How excessive cell phone usage can cripple a child’s mental development

The scene of a quiet child tapping away at a phone or tablet with glee is an image that, by now, most people are familiar with. It may seem cute at first, however a sinister reality lurks beneath this scenario. Overwhelming research now shows that excessive cell phone usage in infants and adolescents can slow down, or even permanently alter, various parts of their extremely sensitive and still growing brains. Social skills, cognitive abilities, and emotional awareness can all be affected. This technology is often incredibly addicting because of its constant bombardment of lights, colors, and rewarding sounds that can thus inhibit a child’s ability to focus, learn how to properly socialize with other humans, and develop an interest in other activities. We as a society should be more aware of the effects that our phones have on our children so that we do not end up altering the biology of an entire generation. It should be our utmost goal as a society that we stay technologically literate so that we make our technology supplement our lives and work for us as opposed to being dependent on it to survive.

How much time is too much time?

Smart phones have positive benefits for children when used in small amounts, however there are dangerous consequences if their usage is excessive and left unchecked. For the sake of clarity, “excessive phone usage” will refer to the American Academy of Pediatric’s (AAP) 2018 suggested screen time limits.

“Avoid digital media for toddlers younger than 18 to 24 months other than video chatting. For children 18 to 24 months, watch digital media with them because they learn from watching and talking with you. Limit screen use for preschool children, ages 2 to 5, to just 1 hour a day of high-quality programming” [1].

Cell phones can permanently stunt a child’s neural development

Scientists have identified the first three years of a child’s life to be their “critical years,” a time when their brains are undergoing the most development and are the most sensitive to new information. It is imperative that children constantly interact with their parents via face to face communication, problem solving, and play in order to begin experiencing life while establishing the literal building blocks that will enable them to perceive and interact with the world around them for the rest of their lives. Children’s minds are akin to soft clay that can be easily molded, and both positive and negative experiences can have lasting effects on them. Excessive screen time can cause permanent damage to the brain and can inhibit “the ability to focus, to concentrate, to lend attention, to sense other people’s attitudes and communicate with them, (and) to build a large vocabulary….”

The short term, immediate gratification responses that phones constantly give usually train our brains to become addicted to always expecting quick responses from tasks that we engage in. This can make completing longer tasks that require more focus such as reading, paying attention in class, doing homework, or holding a conversation more difficult and can have lasting ramifications on a child’s performance in school and in social settings [2].

Excessive usage can make children socially awkward and anxious

As most teens and adults learn the hard way, the best way to grow socially is by directly engaging in the social behaviors that we often dread the most. Making new friends, talking to the opposite gender, and public speaking all become easier the more a person partakes in the activity despite how nerve-wracking they may initially be. This is especially true for children, who are socially clean slates that learn how to socialize by interacting with other children, their parents, and through play. Cell phone usage promotes a sedentary lifestyle, and a child can rarely grow socially by being sedentary. Playing with other kids teaches cooperation, empathy, and compassion. These are very human traits that cell phones cannot teach a child. Failing to develop strong social skills can lead to social anxiety, which has a host of its own problems, since a child may be ill-prepared to deal with social scenarios such as these ones.

The AAP recommends interacting with your child by asking them questions and encouraging a response while they use phones instead of just leaving them to their own devices. This way, they are interacting with their parents, as is necessary for their growth, and having the phone supplement their learning in the way that it is supposed to.

Prolonged usage can easily lead to addiction and dependence

Our brains have a built-in reward system that awards us when we achieve something of value. The chemical most commonly associated with this system, and most well-known by society, is dopamine. Normally, our brains receive dopamine in reasonable and completely safe doses as we go about our day whenever we feel we should be rewarded for something. This can include finishing an assignment, sending a difficult email to an even more difficult colleague, or when eating sweets. It makes us feel good and relaxed but can be addicting in large amounts. Cell phones can cause an overproduction of dopamine that has been compared, though to a lesser extent, to the excessive amount of dopamine produced as a result of abusing hard drugs, such as cocaine. Have you ever caught yourself reaching for your phone, without even thinking about it, as soon you hear a text message notification go off? That’s dopamine at work. It’s the rush that we get when something satisfactory happens, and it is all too easy to trigger with phones. Dopamine can easily become addictive, and the brain can become dependent on receiving a certain amount of dopamine every once in a while if it receives too much too quickly. This may be one reason why we may sometimes glance at our phones even if we know there is nothing new to look at.

In children whose brains are still developing, this dependence on dopamine can be catastrophic towards their growth. Their brains are much more susceptible to dopamine addictions than teens or adults are, though this is not to imply that older populations are safe. This is why a child may seem impossibly glued to a phone and will throw a tantrum once they are told to put it down. A proven method to help rid addictions, including cell phone addictions, is to replace the addictive behavior with a similar, healthier, but equally satisfying behavior. Phones can be replaced with Legos, or other interactive toys, in order to teach a child that there are ways to have fun besides phones. Going cold on an addiction rarely works as it does not sate the brain’s hunger for dopamine.

It is entirely possible for us to regain control

Fortunately, there are plenty of solutions that families can utilize in order to make sure that phones do not dominate their lives. Professional organizations such as the AAP and Mayo Clinic stress the importance of unstructured playtime for the minds of young children. In general, psychologists have realized that unstructured play is actually vital for the growth of children’s brains since it encourages creativity, imagination, and problem solving. Their brains are encountering problems, and thus creating solutions that lead to growth and understanding, while they play. Cell phones, on the other hand, tend to do the work for them instead and do not allow the brain to learn. This is especially true for videos that tell children everything that they need to know and do not give them time to problem-solve on their own.

The AAP encourages parents to establish a Family Media Plan that clearly outlines when and where family members can use their technology. Parents may consider forbidding technology at certain places, such as the dinner table, or doing activities, such as weekly board game nights, without technology either in order to remove the barriers that technology so often puts between us. A strong family is one where all family members have firm trust, understanding, and respect in between one another. Less face-to-face interaction, and an obsession with screens from both parents and children, can very much damage these bonds. You can make a Digital Media Plan for your family at www.HealthyChildren.org/MediaUsePlan.

Technology is awesome when used properly and in reasonable amounts!

Virtually every person can name at least one technological medium that brings them joy and can bring them closer to the people that they care about. For some, this may be gathering around the couch and watching a movie or TV show. Others may prefer interactive video games that can bring the family together and can promote bonding in ways similar to board games. The internet also possesses an infinite treasure trove of resources that can greatly enhance education and our general quality of life. This technology mainly becomes problematic once we fail to monitor it properly and allow it to spiral out of control. But in moderation and under control, these innovations are a series of mind-blowing inventions that dazzle the mind and can very much aid our personal and family goals.

There are organizations out there that are constantly raising awareness and promoting online safety

In recent years, parents have realized how destructive cell phones can be to their families and have decided to do something about it. “Wait Until 8^th” is a grassroots movement that encourages parents across the country to take a pledge that they will not give their children a smart device until they are at least 8 years old. It was started by Brooke Shannon and a few other parents in Austin, Texas, and works to empower parents and communities about the dangers of cell phones for kids. You can learn more about the pledge at www.waituntil8th.org.

There is also a wealth of resources for parents that are concerned about their children’s online safety. The National Cyber Security Alliance, Project Safe Childhood, and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children all help spread awareness about internet safety and the consequences of careless internet surfing. It should be a goal of every parent to stay technologically literate and up to date about which websites their children are visiting and the apps that they use.

Make technology work for you, as opposed to working for it

Our world is changing faster than we can adapt to it, and smart phones are no exception. New technology always presents new challenges, especially when it can take so long to thoroughly research the effects that this technology can have on our minds and bodies. It is important to always stay technologically literate so that we may provide the best quality of life that we can for our families. Technology, above all else, is a double-edged sword.

References

1. “Children and Media Tips from the American Academy of Pediatrics.” org, 1 May 2018, www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/news-features-and-safety-tips/Pages/Children-and-Media-Tips.aspx.
2. “What Screen Time Can Really Do to Kids’ Brains.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/behind-online-behavior/201604/what-screen-time-can-really-do-kids-brains.

Cost-benefit analysis of piracy

To begin, I want to analyze piracy free from any ethical or normative judgments. Piracy is an act, and like any other act, it has costs and benefits. A utility calculation or a cost-benefit analysis shows that the material benefits far outweigh the minimal material costs of piracy. Entertainment media usually has a monetary price that must be paid in order to consume it, like buying tickets to watch a movie at the theater. On the other hand, given that the individual possesses the technical knowledge, the individual can receive the same entertainment for free if he chooses to pirate the media instead of buying it. While some individuals who pirate are caught and do pay fees, the probability of these negative consequences are very small. Given no other external factors, this cost-benefit analysis indicates that the materialistic benefits outweigh the materialistic costs.

Additionally, from a behavioral perspective, piracy makes sense. When a person commits piracy, they are immediately presented with the benefit of entertainment or utility. The behavior is immediately rewarded and reinforced. The costs are not immediately evident, and can be easily overlooked, because the probability of being caught and punished for pirating is very small. In contrast to the act of physically stealing the DVD of a movie, the act of illegally downloading the movie is much less risky and only entails the seemingly innocent pressing of buttons. When contemplating whether to physically steal another DVD of a movie, the person would weigh whether the entertainment benefit is really worth suffering the stress and energy as well as the high risk of being caught and punished by the law. When contemplating whether to illegally download a movie, the person would only need to weigh whether the entertainment benefit is greater than pressing some buttons. With such low risks and such immediate gratification, the behavior of piracy is easily engrained.

This cost-benefit analysis in a vacuum free from any external forces like ethics, morality, and religion sufficiently shows why piracy is so prevalent. It is easy and rewarding. However, people do not live in a vacuum.

The ethical factor

If piracy is theft, then it is unethical, immoral, and wrong. And it is indeed theft. All digital media whether film, music, ebooks, or games are products of another’s hard work. Just like a farmer’s crops or an author’s book, digital media would not exist but for the producer. Thus, similarly, the producer has taken ownership of digital media by production. Modern copyright and digital rights laws are evidence of this societal norm. So, if it is wrong, why do some people pirate digital media anyway?

When a person is given the choice between paying for the entertainment and consuming it for free, ethical principles clash with desire. In order to resolve cognitive dissonance, the discomfort caused by the clash of conflicting inner-beliefs, individuals will attempt to justify their actions and alter their beliefs (1). In the case of piracy, an individual might conclude that the producers of the entertainment media are already wealthy and do not need more money. Alternatively, the individual may decide that his financial circumstances do not allow him to pay for the products, forcing him to illegally obtain them. Ultimately, these justifications allow the individual to live more comfortably with their decision to pirate the product.

Justifying piracy

In addition to common justifications for any other ethical violations, piracy has a unique justification due to the unique nature of digital media. This unique justification is that the illegal downloading of digital media does not harm the producer, because it does not represent a loss of revenue for the producer of the game, movie, or song. Given the digital nature of entertainment media, a pirated copy of a game does not directly mean a loss of revenue equal to the price of the game. For example, when an item in the physical world, such as a watch, is stolen from a store, the store loses money that is equal to the sum of the cost of the watch and the profit from the sale of the watch. If the thief had not stolen the watch, the store could have sold it to someone else. In contrast, when an individual obtains a pirated copy of a digital media, the ability of the producer to sell a copy of the digital media to someone else is not inhibited in anyway. In other words, the benefits or entertainment experienced by the individual who chooses to pirate does not result in a loss for the producer. Those who have this justification would then conclude that piracy only has positive consequences.

This justification, unique to digital products, has two main deficiencies. First, piracy can lead to loss of revenue to the producer if a person who would have otherwise purchased the product chooses to pirate it. Aggregating all the individual acts of piracy can lead to a cumulative loss of revenue of many millions of dollars. Second, loss of revenue is not the only reason piracy is immoral. The primary reason why piracy is unethical is because it constitutes a taking of another property, violating another’s fundamental property rights. If a producer chooses to share its property with only those who pay for it, then the taking of that property without paying for it is a violation of fundamental property rights. An independent showing of damage or loss of revenue is not necessary to prove its wrongness.

Habit

Another possible explanation for the prevalence of piracy is habit. Once an individual has committed piracy, despite ethical prescriptive to the contrary, the individual experiences the benefits and joys of that piece of entertainment. As previously mentioned, this immediate reward can lead to a cycle that constantly reinforces the behavior until it has become habitual. The case study of the video game, Proun, can provide some insight.

Proun, a low budget game, was released under the pay-what-you-want pricing method which allows consumers to legally obtain the product at whatever price they decide to pay including for zero dollars. In other words, people could legally get the game for free from the developer’s official website. Essentially, the developer removed monetary concerns from the utility calculation. According to the released statistics, approximately 40% of used copies were pirated (2). Individuals chose to pirate the game, despite being able to obtain the game legally for free.

The implication of the Proun case study is that price may not be the sole determinant for pirating behavior. A possible explanation for the observed pirating behavior could be that obtaining entertainment media through illegal means has become habitual to a significant portion of the population. Due to the low risks associated with piracy, individuals who have chosen to pirate media experience no consequences that would deter their actions, making piracy their normal means of acquiring any form of software, irrelevant of whether or not the software is free. In other words, habitual piracy has become legitimate in their eyes. After the initial act, the individual no longer considers the ethicality of their actions. Every subsequent act merely reinforces the habit.

References

1. See also Yerli, Selnur Hatice. “Cognitive Dissonance and the Psychology of Sin.” The Fountain 80, March-April 2011.
2. van Dongen, Joost. “Proun sales data revealed: Proun is a big success! Pay What You Want is not!.” <http://joostdevblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/proun-is-big-success-pay-what-you-want.html>

The Fountain organized a three-day conference in Istanbul featuring scholars and academics from diverse disciplines to convene and discuss some philosophical themes The Fountain covers. Aspiring to be a platform for peaceful exchange of ideas, invigorating discussions on the big questions of life, and to generate more of those questions, The Fountain invited 12 international speakers and a dozen intellectuals from within Turkey to participate in this conference. The Fountain, now distributed and read worldwide, has its origins in Turkey which started as an offshoot of global initiatives by renowned Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen and the Hizmet Movement that grew out of his inspiring ideas.

The themes that were covered in this conference were as follows:

• Fethullah Gülen and The Fountain Worldview
• Cross-cultural Dialogue, Media, Pluralism, Spirituality
• Scientific Thought, Faith, and Philosophy

Historical events mentioned in the Holy Qur’an reveal critical clues about the social arrangements of the tribes onto which God has sent His messengers. By scrutinizing on these parables one can easily notice that whenever a prophet is sent to a group of people, his message was denied at first by the ruling clique of that social order. In various places of the Holy Qur’an, these people, who are at the climax of the society and who oppose the prophets and their followers, are addressed as al-mala’ (the chieftains). Mala’ is a distinctive group in tribal culture because, even though they are small in number, they are rich, influential and well respected. Among the society in which they live, mala’ appears to be the ultimate preservers of the status quo where they have the final say. According to the Qur’an, arrogance is the central characteristic of mala’ which gets in their way of accepting the religion:

“The leading ones among his people, who were arrogant and oppressed the others, said to those that they scorned, to those among them who were believers: “Do you really know and consider Sālih as one sent by His Lord with a message?” They replied: “We do indeed believe in what he has been sent with.” Those who were arrogant said: “What you have come to believe in we indeed disbelieve.” Then (without enduring any longer to see her as evidence of the truth of Sālih’s message), they cruelly slaughtered the she-camel, and disdainfully disobeyed the command of their Lord, and said: ‘O Sālih! Bring upon us that (punishment) with which you have threatened us, if you are of those sent (by God with the truth)!’” (Al-A’raf, 7:74−77)

Even though mala’ portrays itself as a completely sovereign and self-sustaining group, it necessitates the full obedience of jumhoor (majority of the society) in order to continue its existence. This is the main reason why mala’ has been the foremost opposing group towards the messengers of God. The message sent to people via prophets, and the notions attached to it (e.g. tawheed: accepting that there is no god but God, tasleem: surrendering to the God, tawakkul: reliance on God by accepting that He alone is sufficient for all the needs) in every way undermines the very existence of mala’. The particular teachings of the prophets that turned mala’ against them include:

• Wealth or genealogy does not reflect peoples’ positions before God
• No group of people is inherently superior or inferior
• Worshipping God does not require any mediators

Based on the verses of Qur’an and traditions of the prophets, the methods used by mala’ in order to alienate the prophets and their followers can be categorized and exemplified as follows [1]:

1. Fabricating misconceptions about the prophets, their messages and followers: Claiming that the prophets are wizards, liars and/or mad people. (7: 65-66, 109-110)
2. Ridiculing and mocking. (11:38)
3. Encouraging materialism and denying the afterlife. Using material tendencies to divert the attention of people from the teachings of religion towards worldly pleasures. (23:24, 25, 33)
4. Violence: Torturing and killing prophets and followers publicly or secretly, casting them out of their homelands. (7:121-124; 127)
5. Creating fear among the laypeople either through violence against the believers or through misconceptions (7:90; 7:88)

Mala’ in the present day

The intervention between individuals and high moral values, for the sake of personal interests, is still continuing to this very day, only changing its form. So Mala’ still executes a very subtle yet effective plan to protect the socio-economic status of the “privileged,” at the expense of depriving society of morals. In the modern times, thanks to the blooming ideas of freedom and democracy, it has been well accepted that social orders, in fact, sustain themselves much proficiently in the absence of an aristocrat group which is meant to rule the rest of the society. That is the main reason why, in today’s societies, it is not as easy to refer to a specific group as mala’ as it was in the past. However, according to some theories, mala’ has never ceased its existence. According to these claims, even though today’s democracies are designed in the best way to reflect the majority’s opinion on governments, mala’ has generated novel ways to control society without being exposed as a distinctive group. Mala’ of modern times prefer to perform its methods behind the scenes by simply making laypeople believe that it does not exist. It is not involved in matters openly as it used to be but rather reaches its objectives via manipulating majority thinking [2].

These theories might be quite stirring but they are still in need of conclusive evidence. On the other hand, if we re-examine Qur’anic verses explaining the tactics employed by mala’, we can easily notice that similar practices are still being used for various propaganda purposes, especially in the mass media. According to Noam Chomsky, institute professor* of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the mass media is the ultimate milieu of spreading propaganda in the contemporary world. In his book Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Chomsky claims that in modern societies propaganda is the ultimate strategy employed by the elite clique to be able to pacify the masses and control them: “In what’s nowadays called a totalitarian state, or a military state, it’s easy you just hold a bludgeon over their (society’s) heads and if they get out of line you just smash them over the head. But as societies become more free and democratic, you lose that capacity. Therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear. Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.” Chomsky summarizes the methodology of propaganda as follows: “The people in the public relations industry aren’t there for the fun of it. They are doing work. They are trying to instill the right (!) values. In fact they have a conception of what a democracy ought to be. It ought to be a system in which the specialized class are trained to do their work for the service of the masters, the people who own the society, and the rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be just sitting alone in front of the television set and having drilled into their heads daily the message which says the only value in life is to have more commodities, or to live like that rich middle class family you’re watching…” [3].

Propaganda

The methodology of modern day propaganda was introduced at the first quarter of the twentieth century by Edward Bernays (1891-1995), so-called father of public relations, whose marketing skills made him one of the most popular advertisers of the time. According to Bernays, an advertisement could make consumers want things they do not need if it is prepared with the right tools; the tools that are capable of manipulating human thinking [4]. Nevertheless, these techniques necessitated a profound understanding of consumer psychology. Even though Bernays was not a psychologist by training, he had a very robust source from which he could obtain intriguing ideas about the ways the human mind work: his uncle, Sigmund Freud.

Freud was not a big supporter of the United States and he would not hesitate to criticize America openly. However, by means of his nephew Bernays, his ideas have influenced US lifestyle profoundly. Freud believed that human beings were in fact irrational creatures controlled by their primal fears and unconscious, selfish and bodily desires. Based on this assumption, Bernays concluded that instead of being logically persuasive, advertisements had to link the mass produced goods to people’s subconscious in order to be appealing. One of Bernays’ first advertisement campaigns is a great example of how this new approach worked: George W. Hill, president of American Tobacco Company, hired Bernays in 1929 with the intention of convincing American women to smoke. This was not an easy task in the 1920s because in that era smoking was perceived as a masculine habit, one which was unthinkable for women. After discussing with various psychoanalysts, Bernays decided to start an advertisement campaign called “The torches of freedom” which portrayed smoking as a symbolism of free women [4]. To this end Bernays used mass media to distribute images of top models wearing the most fashionable outfits of the time to create a “free woman” image whose indispensable constituent was smoking cigarettes. The campaign turned out to be a triumph for the American Tobacco Company. Soon smoking became a central habit for modern American women. Ironically, American women became addicted to tobacco on their quest for freedom. Even today majority of advertisements targeting women are based on similar slogans.

Manufacture of consent

After his successful advertisement campaign with the American Tobacco Company, Bernays worked for other big US corporations such as CBS, Procter and Gamble, General Motors and General Electrics. His achievements in the marketing sector started to influence political thinkers as well, such as renowned journalist and political commentator Walter Lippmann (1889-1974). Lippmann believed that mobs could not be entrusted with decision-making, thus, in the interests of power, ordinary people (or in his own words “the bewildered herd”) needed to be managed by enlightened experts. In the art of democracy public management was supposed to be obtained not by force but by what he called the “manufacture of consent.” In his articles he defined this concept as follows: “… the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough…The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a very old one which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy. But it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technique, because it is now based on analysis rather than on rule of thumb. And so, as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power.”

The revolution indeed took place. As Lippmann has foreseen the techniques introduced by Bernays, it has been vastly used by world powers in order to manipulate communities’ thinking. One of the most infamous examples is for sure the Nazi Party’s anti-Jewish propaganda before and during World War II. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, who worked as the Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, was a passionate admirer of Bernays even though Bernays had Jewish origins. He tried to meet Bernays several times in his lifetime. He even claimed that he had one of his books autographed by Bernays. Goebbels used propaganda techniques to psychologically prepare German society for the annihilation of Jewish people. Unfortunately, it was neither the first nor the last case where propaganda techniques were employed to alienate a group of people because of their race, nation or religious beliefs.

True freedom

In 1990, Edward Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life Magazine. In his book Propaganda, Bernays describes the extent of manipulation quite frankly: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind” [4].

Such means of social manipulation is indeed discomforting to consider, but remains a reality. In the contemporary world, the means through which propaganda spreads is stronger than ever. A single touch on our smart phones, let alone watching television or surfing the internet, can be sufficient to expose ourselves to a bombardment of manipulative advertisements, news and ideas. Consequently, the inevitable question that is raised is: “How is it possible to live and think freely without being controlled and manipulated by sources of propaganda?” Unfortunately, solution to this problem is not a trivial one. Rather than using logical arguments to modify society’s mindset, modern day propagandists try to change people’s lifestyles in order to influence their way of thinking. A quote credited to Prophet Muhammad’s companion, Umar ibn al-Khattab, underlines this threat quite successfully “He who does not live in the way of his beliefs starts to believe in the way he lives.” Perhaps, under such circumstances, the least we should do is to filter out materials that are intended to change our moral values bit by bit. In particular, elements of mass media tirelessly impose that an individual cannot be completely free unless he performs whatever he desires. Any external factor that prevents people from obtaining what they like is represented as a restriction to freedom. By doing so it is made sure that religious and moral disciplines do not interfere with people’s decisions and they are left alone with their yearnings. As a result, instead of becoming free men, society is being transformed into slaves of egoism and consumerism. In my opinion, being able to defy such threats depends on following the footsteps of the people who managed to reduce mala’s influence in the most effective yet peaceful ways, namely the messengers of God. Frugal but dignified lifestyles of prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) and alike should be our points of references instead of the characters displayed on billboards, movies and television series. We should constantly remind ourselves the moral teachings which state that true freedom can only be achieved by freeing ourselves from selfish desires.

*Institute Professor is the highest title that can be awarded to a faculty member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

References

[1] Muhammad Alshareef. Perished Nations, online lecture series.

[2] Bernays, Edward. 2004. Propaganda, Ig Publishers.

[3] Chomsky, Noam. 2002. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, Seven Stories Press.

[4] Curtis, Adam. 2002. Century of the Self, BBC.

Middle Eastern men, especially Muslim men, have been depicted in the media as angry, violent, oppressive, and inhumane madmen who terrorize the innocent. Wilson, or Willow as she is referred to in the book, openly discusses her initial fear of Middle Eastern men as she states, “I had been taught to fear [Middle Eastern men]… they always seem like nice guys. It’s only after you’ve gotten involved that you discover the honor-killing wife-imprisoning fundamentalist reality beneath the façade” (43). Wilson, through her interaction and relationships with men in Egypt, depicts a very different side of Muslim men in the Middle East. She portrays men as kind, protective, and respectful. Her interaction and relationship with these men varies greatly, beginning with her husband, Omar, and continuing even to two local shopkeepers. Willow’s husband, whom she met in Egypt and is Muslim, is far from the stereotypical Middle Eastern man depicted in the media. He is kind, gentle, respectful, intelligent, and patient. Though Omar had never shown anything other than these qualities, Willow was often skeptical of him and how he would be once they married. When Omar’s female relatives began to place ideas in Willow’s head that Omar was a “traditional” man who would require her to slave in the home cooking and cleaning, she became alarmed and confronted him. Omar responded, “I am not marrying you to have a servant, I’m marrying you because I love you… You have this idea of a stereotypical Arab man in your head, and you keep confusing him with me” (204). Omar never deviated from being an honorable man through the entire book; he always respected and supported Willow in whatever it was she wanted to do: to visit Iran alone, to visit her family in Colorado alone, and even to move to the U.S. with Willow. Another major reoccurring theme when it came to her interaction with men in Egypt was this concept of them being very protective of their women, “The men began to treat me with the same protective chivalry they extended to other Muslim women” (108). While living in Tura, Willow and her friend Jo regularly shopped at a duken where they formed a friendship with its owners, Mohammad and Namir. There was one particular visit to the duken where a fellow shopper questioned Willow asking her if she was American. Mohammad and Namir immediately turned their attention to the man watching and listening to how he spoke to Willow. Willow described the scenario as following, “I noticed that Namir and Mohammad had stopped stocking the shelves and stood very still, looking at the man with an expression that was not friendly. Without speaking, but very clearly, they were saying Stop, go back, and approach her more suitably” (131). Willow further explains her and Jo’s relationship with the shopkeepers by elucidating, “Mohammad and Namir subtly defended our honor by insisting that within the confines of their shop we should be treated like Arab women… with the proper degree of respect” (130). There was also a fararghi, or poultry seller, Am Mahmoud, who came to Willow’s defense as well. While shopping in the market one afternoon, a group of American tourists stared at Willow trying to decipher if she was American or a Muslim. Willow describes Am Mahmoud’s reaction: “At the same moment, Am Mahmoud himself, cleaning his hands with a cloth, stepped between me and the street, screening me from the view of the tourists… the tourists moved on… Am Mahmoud had protected me from exposure and embarrassment as he would an Egyptian girl” (211-212). Though Willow also acknowledges the presence of some desperate, gawking men in Egypt, she more importantly acknowledges and shares with her audience the truth that men in the Middle East are not as they appear in the media. They are human beings and share the same emotions that everyone else experiences. They are protective of their women and have no intention of abusing or oppressing them. They are kind, gentle, and respectful; quite the opposite of violent, angry, and controlling as seen in the media.

Women have also been utilized as a tool in the American media to depict the Middle East and Islam as oppressive and condescending towards women. The media stresses the human rights violations of women in the Middle East, including honor-killings, abuse, polygamy, and lack of education. The media often portrays women as helpless and forced to cover head-to-toe with drapery. What the media does not discuss are the independent women in the Middle East or the reasons behind gender discrepancies within Islam. Wilson, on the other hand, exposes a different side to women in the Middle East: independent women, who are the head of the family. One very solid example of this type of women is Omar’s mother, Sohair who is also Muslim. Sohair was a single mother who worked hard her entire life to bring herself and her children out of poverty. Wilson also explains that just as in the West, many young women in the Middle East are also becoming more concerned with their careers and their education rather than just being a housewife. In addition to meeting Sohair, Willow realized the role of women through her interaction in the market and as a bride in Egypt. Wilson discusses women’s role as she states, “She is the one who builds relationships with the vendors of the best meat and the freshest fruit, and argues for the lowest price; she knows herbal remedies for dysentery; it is she who cooks for ten people out of three pots when relatives drop by unexpectedly. In Egypt, women create the civilization the men merely live in” (207). She goes on to discuss women’s rights in the Middle East and how they are better off since they have influence rather than rights: “Why push for rights when you have influence? A gusty, intelligent woman in the Middle East can steer fortunes of her entire family with a minimum of exposure and risk; giving her a full complement of western rights would limit the scope of her power by exposing her to the same public scrutiny as men” (270). Wilson further addresses women’s rights in Egypt and how if she were to marry Omar as a Christian, she would have fewer rights than as a Muslim (90). She even briefly discusses how the marriage license “entitled [her] to a slew of things if Omar took a second wife” (94). Lastly, Wilson touches on the believed double standard of men and women in the Middle East and in regards to being a Muslim. Willow explains that neither Islam nor the Qur’an warrants female oppression, “Islam, in its purely textual form, took my side. There is no religious limit on the public spaces that women can inhabit; nothing prevents them from running businesses or driving cars, there is no reason they must walk behind men or cover their faces. A woman’s role is not defined by the kitchen and the nursery” (80). While visiting Colorado and enjoying coffee with a friend, the friend inquired about women not being allowed to be in the company of another man if he is not her husband or of her husband’s family. Willow beaks this idea of an oppressive, double standard as she says, “There are only two genders here. Creating a rule for one necessarily creates the same rule for the other. You could just as easily asked whether Omar could go out with another woman or be alone with her, and I would have given the same answer: no” (228). Women hold much more respect than the media leads on to believe. They present one side of the matter without fully explaining the other. Willow summarizes the truth of women in the Middle East for her audience as follows, “It was such a tantalizing contradiction, being a woman in the Middle East—far less free than a woman in the West, but far more appreciated” (250).

The media has created an image of all Muslims as being extremists. What they fail to mention in their new reports is the simple fact that that extremists make up only a small fraction of the Muslim population and those in the Middle East fear these individuals as well, not just Westerners. Islam is the second largest religion in the world; if all or even a majority of Muslims were extremists and terrorists then there would be a much greater number of attacks around the world and on a much more regular basis. Wilson makes clear this point throughout her work. She briefly describes a fundamentalist mosque near her apartment and how “the screams of the muezzin” woke the entire neighborhood up at 4 am (123). Wilson even attempts to explain the truth behind fundamentalists and their actions, “The fundamentalists we could see from our bathroom window hated us for very religious reasons… It became clear to me… how little the anger of our local extremists had to do with military America. While the situation in Iraq gave them political legitimacy and direction, and a dangerous amount of emotional leverage with average Muslims, it was not the reason they were angry. They hated America that exports culture” (135-136). The media is also guilty of blaming Islam for supporting terrorism; which Wilson makes clear is not the case by any means, “Dozens of fatwas against terrorism have been issued since 9/11, many by high-ranking clerics. The silence of the press to positive gains made by moderate Muslims has enabled damaging misconceptions about the religion and its leaders” (243). Wilson even interviewed a mufti, who stated that Islam “aims to protect human dignity and human rights” and that it forbids “tyranny, prostitution, suicide, drug abuse – anything that treats a human being as an object” (247). Finally, Wilson attempts to also clear up the misconception that all Muslims hate Americans and that the Middle East only has a negative view of America and its people as she explains, “To speak about America in such bitter generalities was not typical in Egypt, except perhaps among hard-line fundamentalists” (278). Once again the author tries to make clear that the false generalizations and fallacies presented by the media. Though terrorism is a real problem, and though the extremists do use Islam as an excuse, it does not represent Islam or the Middle East by any means. Just as Americans do not all want to be stereotyped by what is seen in Hollywood, Muslims do not want to be stereotyped by only what is broadcast in the news.

“There was so much about Islam and the people who lived it that was left unsaid in the media and in public discussion, and I could do something about it” are the very words which explain the purpose of G. Willow Wilson’s The Butterfly Mosque. Wilson’s work was a well-written attempt to bridge the gap between the Middle East, mainly Islam, and the United States. She illustrated the truth: the good and bad of both cultures. While she focused on closing the gap between what is seen in the media in the U.S. in regards to men, women, and fundamentalists, she never presented only one side of the matter. She acknowledged and made reference to the fact that there were truths to the stereotypes, but that the stereotypes did not apply to everyone. These incorrect stereotypes of men being oppressive and violent, women being submissive and abused, and all Muslims being fundamentalists are incorrectly applied to the majority when in reality this applies to a small minority. Readers of this work will finish this book with a new perspective on Islam and that of Middle Eastern culture.

Jessica Danielle Phillips is a senior in International Relations at Rollins College in Winter Park, FL.

Book review
Wilson, G. Willow. The Butterfly Mosque. New York: Grove Press, 2010.

Almost every society eventually creates an “other”that serves as such for certain political, economic, or social purposes. And in most cases, the identification of this “other” rests on a simplistic “us versus them” dichotomy: we are “good” people, and they are “bad” people. Because this simple dichotomy is more mythical than real, the maintenance of this myth requires a continuous pumping of misinformation into the public realm. Misinformation is not necessarily incorrect information; it is also purposeful manipulation of reality. Each society foregrounds the good acts of its own people and backgrounds their bad acts while foregrounding the bad acts of “others” and backgrounding their good acts. Thus, we all accomplish giving our own communities a delusional sense of moral and cultural superiority over others, which eventually turns the material conflicts between us and others into moral conflicts between good and evil.

The common “good Westerners-bad Muslims” dichotomy results in manipulation of the information provided to the people in the West about both Muslims and Westerners themselves. This is why in some of the Western media, evil acts of Muslim people are almost always associated with Islam while noble acts of Muslim people such as Mr. Osman are either ignored or associated with their nationality rather than their religion. In the same vein, evil acts of Western people such as those who gassed the nursery of a Muslim mosque in Ohio while about 300 people were praying inside in September 2008 are largely ignored by some of the mainstream Western media, for it goes against the “good Westerners” image.

A striking example that is used as evidence to the evilness of Muslims is the degree of support for terrorism among Muslims. Authors from Sam Harris to Robert Spencer have sought refuge in Muslim support for terrorism when they wanted to denounce Islam. Some surveys reveal that there are some Muslims who justify killing innocent people in certain circumstances. According to the respectable PEW institution’s surveys, 10 to 50 percent of people in different Muslim societies (with an average of 20-25%) often times or sometimes justify suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam. Such findings are construed as evidence to both the belligerent nature of the religion of Islam and the evilness of the Muslim mind. Yet another truth that goes uncovered in some of the Western media is the fact that there is comparable support for terrorism among Western people as well. According to a 2007 survey by World Public Opinion, for example, 24% of Americans find “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” often times or sometimes justified. But such surveys never find a place in the some of the mainstream American media because they go against the common “good American-bad Muslim” dichotomy.

The problem of misinformation is not unique to the West. It is equally problematic in Muslim societies. Most Muslims have known the United States and Americans through the lenses of Vietnam, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the like. But few of them are aware of such programs like Peace Corps or Volunteers for Prosperity because such good American acts go against the mythical “bad Americans-good Muslims” dichotomy in the Muslim world. Similarly, most Muslims have memorized many non-Muslim names for their brutal acts against Muslims, but very few Muslims are familiar with Muslim names who are held responsible for the crimes against humanity. Whereas the former figures confirm the mythical “good Muslims-bad non-Muslims” image, the latter contradicts it. Therefore, the former examples have been highlighted in the Muslim media and the latter has been ignored.

On the forefront of this universal misinformation campaign are two institutions: the media and governments. The media loves sensational, flashy news because such news pumps up their ratings. Consequently, the media capitalize on overstated evilness of some other people and the existential threat they pose to “our” society. In the same vein, our governments love the existence of “external threats to our national security,” mythical or real, because it allows them to divert public attention from failed domestic policies to international politics and also to implement certain political and military agenda that they could not have carried out without a foreign threat. John Mueller, a professor of political science from Ohio State University, estimated that “the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000-about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor.” Yet whereas no sane American is obsessed with the adversity of a meteor falling on his/her head, many have been made to obsessively think, fear, and guard themselves against a terrorist attack by some evil others.

Most of us have been misinformed about other societies to some extent. We are all, therefore, in need of a therapy of knowledge refinement. But how do we do that? Personally, I think there are two effective ways/channels of refining our knowledge and acquiring authentic information about other societies. First, we need to diversify our sources of information by reading multiple and multi-national news papers or portals. Second, we need to diversify our pool of friends and include in it as many people from “other” societies as possible. Nothing is more powerful than a concrete counter-example when it comes to destroying a myth. As we diversify our sources of information and befriend people from other societies, we will realize that “we” are not as “good” as we are told we are, and “they” are not as “bad” as we are told they are, which will hopefully help us re-appreciate the essential commonality between all of us: humanity. Hopefully, we will then also realize that the major struggle is not between “good” us versus “bad” them but rather between the good people and the bad ones among us all. We need to find ways of testing or confirming knowledge we get from the media and not forget that the media is owned and operated by people, who, like us, have many presumptions, biases, priorities, or simply misconceptions, that can spill over when they are “reporting.”

Kaan Kerem has a PhD in political science. He is a freelance writer on philosophy and scientific thought.

The media continues to influence our lives with an ever growing capacity, for it is no longer solely in print form and thus commands a much larger potential of accessibility in a much shorter span of time and space. For many, the print edition still offers the best experience of the news but with a much smaller frequency, velocity, and flexibility. Such an influence that comes along with the amount of exposure and yet instant mutability of new media forms brings up concerns about the “values” that set the main guidelines for this power and change in media outlets. This was our main topic of discussion this past March and April in Singapore, Jakarta, Melbourne, Sydney, Kuala Lumpur, and Shah Alam. We are thankful to local organizers in these cities for their cooperation. We are especially indebted to Professor Radhi al-Mabuk from the University of Iowa and Professor Jon Pahl from The Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, who generously spent their time with us during this tour and gave presentations in each of these cities on our behalf. You will find in this issue brief notes and photos from the “Media and Values” panels, in addition to two other The Fountain Talks events in Austin, TX and Manhattan, NY. We would like to offer our appreciation to the local organizers of these events. For more information, please visit www.fountainmagazine.com.

“An Ardent Prayer” leads the current issue. It is the prayer of a painful heart filled with sorrow for our weakness in responding to the blessings bestowed on us; a heart that is concerned with the troubles of our society and yet hopeful for the divine mercy as he prays to be treated not according to our distance from Him, rather in light of His proximity to all of His creation.

“My Treasure Jars” comes from a lifetime resident of the Appalachian Mountains. Belinda Sturgill shares with us a very thoughtful piece on what a woman, a mother, and a grandmother can leave behind as a legacy to her family, to her nation, and to humanity. This is an award-winning essay from The Fountain Essay Contest of 2010.

Our interview with Dr. Priya Natarajan from Yale University is another “treasure jar” in this issue. She describes her job as “building a story line for the universe.” Who else other than a cosmologist could dare to offer such a description of her work? Or perhaps we should put the question the other way around: who on the face of this earth does not want to learn the story line of the universe?

As citizens of this macro-reality, we can often feel as if we are but pawns in the vast global chess game being played by multinational corporations, traditional superpowers, new and emerging nuclear powers, and the economic pushbuttons of development and consumer capitalism. Within such a world, some may find it difficult to believe that our individual choices can make a difference in our communities. So what if a few dozen or even a few hundred people in our city get together for an interfaith meal? So what if families from different cultures living together in a town get to know each other? What difference does it make in the end? Political powers and other forces call the larger shots and will send us all into war and conflict if they so desire. Human nature being what it is, we will succumb to our baser instincts in hard times no matter how many positive interfaith or intercultural experiences we’ve had with others.

Critics of interfaith dialogue often make this case. They point to examples from Bosnia, the Middle East, Kashmir, Punjab, Rwanda and elsewhere to illustrate that people who coexist peacefully for centuries can be manipulated into barbarically killing each other relatively quickly. Tyrants, insurgents and other power-seekers have learned that cultural, ethnic, and/or religious differences can form natural fault lines in a given communal fabric, which can be exploited by skillful media messaging and the opportunistic staging of current events into powerfully persuasive political theater. Once the mass media have been harnessed, if not outright hijacked, power seekers can move populations as if mountains – whipping up mass fear, anger, hysteria and eventually an appetite for genocide.

Interfaith dialogue seems no match for these gargantuan modern monstrosities. And, in many cases, it isn’t. The warmly felt bonds of interfaith harmony that thrive in times of relative peace and prosperity chill easily in times of strife and hardship, especially when political, economic or national security interests are at stake. In such times, usually all but a few individuals will succumb to fear, and then retreat to their respective religio-ethnic corners to prepare for a fight. The individuals who maintain their commitment to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors resist the fight, try to save their friends who have suddenly become “the enemy” because of their religion or ethnicity, and often lose their lives in the process. They may be heroes, to be sure, but they are dead. And they do not win in the end; the warmongers do – at least, most of the time.

But not all the time. Occasionally, we find exceptions to this all too common trajectory in human socio-political relations. Situations wherein populations held themselves together despite enormous pressures to fight and kill one another. Where community leaders resisted the gravitational pull of hatred that strips them of their voices and replaces them with those of fear mongers and peddlers of hatred. When we find these exceptions, we must review and analyze the exact conditions that made them possible in the first place, and determine if they can be replicated in other situations of strife and war.

I encountered such an exceptional situation this past spring while visiting Croatia. Fuzine is one of several quaint mountain villages in the district of Gorski Kotar in northern end of the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. I recently listened to the former governor of the district and a local radio producer tell their stories from the period of the war in 1991.

A Yugoslavian Army base camp was built near the district, on top of a hill. Normally, the existence of this base would have been the beginning of the end for peaceful relations between the Croat and Serbian villages of the district. Croats would view the base as a danger and a provocation, as well as a support camp to the Serbian villages. The Serbians, for their part, would have used the base as a “back-up” for their own violence against their Croat neighbors. Since violence begets violence, Croats or Serbs would make the first strike and the cycle would begin. Many would die, the villages would be destroyed, and the resulting “life” would resemble existence on the surface of the moon.

That’s not what happened.

In a stunning turn of events, the municipal leaders of all the villages – Serb and Croat – approached the base commanders and established a relationship with them. After several meetings, it became clear that none of them wanted either to shoot at each other or to be shot. So, they made a written agreement that constituted the “terms” of their coexistence during those months. For example, when the Yugoslav army was required to fire on the villages, per orders from up the chain of command, they warned the citizens ahead of time and instructed them on how to survive the barrage. They provided the citizens with maps of the mines they laid. The village leaders returned the favor and provided base commanders with a “heads up” when they were forced, by public opinion and the radical fringe, to fire on the army base. The local radio producer treated the army base as another “village” in the district and reported its news, events, and played music for the troops, etc. They called the families of wounded guards to apologize – and did so publicly on the radio – when radical elements in their midst broke the agreement and fired on the soldiers. Media reports stayed ahead of the rumor mills, reported the facts of things, and controlled the message to minimize the inflammatory impact of the angry rhetoric coming from other sources.

As a result of the extraordinary bravery and commitment from people on both sides, no one from the district was killed and no one was taken to a wartime prison camp.

Leaders on both sides suffered consequences. Two of the base commanders went to prison for 12 years. One of them disappeared into the mists of “the system” while the other was killed by civilians after being released. The radio producer in Gorski Kotar was banned from media and only recently has begun to work again. Other city leaders voluntarily disappeared into anonymity – this story was kept quiet at first – so as to avoid persecution and death for their actions.

Upon analysis, a few things stand out about this exceptional situation. First of all, there were conditions on the ground that the village leaders exploited to their advantage. The Gorski Kotar district was somewhat geographically remote from the heart of the fighting during the war. As such, neither the base nor the villagers had direct daily involvement in the heart of the war’s operations. Without interventions for peace that could have certainly changed, and the district could have become an additional center or “theater” of the war; however, the interventions took advantage of the district’s “off the beaten path” status. An additional opportunity came in the fact that one of the base commanders was nearing retirement, weary of his job and of fighting, and was inclined to strike a deal with the villagers as long as he could save face. Therefore, when village leaders approached him and his colleagues with a plan for peaceful coexistence, they were ready to negotiate a plan that would let both sides fly under the radar of the larger war and possibly come away from it largely unscathed.

Secondly, media leaders took their share of responsibility for the creation and maintenance of the arrangement with the base camp, as well as for keeping the peace between the villages during particularly tense weeks. Put simply, radio and print media controlled the message in favor of peace. When infractions to the agreement happened from time to time, from both sides, reporting of the story was done in the least inflammatory way possible. For example, when the base camp did an obligatory firing on the villages (after warning the villagers of the times and locations) and accidentally damaged the radio transmission tower, the base commander sent his own soldiers to repair it immediately so that broadcasts could resume as soon as possible. More importantly, this fact was reported to the community so as to minimize anger and outrage over the incident. In short, media operatives used their power for peace and not for war. They recognized the power of media to incite, enflame, and create the larger narrative in which people experience things in their communities. Through skillful messaging and the coordination of communication lines, they maintained and nurtured the agreement for peace through its many months, creating the very conditions for peaceful coexistence.

Finally, we can see that community leaders in the villages refused to relinquish immediately their roles as leaders to the larger forces of the army. They easily could have done otherwise. Once the base camp was established, they could have decided that war was now inevitable, that their little villages stood no chance to resist the war tide rolling towards them, and that each village needed to now begin fortifying themselves against the army and each other, and prepare to fight and die.

They didn’t do this. Instead, they banded together, created a plan, and took a huge risk in walking up the hill to the base camp and presenting it to the commanders. The creativity, courage and will power this required of them simply cannot be overstated. In the end, this human element is what makes the ultimate difference. Human beings are endowed with self-consciousness, agency and imagination, which allows us to not only visualize alternative scenarios in any given situation, but also to imagine and implement alternative courses of action within them – for ourselves and for others. These leaders together resisted the war tide, created an alternative possibility for their district, and bravely took radical steps to implement it. And it worked. Not flawlessly, but enough to keep their people, their homes and their way of life from going up in flames.

Can what happened in Gorski Kotar work everywhere? No and yes. No, in the sense that certain conditions in place on the ground in this district that contributed to the peace are not in place ubiquitously. Most army base commanders aren’t open to illegal agreements with “enemy” villagers. Not all regional or district leaders – in the media or otherwise – have working relations good enough to band together in wartime to create and implement such a thing as this. Many other factors prevent any one exception, such as what happened in Gorski Kotar, from providing a stable template for peace easily applicable to any other situation. These situations are exceptions, after all.

Nevertheless, what happened here can be instructive for other areas. The positive and necessary role of media in maintaining the peace agreement in Gorski Kotar is abundantly clear. Those who find themselves in similar situations of religious and ethnic conflict will do well to procure access to media, if possible, sooner rather than later in order to shape the messaging toward peace and restraint, away from hatred and violence. Today’s 21st century media technology resists totalitarian control in important ways, as recent events in Iran, China and even North Korea indicate. Those with skills can exploit media for peace as well as for war.

Finally, in the end, much turns on the simple power of human agency and choice, and the willingness of people to join together and exercise that agency in the direction of peace in the face of seemingly impossible circumstances. Of course, such principled action plans don’t always make a difference. In fact, such plans may often fail in times of war. But, they certainly have no chance of success at all if people give up on the fight from the beginning and refuse even to attempt to alter the course of things. On this point, people on the brink of war in all sorts of situations have at least a chance – perhaps not a big chance, but a chance nevertheless – to turn the tide in another direction, or at least to reduce the body count and carnage.

I am haunted by an image one of the community leaders in Gorski Kotar used in telling us their story when we met with them. The radio producer told us that media flies “as fast as a bird, as fast as the speed of light” even; however, it typically arrives after the dead bodies already lay on the ground. The producer and the other leaders in the community wanted to avoid bodies on the ground altogether. They wanted media to be faster than the dead.

It seems, in this case at least, they succeeded.

B. Jill Carroll is an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University.

Vitamin basics

Vitamins and minerals are key nutrients that are essential in the regular functioning of the human body. They are needed in small amounts and are usually acquired from vegetables and fruits (Dobson 12). When acquired properly, vitamins can competently play the role assigned to them and they can observe their duties, such as to keep the immune system running, contribute to the structural integrity of the body, and strengthen the sensory systems. Their deficiency in the body leads to problems in these systems, which may result in lethal risks for health. For example, “lack of vitamin D damages immunity to cause cancers, diabetes and infections” (Mirkin).

Vitamins can be classified as water soluble and fat soluble. Generally, the vitamins that are soluble in water are absorbed by the body in the quantities that are needed. The excess is excreted in urine. Thus, it appears that abundant use of pills containing such vitamins produces nothing but expensive urine. As for the vitamins that are soluble in fat, their excess is stored in fat tissues and is retrieved in case of need (“Vitamins and Minerals”). This is an undesired effect, because it tires the body, which is otherwise a perfectly adjusted system.

Motivation for vitamin supplements

In the last century, a lot of research has been done to establish the amounts of vitamins and minerals needed for regular functioning of the body. With this knowledge, there is a growing concern among the public about their nutrition in recent years. People often think that the foods they are consuming do not contain necessary or sufficient amounts of vitamins and minerals.

It is not difficult to see that this concern has been formed by the artificial agendas of certain specialists. These specialists use methods that evoke feelings of anxiety, fear, desire, and the wish for perfection. The visual media and the press have certainly been the main and most effective means of propagating this agenda. Based on consultation with the specialists, vitamin-producing companies make promises to the consumers through advertisements that highlight how good vitamins are for children, adolescents and the elderly. They promise, for example, that if certain vitamins are used, people will feel better, improve their memory or remove aging effects. They claim that some of the vitamins they are selling have a healing or preventive power against diseases about which people are most concerned or fearful. Cancer, cardiovascular problems and obesity are among the most commonly emphasized such diseases. In the same way, abusing people’s desire for a long life, they claim that some vitamins increase life expectancy. For children, their inherent desire to be like adults is abused and they are promised that if they use certain vitamins they will be strong. These claims are reinforced with video clips in order to make them appear more realistic, and they are further supported by frequent repetition in the visual media.

Food supplements designed to meet the needs of the body are also put in “costumes” to allure the consumers. Product packaging uses big bullet points to present information about their extra vitamin content. In parallel to this, in the stores where these vitamins are sold, life-size pictures of famous or well-built people are displayed.

The Vitamin Market

As a result of all these efforts, many people think that a healthy life is not possible without vitamin pills. According to a survey by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) two decades ago, around fifty percent of the population from 19–50 takes a multivitamin pill every day. That survey showed a significant increase compared to another one performed five years earlier (Driskell). According to this trend, the vitamin supplement consumption is likely to have achieved much higher levels in our time.

Thus, an enormous market has formed for vitamin and mineral pills. It is estimated that this market amounts to an annual sales value between three and five billion dollars (Anderson, Wilken). With a drive to get a share of the sales, all supermarket chains have opened sections for vitamin pills and sell various kinds of vitamin supplements. Not only is the vitamin industry doing all these promotions for its own benefit, but media companies are also thriving on such advertisements. Unfortunately, this is sometimes a major reason for the media not to go after certain issues.

What is wrong?

Research shows that people get the correct quantity of vitamins and minerals if they consume a variety of natural foods and drinks. In countries with a high per capita income, some foods and drinks are even enriched with extra vitamins to ensure that vitamins are taken in sufficient amounts. As a result, for a person who is on a normal diet, a multivitamin pill is very likely to be excessive. With regard to these pills, nobody knows what amount is good for which person under what conditions. It is strange that the quantity of fruits and vegetables corresponding to the same amount of vitamin contained in a multivitamin pill is not revealed. Perhaps if this were calculated, the insanity of vitamin supplements would become evident. Do we really need to eat as many vegetables as a cow or a horse?

At the top of the direct vitamin intake options are vitamin pills. The majority of vitamin pills are marketed as a multivitamin-combinations of different vitamins and minerals. Supplying various combinations of vitamins in a single pill seems like a good idea at first. However, when we look at the production of vitamin pills, we see that the production process has not been standardized. Each company makes its own vitamin combinations and markets them. On top of their content, the daily consumption of synthetic vitamin pills is also variable based on the demands of the individual consumer. Although some companies include a recommendation on the packaging, in the end they say that their product can be consumed to the extent it is needed. For many vitamin pills, information about their solubility in water or fat is not present either. However, such pieces of information are of vital importance for their healthy consumption.

In recent times, with their wider use, these synthetic pills have been held responsible for health problems, contradicting expectations of health improvement, but so far they have not gained a bad reputation related to side-effect or harm. The prevailing view is that the more vitamins one takes, the better one’s health. This view might be true for natural vitamins; however, it is not so for synthetic vitamins. Generally, side-effects are associated with high dosages and undiluted intake, neither of which occurs in their natural counterparts.

Multivitamin pills are usually combined with minerals. Thus, while taking vitamin supplements, minerals are also taken, regardless of the need for them. However, similar to vitamins, minerals also are bad for human health when taken in excess. They interact with and counteract each other, and hence they disturb the body’s equilibrium.

In a study by Goran Bjelakovic and Christian Gluud, which was published in the journal of National Cancer Institute, it is stated that “Our diets typically contain safe levels of vitamins, but high-level antioxidant supplements could potentially upset an important physiological balance” (Bjelakovic, Gluud 742). They claim that antioxidant vitamins (A, C, E) do not provide any benefit when consumed in pills: if they are used as such, each results in certain forms of harm according to their function in the body. Bjelakovic and Gluud proved that such vitamin pills neither prevent nor cure cancer, that they do not protect the cardiovascular system, do not increase life expectancy nor alleviate the effects of aging. On the contrary, they showed that these antioxidant vitamin pills increase the risk of the diseases mentioned above. For example, a male person who is taking one multivitamin pill per day is doubling his risk for developing prostate cancer.

Some supplements can also have drug-like effects which present risks for people with certain medical conditions. A vitamin supplement brand was found to have potentially dangerous interactions with a number of prescription drugs (“‘Miracle’ Health Claims”).

At the very least, such side-effect-related cases call for a sound understanding of how these substances interact with the body. Can the human body convert synthetic vitamins to a usable form? Can they be stored and used later in case of vitamin deficiency? Are vitamin supplements, especially synthetic pills, as effective as natural vitamin sources, such as fruits and vegetables? What are the side effects associated with synthetic vitamins? What happens to vitamins in the case of overdose? Unless there are factual answers to these questions, vitamin pills should not be considered safe to use, and people should not use vitamin and mineral pills without consulting a doctor (“Vitamins and Minerals”).

Watch out for your health!

Here is the dilemma now: on the one hand, vitamin manufacturers are struggling to show the benefits of vitamin pills so that they make more profit; on the other hand, there is other research proving the detrimental effects of vitamin pills. At this point, it is nice to see a parallel dilemma in the fast-food market. If you go to a fast-food restaurant, their “nutrition facts” sheets show how healthy their food is. They even compare their food with other companies’ food in order to highlight their quality. However, there is a general consensus about unhealthiness of fast-food as demonstrated in the movie “Supersize Me”. Be it the food industry or the dietary supplement industry, there are claims from the producers which contradict the facts observed in real life. What to believe and who to trust are not clear.

One recourse in this ambivalence is the federal regulations or official advice from government scientists. In theory, health-care standards are established by either legislators or health organizations. However, in practice, there is a lack of institutes which can undertake the control of production of synthetic vitamin pills. In the US, for example, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s report, “Dietary supplements are not required to undergo government testing or review before they are marketed” (“Miracle’ Health Claims”). So, existing US health organizations, such as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), do not accept any responsibility.

The main reason for not checking the harm associated with vitamin pills is that their side effects emerge in the long run. Consumers do not have the means to prove their cases, and consumer associations do not have enough financial power to take legal action against the producer companies. Therefore, there is no legal or practical base to pursue allegations related to the use of vitamin supplements. Given all this, using vitamin and mineral supplements is not very different from gambling with our health.

The above discussion provides enough information to evoke questions in the mind of the reader. Protecting people from the harm caused by vitamin pills is not possible through financial or judicial means at present, but it may be possible in the future through their long term results appearing as people with severe health problems. Let us hope that the people who have control over these issues will act in consideration of everybody’s health as an invaluable trust granted to them.

Alper Bursali is a senior student at West Virginia University, Biology Department.

References

• Bjelakovic, Goran, and Christian Gluud. “Surviving Antioxidant Supplements.” Editorial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 16 May 2007:742-743.
• Dobson, Roger. “The A to Z of vitamins;” Independent Extra, 6 Mar. 2007. 25 June. 2007 http://web.lexis-nexis.com.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/universe/printdoc
• Driskell, Judy A. Vitamin-Mineral Supplements and Their Usage by Adults. 28 June 2007 http://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Nutrition_Information/
• Nutritional_Supplements/supplements_usage_adults.htm
• Familydoctor.org 2004. Vitamins and Minerals: What You Should Know. Sept. 2004 http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/
• home/otc-center/otc-medicines/863.html
• Fogle, C., J. Anderson and K. Wilken. Mar. 2002. 29 June 2007 http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/foodnut/09338.pdf.
• ‘Miracle’ Health Claims: Add a Dose of Skepticism. September 2001. Federal Trade Commission. 20 June 2007 http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/health/frdheal.shtm
• Mirkin, Gabe. Lack of Vitamin D causes Cancer. 5 Mar. 2007. 27 June 2007 http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/1337.html
• Sardi, Bill. Government/Scientific/Pharmaceutical/News Media Grip Over Dietary Supplements. 23 Jan. 2006. 27 June 2007 http://www.policestateplanning.com/dietary_supplements.htm

There may be some credit to the idea that it is not proper to compare the immigrants in France to those in Germany, due to the historical and cultural differences in their social structures. However, the typical characteristics of ghettos and the similar approaches of the governments to the immigrants imply that such unpleasant events can always take place. First of all, the immigrants who are pushed into ghettos and usually cannot be assimilated are in an isolated position from the main society in terms of language, culture, and education fields. There are clear examples of this in Germany; the large numbers of immigrants living in certain regions bring along serious language and education problems. Many young people start life without a good educational degree, without career opportunities, and after having had negative experiences in school life. Such young people are mostly idle, have achieved nothing close to a satisfactory educational level, and, not caring about human values, they tend to solve their problems through violence as well as being open to manipulation. We face potential danger as long as this situation remains the same. Riots like in Paris might happen in other countries as well. Developing early solutions and maintaining social peace before such unpleasant events happen is in no doubt a better alternative than having to send riot police to the suburbs. Politicians and local administrations should adapt more sensitive approaches to the immigrants, or rather the minorities, who live in the ghettos and similar locations that have such potential.

Germans, for instance, should first of all give up trying to blame the problems on ethnic and religious reasons and form the main frame of a fresh vision of living together. Actually the German constitution does have the relevant essentials for such an approach. However, in spite of the first article of the German Constitution “The dignity of man is inviolable,” Germans in administrative positions often fail to fulfill this principle. Anybody who observes German society in this respect can witness how the dignity of the immigrants is violated, how they are looked down upon, and psychologically isolated at schools, factories, and other workplaces. Beyond violating the individuals’ dignity, insulting words or behavior sometimes even amounts to insulting an entire nation. What is more, unfortunately sometimes even some statesmen present such behavior prompted by the media.

As a matter of fact, the ghettos and similar locations in Germany were not consciously formed by the minorities. The immigrants who came to the country as workers about forty years ago started living around their workplaces in the beginning. Therefore, the number of foreigners at the schools in these neighborhoods started to increase more and more. So the formation of the ghettos started with the dwellings centered around workplaces and then it affected the educational institutions. On the other hand, the fact that in most German cities landlords refused to let out their apartments to immigrants had and still has a role in the formation of the ghettos.

Despite this fact, a minister in one of the parties in Germany made an interesting comment, particularly for the Turks, saying “Turks consider themselves to be superior to Germans, so they prefer to live in ghettos instead of integrating into German society.” On hearing such opinions, one cannot help but remember the old Nazi view of the Jews.

One of the reasons for such attitudes is that some politicians try to gain credit by adopting such policies in order to attract nationalist votes. Surely, these policies do not benefit society and history proves that those who trigger social chaos become the first ones to pay the price. When the hostile and provocative manners of politicians cause unrest, it is the media that should assume the responsibility for maintaining the peace.

Unfortunately, let alone playing a positive role, a significant part of the German media just fans the flames. Almost everyday they exaggerate marginal events and German society is misinformed about Muslims. The result is a biased society that is afraid of all Muslims. Thus, the media is in fact preparing grounds for similar social troubles that happened in France; for ignorance and fanaticism trigger the same kind of reaction on the opposite side.

Even after the provocative events of publishing a caricature that insults the Messenger of God and thereby all the Muslims in the world, most Muslims protested the event within a democratic framework. In spite of this, some European media organs used the freedom of press as an excuse to violate the sacred values of Muslims and they also tried to reflect all Muslims as pro-violence by showing some street demonstrations and violent events, as if millions of Muslims had approved of using violence. The fact that European Muslims protested the provocation within their democratic rights has been overlooked and unfortunately Islamophobia still continues to grow.

The following is a concrete example of the insistent negative attitude of the German media against Muslims. At a news program on the ZDF Channel, the reporter asks questions about the events in the Paris suburbs to Daniel Cohn-Bendikt, the French senator of the Greens in the European Parliament. The program was an evident proof of the terrible need for a radical change in the German mentality about Islam and Muslims. Two points were emphasized by the reporter: the role of religion and the young people’s refusal to integrate! The senator just laughed and his answer revealed how superficial the reporter’s comments were: “the events in the suburbs are in no way related to religion. Some of the people who have been left to their own fate and discriminated against for decades might have turned to religion, but the rebellion doesn’t have a religious motive. Look at the education given in the ghettos. Lots of young people want to benefit from education opportunities, they want to be integrated. But they see how they are discriminated when you look at the terrible condition of their schools.”

The integration policies in Germany, Britain, Holland, and France have all failed. But why? Because the cultural identity of people has been ignored; policies that require them to abandon their religious and national identities and become assimilated into the culture of the country in which they live are being imposed. Today, European countries need to both revise their integration policies to date as well as developing a new “vision of living together” that is beyond integration. The events in Holland at the end of 2004 and the events in Paris in 2005, along with the latest one, the impertinent caricature, give food for thought to state authorities and should allow them to draw important conclusions. The initial precautions to be taken can be to seek ways to enhance educational opportunities in the suburbs and urge the media to give up horror scenarios, rather preparing sensible and informative news to contribute to peace in society.

On the other hand, integration-oriented problems in Europe are generally more common with Muslim immigrants. It is known that in some countries the integration policies towards Christian immigrants have succeeded. The Spanish and Italians in France and the Poles in Germany can be given as examples. The same integration policies didn’t work for Muslims in countries like France, Germany, and Holland. For this reason, terms like “integration” do not make much sense for Muslim immigrants now. After a few decades of integration policies, most Muslims still don’t know with what they are to integrate. No one denies that they should abide by German laws, conform to the social rules, and learn the German language. When the German minister, Prof. Maria Bohmer, said that the immigrants should speak German, learn about German history, recognize the social values, and abide by the legal system of the country this was, of course, approved by all sides.

At this point, both sides need to present a positive approach to reach a healthy solution. On the one hand we have many Muslims who are maintaining their identity and who are citizens that are respected by their German friends. On the other hand, some extremists in the German community just adhere to their bias against foreigners, no matter how they behave. Nevertheless, one shouldn’t jump to conclusions and make an overgeneralization about all Germans.

Sooner or later, good efforts will be shown the respect they deserve. When both sides come together with honesty and good intentions at dialogue activities, we witness that the new “vision of living together” is not a dream, but a reality that is at hand. One should keep in mind that feelings of love, kindness, and the relevant positive responses are inherent in human nature. All of us have the conscience mechanisms to appreciate these feelings. What falls to us is to turn the inherent feelings in human nature in the positive direction, which is already in compliance with what the religions teach.