In the previous entry I referenced the Double Dichotomous Divide as put forward by Bruno Latour. Many of you may be unfamiliar with this portrayal of the human conscious therefore I will give a brief overview of his findings, and also how it inspired me to continue his research.
      His argument is that the "modern" human mind divides its approach to reality construction on a conscious level. We, the "moderns", daily divide our understanding of reality to our detriment. In his work "We Have Never Been Modern" Latour states that there are two major divides or dichotomies that make up the human experience.  On one end is our logical understanding of the world and on the other our emotional understanding of life. Some examples of this divide in our society are Democrats vs Republicans, Men Vs Women, Military vs Anthropology, Marx vs Rand, Berkley vs Liberty University, Psychiatrist vs Psychologist, and the list continues forever. He argues that it is the divide created by Hobbs and Boyle many many years ago which mandated such a state.  Or that the need for "scientific" fact created through the scientific process could not be co-joined with the subjective self of emotional reasoning. It was the birth of the vacuum tube and the social contract that solidified this divide in the western mindset.  A mindset which I argue is now the base point of reality construction for over 90% of the planet. The other divide which is separate from both the logical and emotional self he calls the network; a topic which we will review in depth as we continue.
        For our case study here we will start with the United States.  In my first post I referenced how the US Military and the Anthropological community had fallen victim to this divide through the use of human terrain teams in Afghanistan.  In this example the military is the representation of the purely logical mind, and the anthropological community is an example of the emotional rational state.  To continue my argument, I believe, the war in Afghanistan could have been shortened by many years had we reconciled this divide among ourselves before venturing to try and enforce such a divided mindset on one of the few locations not living under this modus operandi.
       In essence since the outset of the war the US military realized that "winning the hearts and minds" of a population was essential to nation building and achieving its goals in Afghanistan.  The issue it confronted, however, is that the military is a force of death not understanding.  It views people as targets or assets, and the local population as either a nuisance or collateral damage.  Another way of approaching our, I am a soldier, viewpoint is that complete dehumanization of the "other" is necessary in order for soldiers to be efficient in killing and winning a conflict. In the other camp Anthropology, more specifically Applied Anthropology, is the converse.  It strives to humanize the "other" in an attempt to understand the human experience.  Latour argues that the divide of the two sides mandates the second divide: how everything is connected or the network.  If the US Military internalizes the humanization of the "other" soldiers would be incapable of killing.  Likewise if Anthropologists recognize that some men seek only to destroy they would in turn be forced to recognize the need to kill. The network, or how both sides are intrinsically connected, is divided subconsciously in the "modern" mindset. The conscious acceptance of the other side, whether it be logical or emotional, would result in the collapse of an individuals belief system.
      In my job as an anthropologically educated civil affairs soldier it has been my job to try and rectify this divide between the logical and emotional poles in front of Infantry Colonels and Command Sergeant Majors. Through my experience the humanization of the "other" leads to an interesting psychological conflict in the individual, and likewise when I return to the Anthropological community I find the exact same internal conflict present in the arguments reverse state. The conflict in a word denial, complete and total denial of the converse argument leading the individual to heightened emotional response in order to return order to their personal reality construction or polar position.  This psychological conflict led me to my research.  What was it in the subconscious that mandated such a powerful reaction from both sides of the camp whereas myself ,stuck in the middle, had made a career of trying to explain it to both sides.
    It was these very experiences which has led me to attempt to expand Latour's work using the internet (identity experimentation/creation through anonymity as seed for personal revolution in an individuals reality construct of self), and what I have found is that there is a level of self below the subconscious I term the sub-altern.  I believe the subconscious is made up of two things symbolic function and symbolic containment.  Both of which are necessary to contain the universal human experience of what I term the Raw.  The Raw is the basic desire of humanity to secure its consciousness or self in a secure position outside of linear time, or the basis for our conscious state.  The level that divides this from the subconscious is what psychology has termed the fight or flight instinct, but I believe it is more a competition between hope and fear.  It is directly above this that our interpretation of symbols, through the subconscious narrative, resides which in turn shapes our conscious self and overall worldview.
       To tie this in with our example it is the symbolic function of the military's subconscious narrative to view the "other" as an object.  This maintains the narrative of fight over flight, necessary for the dehumanization of the other, on the conscious level by which the basic understanding of self moves away from fear and into a hope of preservation.  The hope of self preservation is not restricted to the individual, but rather to the stratification of worldview from the level of the sub-altern to the subculture. The Anthropologist on the other hand does not maintain the same symbolic function in its subconscious narrative, but rather humanizes to a fault.  The complete distancing from a need to fight as a basis for hope in its own reality constructs' survival leads to its conscious manifestation of an emotional state for rationalizing the world.
    In trying to unify these two camps on the conscious level alone both parties fell victim to a divide that begins on a deep level of reality construction which could only end in catastrophe.

more to follow I must return to work