Encounters between the self and other have a profound impact on both the identity of the individual and how they perceive the world around them. Fear, and the psychological conditions associated with it, can have create lasting repercussions that create problems for both the individual and society. What happens to us when we label things or people we fear as “monster” can only be understood in relation to the associations that can be assessed when making inferences concern others people or things. These inferences are often inherently disconnected from reality and can be seen to establish social and cultural norms that make it difficult for people to relate with one another.
Nietzsche's philosophy brings to light a profound question regarding the nature of fear and the associations that result from labeling things in this way. His work seems to profoundly question the relationship between the person that is afraid and the object of their fear. Nietzsche asserts that ““He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster” (Aphorism 146). Labeling others as “monster” can, in this way, be seen to be a two-way process. When something becomes labeled, it often effects the underlying sense of reality that those associated with it experience. Whether the accusation that Nietzsche makes concerning the moral dilemma human nature based in truth is difficult to know for sure. It is evident that Nietzsche saw the underlying connection between fear and increasingly radical positions held by groups. Nietzsche states that madness “is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule” (Aphorism 156). In this sense, it is at least evident that he saw that without the other fear is impossible. However, in order to perceive there must be some object outside the experience of the subject. The subject can, furthermore, never fully understand the object. For this reason, it seems that fear itself is a natural result of the basic dichotomy between subject and object.
There are a variety of situations in which people come across difference in their daily lives. How they react to these encounters can have a profound effect on not only those that they perceive to be a threat, but on their own identities as well. What happens to an individual when they label others as monster can be expressed in relationship to a more thorough examination of the idea of fear in the modern world. While, historically, fear can be seen to be an essential part of human evolution, it is in the modern world that the expression of fear and its implantation onto another individual or object can be seen to dramatically alter their subjective nature of reality. In the modern world, it seems that people rationalize the experiences that they have “through the narrative of fear” (Furedi 1). This narrative is a necessary element in the cognitive processing of experience. It is through this processing that people are able to psychologically deal with the unknown. This is important, as their capacity for dealing with their fears can have major consequences in regards to the social constructs related to human interaction. It is evident that the level of fear that an individual perceives when encountering the unknown is primarily determined by “the self, and the interaction of the self with others” as well as by society, which “instructs people on how to respond to threats to their security” (Furedi 2). This is, in essence, a completely natural process, essential for the well-being of the individual as well as society. However, it is evident that the objectification of fear and its personification as “monster” are the result of encounters with the unknown. In many cases, fear can be considered a reasonable response to novel and unexpected changes. When society and the individual encounter fear in different ways, there can be a dichotomy in how the object of fear is perceived. In the modern world, rather than being shared collectively among cultures or societies, fear is “internalized in an isolated fashion” (Furedi 3). Fear then becomes a profoundly personal experience that can have profound consequences on an individuals outlook and overall level of happiness. The uncertainty of fear today presents a risk in and of itself. The personal nature of fear and the disassociation that that it results in “has important implications for identity, for how we see and understand ourselves” (Furedi 6). Feeling continuously at risk results in a constant sense of vulnerability. This vulnerability has a profound effect on the decisions that people make and the ideas that they associate with themselves and others.
Why this happens is a fundamental question upon which the perceptions of fear abstraction can be seen to rely. Researchers assessing the risks of terrorism on the psychology of those that have been targeted by attacks have found that those that have negative attitudes towards even those that they fear can be profoundly effected in fundamental ways. Emotion is therefore a fundamental aspect of why an object of fear might be perceived as “monster”. In the assessment of risk, it is evident that “positive emotions trigger more optimistic risk assessments and negative emotions trigger more pessimistic ones” (Lerner et al., 2003, p. 1). This demonstrates the effect that labeling has on the management and adaptation of successful risk response measures. In extrapolating these responses, it seems that fearing others can have a profound effect on not only the underlying identity of the individual but also on the responses that they have in encountering those that they consider to be “monster”. These encounters will be fundamentally challenged by the emotional state of the individual and the way that they deal with their fear. Studies demonstrate that the use of fear and anger in making judgments can result in “altered beliefs and attitudes” (Lerner et al., 2003, p. 5). Emotion can therefore be seen to be a strong factor in the decisions that people make about those that they fear. The alteration of perceived values resulting from the tenuous emotional state that has been exacerbated by unconditional fear present the underlying cause of the attribution of “monster” to these objects of fear.
Whether this response should be considered good or bad has profound implications for the underlying emotional psychology and the value that is placed on its development. Fear itself is not a bad thing. It is evident that it was necessary for the survival of the human race, and likely many other species. However, the nature of fear as an emotion makes it dangerous to assess criteria on such a non-measurable response. Fear can be understood as an “automatic emotion based on past and present affective experience” (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2006, p. 368). The compounding nature of fear dictates that past emotional experiences are likely to inform those in the future. This indicates the more sustained and prolonged states of fear are the more objects of attribution are going to likely become labeled as “monster”. This indicates that, while fear itself is not a bad thing, unconditionally labeling others as “monster” in response to fear will likely have poor results. Emotions play a strong role in the adaptation of fear, however, when the object of fear becomes exemplified in a singular form evidence suggests that it can lead to “mal-adaptation by eliciting dysfunctional reactions in certain situations, characterized by irrationality and destructiveness” (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2006, p. 369). This demonstrates the hazards of attempting to objectify fear in a specific form. In the past, fear was generally considered to be a more general idea. It was useful to both the individual and society as it provided a collective form of relief from the unknown world. This fear worked to unite those within society, giving them the capacity to extrapolate the dangers that they faced in the past and project the likelihood of such dangers into the future. “Threats and dangers, which can be detected in present situations or generalized from past experiences, can be related specifically to a particular individual or be evoked in collective situation” (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2006, p. 371). However, in modern society, as many of these collective threats have diminished, fear has become much more isolated and personal. The experiences that a person has in relation to fear can have a profound effect on the decisions that they make. Due to the fact that fear allows an individual to make judgments that are based off of past experiences, memory can work to “influence appraisal of a particular situation” (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2006, p. 372). If making these appraisals based on unsolicited fear then threats can begin to be perceived where there are really none. This can not only serve to cause undue stress and anxiety but it can also isolate the individual from those that do not perceive these threats. In any case, it is evident that “the necessary condition for fear is perception of threat” (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2006, p. 374). These perceptions can have a profound impact on the underlying conditions for the objectification of fear. It is evident that the values and beliefs are a major source of justification for how fear is processed by the individual. When these values become disseminated to a wide enough population it can “constitute a major influence on the emotional functioning of society members” (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2006, p. 376). In this way, the labeling of other people or objects as “monster” can have profoundly negative consequences.
The significance of this is that by labeling an individual person, group, or object as “monster” the associations that are made in the future will be effected. These encounters can lead to further extrapolation, which can then become a part of the social values that people live by. Fear is then compounded into everyday ordinary subjects, which then themselves become the objects of fear. This demonstrates a profound concern in regards to the capacity of fear to begin to dictate more important areas of life. The fact that decisions made in emotional states that are associated with fear are generally made poorly demonstrates that the implications of labeling people or things as “monster” can result in the degradation of the individual's and society's capacity to make sound judgments when faced with the unknown.
Works Cited
Furedi, Frank. The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is The ‘culture Of Fear’ Itself. Human Thought and Action. 2007. Print.
Jarymowicz, M. & Bar-Tal, D. (2006). The Dominance Of Fear Over Hope In The Life Of Individuals And Collectives. European Journal of Social Psychology. No. 36. 367-392.
Lerner, J.S., Gonzalez, R.M., Small, D.A., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects Of Fear And Anger On Perceived Risks Of Terrorism A National Field Experiment. Vol. 14. No. 2. American Psychological Society.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1966). Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House.
