Planet of NCCUCS

很久以前看劉若英演的"南京1937"，

日軍用槍坑殺掃射投降的中國士兵，這個穚段最令我印象深刻。

因為被捊擄的中國士兵數量遠大於掃射他們的日本士兵，

心想：儘管那些日本士兵拿著槍，但是大家一起反撲，還有可能存活的機會不是嗎？

今天在Randall Collin的 << Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory >> 

看到下面這幾段的解釋：

Detailed examination of the Nanking case gives insight into another feature of the dynamics of such massacres. The Chinese troops greatly outnumbered the Japanese troops on the scene; once it became apparent they were being slaughtered, why didn’t the Chinese fight back? Although they generally lacked weapons, they could have mounted some resistance and at least have gone down fighting, or possibly overpowered small groups of Japanese. In fact, the Japanese soldiers themselves quickly acquired an attitude of contempt for the Chinese soldiers for passively going to their deaths. This attitude enhanced the feeling of dehumanization, making it easier for the Japanese to carry out the killing. (p.102)

A forward panic arises in an atmosphere of total domination. Initially this comes about for military reasons: one side moves forward in a successful attack, the other disintegrates and is unable to resist. The emotional tunnel, the mood of slaughter, opens up through recognition of that situation, not so much rational and cognitive as emotional and collective in the broadest possible sense. The emotional mood is interactional; it is shared on both sides. The domination is emotional even more than physical; the victorious side feels ebullient, charged up; the losing side feels despairing, helpless, frozen, suffocated. These emotions circulate and reinforce each other: in a pair of feedback loops within each body of troops, the victors pumping each other up into the frenzy of destruction and the losers demoralizing each other; and in a third loop connecting the two loops, the victors feed off of the demoralization of the losers, and the losers are emotionally battered still further by the dominants. It is a process of asymmetrical entrainment; the winner becomes entrained in its own rhythm of attack, among other reasons, because its moves are reinforced by the moves of the losers. (p.102 ~ p.103)

The nature of conflict is not one of making independent, rational decisions - verbal sequences clearly going though their minds. Persons might make such decisions before the contact actually begins. Once locked in confrontation, they are caught up in a shared emotional field. There is contagion of emotion not only among persons on the same side of the conflict, but a contagion between the two antagonistic sides. It is the form of this emotional contagion above all that determines whether they will fight and how intensely, whether it will be a standoff, and who will win. At extremes, this emotional field turns into a dominance of mind and body by one side that produces atrocities. The hot rush and overkill of the victors is part of the same interactional mood as the stunned passivity of the victims; both are constitutive of each other. This cannot be explained by characteristics of the individuals themselves, but calls for a theory of violent interaction itself. (p.104)