The Perils and Promise of Global Transparency: Why the Information Revolution May Not Lead to Security, Democracy, or Peace

3. Transparency and Intergroup Violence

Chapter 3 ____________________________ Transparency and Intergroup Violence “A free marketplace of ideas has a self-righting tendency to correct errors and biases.” —Political theorists David Kelley and Roger Donway1 “One of the most effective policy instruments in the hands of international actors today is to ensure that objective, unbiased, and balanced information is made widely available in states threatened with intense conflict.” —Political scientists David A. Lake and Donald Rothchild2 Knowledge of other peoples and cultures can promote cooperation and peace, according to widespread opinion. When people see that they share a common human experience, that information humanizes those who seem different and makes people less willing to use force to resolve conflicts. When people understand each other better, they may recognize shared interests and values, which provide a foundation for conflict resolution. Better-informed people may also develop the ability to see the world as others see it, which may make them more sensitive to others’ views and willing to change their behavior toward other groups, even if that behavior previously seemed justified. They may develop tolerance , empathy, or even friendship. The idea that increased exposure to other peoples promotes cooperation and peace is evident in popular media, practical efforts to improve relations between groups, and scholarship. It is the basis of people-to-people exchanges, citizen diplomacy, and study abroad programs , particularly when those activities involve groups with a history of 45 conflict. It is also the basis of optimism regarding innovations in information and communication technologies.3 Though most recent arguments of this sort concern the Internet, the idea is not new. A century ago, a British ambassador lauded the telegraph, proclaiming, “It is impossible that old prejudices and hostilities should longer exist” with the newly invented telegraph to help people exchange thoughts with others around the world.4 Academics study a related concept called the contact hypothesis, which postulates that “more contact between individuals belonging to antagonistic social groups (defined by customs, language , beliefs, nationality, or identity) tends to undermine negative stereotypes and reduce prejudice, thus improving intergroup relations by making people more willing to deal with each other as equals.”5 The contact hypothesis can apply internationally—the argument being that more contact with foreigners reduces xenophobia—as well as domestically to relations among ethnic or racial groups.6 In both contexts, deeper mutual understanding increases positive feelings but a lack of dialogue breeds hostility and sometimes conflict. A corollary to this idea is that just as more knowledge increases positive feelings toward others, ignorance of others breeds animosity. In other words, we are more likely to dislike or distrust those we don’t know. Americans invoke this idea as a partial explanation for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States by the radical Islamic group, Al-Qaeda. As one American put it, “Why do they hate us? Because they don’t know us.”7 Greater transparency provides both more information about other peoples and more varied, decentralized sources of that information. If more contact with other groups creates more positive feelings toward them, more and more objective knowledge could decrease intergroup hostility and encourage peace. Foreigners, according to this view, would seem less foreign. Differences between ethnic majorities and minorities seem less important. Insiders would find commonalities with outsiders. Greater transparency also expands access to different opinions from within and outside a society, which can lead people to reexamine their beliefs. When they find that prejudices and stereotypes about other groups are not substantiated by fact, they may reject them and become more tolerant.8 Greater transparency also reduces the ability of governments to monopolize channels of information and to use that monopoly to demonize other groups. On an individual basis, people can choose to ignore propaganda that fosters hostility toward other groups, but numerous historical cases—in Nazi Germany, in the United States during the Pacific War with Japan, and in Bosnia—indicate that citizens often 46 The Perils and Promise of Global Transparency embrace the vilification of so-called out-groups. When minorities or foreigners are dehumanized or portrayed as enemies, people are more willing to violate societal mores and to accept the use of violence against them. For this reason, some scholars argue, states in which information flows freely seldom fight with each other. Unfortunately, greater transparency will not always encourage international understanding and sometimes makes conflicts worse. Instead of refuting stereotypes, greater transparency may spread...