Love this, love this, but...

What happens when a society's entire moral compass has become inverted? When a micro-society that encourages and glorifies death (in this example, say lynching culture in the South in the early 20th century, and the shaheed cult in Gaza) masks itself for fear and intimidation rather than the stripping of humanness?

I think this is a reasonable question in light of Friedman's comparison of both the Klan and Hamas. So, in their respective societies in which nihilism, death and martrydom are glorified, the masks actually aren't necessarily a mark of inhumanity, or hiding ones humanity. Rather, they are almost uber humanity (or transcending of humanity, as both groups use the mask as a ghostly specter). Thus how one could wear either a klan robe/mask, and a shaheed's mask at a Hamas rally, but have no qualms about being entirely open about their dualistic identity as both klansman/politician (or school teacher, etc...) and potential martyr/regular ol' member of society.

"On the other hand, when pushing a shopping cart in a grocery store, even the rudest and most aggressive drivers tend to be much more polite. It's rare, for example, to see shoppers cutting each other off with their carts and waving their middle fingers. "

Um, when was the last time you tried to shop in a Mediterranean country? This "line cutting with grocery cart maneuver" is famous in Italy and in Israel, in Israel always accompanied by "ani hayiti po kodem" ("I was here earlier").

Ashprintzen -- Hmm...interesting comments. Regarding your question:

When a micro-society that encourages and glorifies death (in this example, say lynching culture in the South in the early 20th century, and the shaheed cult in Gaza) masks itself for fear and intimidation rather than the stripping of humanness?

I would say that any mask that is used for fear and intimidation does simultaneously strip one of humanity, but I guess in this case perhaps the mask functions differently in that it allows the wearer to strip the Other of humanity. In a sense, the mask, though not worn by the vitim, strips the victim of humanity (or at least it gives the temporary illusion that the victim's humanity has disappeared . . . long enough for the atrocity to be committed). Not sure if this is what you're getting at, though . . .

But you're right -- there does seem to be a contradiction between wearing a mask during the act of violence, yet pride themselves in their public persona that showcases these very acts. Something else to think about, I guess . . .

Hi Monica,

Like Ashprintzen said. But I'd like to add to that, and I'll keep it un-philosophical at this stage (the stage of tea-time for me, that is): What of the perpetrators that don't wear masks and don't hide their victims' faces? Plenty of those to go around, I'm afraid.

Monica,

Yep, you got it, that was precisely what I was getting at (though could have done a better job of spelling it out explicitly).  Perhaps just as some need to mask themselves in order to hide their own humanity when committing violent acts, that the mask does act as a filter in seeing one's victim's humanity.

"This "line cutting with grocery cart maneuver" is famous in Italy and in Israel, in Israel always accompanied by "ani hayiti po kodem" ("I was here earlier")."

Ah, yes, in Spain it's the "soy yo" - I am me...and therefore entitled to everything. ::eyeroll::

Really interesting article in the Daily Shvitz, I'm enjoying the analytical back-and-forth here!

Uniforms and the drilling/brainwashing that goes into the making of a soldier can have a similar distancing effect as a mask. One does not abandon moral responsibility as a soldier (or policeman) but rather the uniform gives sanction, in certain defined circumstances, to perform acts of violence normally forbidden.

The utter breakdown of morality in the Palestinian territories is indeed terrifying (and I live within walking distance, so such events have a bit more bone-chilling salience for me.) It's a good piece, Lys.

Levinas is wonderful... Thomas Friedman is a dangerous evil liar and propagandist, but even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. 

Mmausner -- I sympathize with your final comment, about both Levinas and Friedman. And I think you are absolutely right in terms of the uniform becoming a kind of "mask" to distance victimizers (or potential victimizers) from victims. For this we need look no farther than the events of the Holocaust, with "normal" people donning Nazi uniforms and "suddenly" becoming monsters.

A friend pointed out something interesting to me today, though -- the Zapatistas have worn masks not to shield themselves from the humanity of others, but to remind the government of the humanity (the face) of disenfranchised peoples. Of course there are some very problematic aspects of the Zapatista movement, but I find it interesting that in their case, the wearing of the mask is to force others to see a face where before they had seen nothing.

Francois -- Re: What of the perpetrators that don't wear masks and don't hide their victims' faces? Plenty of those to go around, I'm afraid. -- Good point. I think the image of the mask is a very concrete way to think of all this, but in reality, as mmausner is suggesting in his comment, there are certainly other forms of distancing oneself from the face/humanity of the Other. I guess all I can say of those perpetrators who do not wear masks (yes, plenty, you're right) is that in losing sight of the face of the victim they have lost their own sense of shame and dignity, to the extent that they need not cover their face. I don't know though, since this seems to suggest that there's something far more sinister about the perpetrator who has no need for a mask . . .

I must say I now seem to disagree with the whole argument: it seems to me that you are reducing evil -or, to put it in a less religiously charged way, wrong-doing- to external appearances. This leads to a double misapprehension: on the one hand, the idea that wearing a uniform is a sufficient cause for wrong-doing. That is simply not true. The Israeli and American armies are two modern examples of forces for which morality is a central claim (review for instance Michael's post on Gen. Petraeus's stance on torture) -wrong-doers are outliers by any statistical measurement, and are punished for their actions (which other nations punishes its soldiers for wrong-doing in wartime?).
On the other hand, it seems to be a cover-up for a reality too hard to apprehend, sorry Monica, I'm prejudiced, mostly by humanities scholars, regarding the natural capacity for wrong-doing of the humans: "I don't know though, since this seems to suggest that there's something far more sinister about the perpetrator who has no need for a mask . . .", writes Monica. Precisely: wrong-doing, especially at its extremes (genocides, etc.) *is* "far more sinister". Positive evil does exist, intellectualist positions with regards to ethics after the 20th century are obsolete at best.

Another way of distancing, particularly popular with the RAF and American air force in late WWII against Germany and Japan, and the Americans in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, is 'strategic bombing'.   Seemingly sanitary for the bombing side, sometimes dropping from B52s literally miles above the target, there's no face to face at all, it's totally abstract, despite the monumental destruction wreaked on the ground. 

Contrast that with the suicide bomber: not only face to face, but planning to die himself or herself with the victims.  Walking up to a bus stop or into a restaurant, seeing the faces of all the innocent people about to meet their fate, and then blowing oneSELF up.  I guess the dehumanization happens beforehand, psychologically-- and maybe one even dehumanizes oneself.   But it makes an even more striking contrast with the masked perpetrators of inter-Palestinian violence described above: the faces of Palestinian suicide bombers are the icons of the culture, posters of shaheeds plastered on every street, small collectors' photos traded like baseball cards... faces.

Maybe I am reading into the latest comments too much, but the suggestion that there is some comparison to the masked Hamas evil-doers and Israeli or American uniformed military personnel is quite absurd. In Jenin a few years back, Israel had two choices. Bomb the camps or go in hand-to-hand. To minimize casualties to Palestinian innocents, Israel decided not to bomb. In fact, they instructed soldiers to lure kids away from fighting with candy. In Lebanon, Israel dropped leaflets warning villagers to flee before bombing. Hamas, on the other hand, targets children! While the uniform may cover a small part of the Israeli or American soldier's face, the mask warn by Hamas covers any last breath of humanity left. To even hint at a comparison between America and Israel on the one hand, and Hamas, Hizbullah etc. is intellectually dishonest and so far afield of reality. Keep in mind, if Hamas was running this web site, this discussion would be over.

Umm, yes...I think you have significantly misread the comments.