When Human Suffering Becomes White Noise: Looking Away from Oppression and Finding the Next Outrage

Shocking images of bloodshed in war-torn regions can spur reactions ranging from momentary sympathy to outrage driving donations or protests. Yet what causes some global crises to utterly capture international attention while others fade into the backdrop of normalcy? The spotlight's fluctuations on the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict prompt difficult questions about the psychological tendencies shaping which human struggles we prioritize for action or concern.

In the previous episode on this podcast, “Clashing Perspectives, Shared Humanity: Finding Common Ground in Divided Times” the hosts reflected on writer Ta-Nehisi Coates' firsthand impressions visiting Palestine. He spoke about the duty not to “behold evil and just stand there.” As the tragic costs now escalate in Gaza once more, an examination of complicity and moral questions feels compelled for all who care about our shared humanity.

Probing Our Reactions to Distant Suffering

Such immense suffering often fails to capture global concern. Some crises like Syria’s human carnage can completely dominate headlines and social feeds while Gaza’s ongoing humanitarian emergency remains largely an ambient background artifact surfacing intermittently at clashes then fading again.

The sheer statistical scale of devastation in Gaza may exceed thresholds of human comprehension, causing cognitive numbing rather than emotional connection. Yet likely a bigger factor are unconscious biases dividing global populations into perceived “in-groups” more intrinsically tied to our sense of identity versus more abstract “out-groups” viewed as dissimilar others.

Extensive research shows human brains are essentially wired to show favoritism towards one’s own groups over outsiders as an evolutionary survival adaptation. This in-group partiality that privileges immediate tribal protection can unconsciously manifest today in perceiving some groups’ welfare as less worthy of concern.

While not overt malice, such embedded blindspots can enable indifference towards others’ adversity. Confronting Gaza’s deterioration requires grappling with subtle biases that allow disregarding certain groups’ wellbeing if not tied closely enough to our own concept of identities meriting consideration.

Examining Historical Precedents of Dehumanization

There are chilling common patterns seen historically across some of humanity’s darkest chapters that demonstrate immense dangers of unchecked “us versus them” antagonism.

From the Holocaust to Rwandan genocide, preludes almost always included propaganda campaigns that socially designated the other group as deviant, criminal or fundamentally threatening. Such branding justified stripping basic rights and protections based not on individuals’ actions but broadly applied group labels. With outgroup members branded as dangerous rather than fellow humans, otherwise unthinkable oppression toward them became permissible within societies.

While not equating current Israeli policies to such past atrocities, the predictable psychological continuum remains: when one group’s humanity starts consciously or unconsciously weighing less in society’s eyes, graver injustices incrementally become more palatable. Preventing future oppressions requires vigilant self-interrogation whenever we catch ourselves rationalizing harms against whole groups branded as problematic or inferior. Because latent bias whispering “some lives matter less” insidiously enables systemic abuse if left unchallenged.

Grasping the Human Reality Behind Headlines

The sheer humanitarian emergency in Gaza is often reduced to politicized abstraction in media c