I’ll just highlight a few here.
1) polarisation/dehumanisation
First, we’ve seen rapid polarisation and escalation in both physical force and in the rhetoric used by both the police and the protestors.
The polarisation is seen in police vs. protesters, blue-ribbon vs. yellow-ribbon in political spectrum (a legacy of the 2014 UM), black shirts vs. white shirts etc. The ingroup-outgroup dynamics are similar to those seen in other intergroup conflicts, including viewing outgroup members as homogenous; that problematic behaviors of a few are generalised to represent the entire group.
We are also seeing ingroup favoritism; that my fellow protestors or police officers cannot be wrong, no matter what they do. What is particularly troubling is the ethos of no condemnation and no ostracization within each of the two camps. That is, protesters will condone all forms and all means of protest and the police are allowing each other to deviate from protocol and to use excessive force. This in effect is reinforcing the radicalization of behaviors within the two opposing groups.
We’ve also seen increasing pressure to declare one’s allegiance, from celebrities and large corporations to friends and family members. People are quick to label each other as yellow or blue. This George W. Bush-style you are either with us or against us mentality is not conducive to dialogue. This is further exacerbated by the echo-chamber of social media, where most people seem to get their news from.
In its extreme form, group conflict can breed dehumanisation. We see protesters calling police officers dogs and police officers describing protesters as cockroaches. Dehumanization helps justify the use of violence against each other.
2) Hopelessness
Many have commented that the radicalisation we are seeing is driven by a pervasive sense of hopelessness, especially among young people. It is probably true that our youth do see that their future is not as bright as their predecessors. Hong Kong’s housing remains the most unaffordable on the planet, and this limits the perceived career options among young people. But we argue that those participating in the movement and those who are sympathetic to their cause remain somewhat hopeful. They are hopeful that their action--if only pervasive enough and persistent enough--can still bring upon changes. What I fear, however, is that when the movement ends and the result of it falls short of the protester’s expectations, which is very likely, true hopelessness will emerge. I don’t want to imagine what young people would resort to then.
3) Mental health
Several researchers have noted the deterioration of mental health in the past several months, even though HK as a whole is still largely safe and most people have not directly experienced violence. Pretty much everyone has seen footage of very disturbing scenes. After 9/11, it is quite clear that exposure to gruesome footage alone can have negative consequences to one’s mental health, especially among those who are particularly vulnerable to begin with.
Another factor hurting our mental health is our sleep deprivation. Most of the more attention-catching events have been unfolding in the evenings. It is difficult to switch off the tv or put down the phone when clashes between police and protesters are still ongoing. And it is understandably very difficult to sleep when these images are still fresh in our minds.
Our Chief Executive Carrie Lam has openly and quite proudly confessed that she does not need much sleep. Four to five hours, she said. Likewise, protesters and police officers have also been sleep deprived. Sleep deprivation affects our cognition and ability to regulate emotions. I’m not saying the fiasco we are in is due to our city’s pervasive lack of sleep, but it might be exacerbating our reactions to recent events.
Suggestions:
Many have offered different advice and solutions to help de-escalate the current crisis. I’m going to throw in a few more as a clinical psychologist and as a researcher.
First and foremost, a one-week truce is much needed. Everyone is exhausted. A truce will allow us to get some rest and gradually move away from a reactive, emotion-driven mode. Fear and anger--the two emotions that seem to be most pervasive in the city--can prompt us to make decisions that we might regret. With some time to rest and reflect, hopefully all parties can start to make more rational and balanced decisions.
Second, I think it is appropriate to see this crisis as a disaster. Using a disaster framework will allow us to mobilize humanitarian efforts and deploy health and mental health professionals accordingly. Importantly, under this framework, survivors need to feel safe and their feelings validated. Now might not be the right time to count scores and lay blame. That can come later. Protesters and, dare I say, frontline police officers need to be heard, regardless of how we view their politics and tactics.
Third, we need to launch a campaign to remind ourselves of our common identities--as HKers and human beings. What is particularly heartbreaking is that all parties--the protesters, the police, Ms Carrie Lam, and perhaps even the triad members--believe that they are doing the right thing to protect Hong Kong, their home.
I suggest we turn to humor and the arts. This is not to diminish our pain and suffering; it is also not to trivialize the politics. Rather, humor, theatre, poetry, sports etc. are non-destructive ways to express ourselves. They help us rehumanise one another and recognize our common humanity.
When a young lady had her right eye severely injured by a shot of bean bag earlier this week, an-eye-for-an-eye became a popular slogan. But to stop the city’s implosion, perhaps we also need to chant, let’s strive to see each other eye-to-eye.
turn off vs switch off 在 What is the difference between “turn off” and “switch off”? 的推薦與評價
They are interchangeable. · Possible duplicate of Open/switch on the air-conditioner when we are home Also Turn on vs Switch on, and “Turn out ... ... <看更多>
相關內容