A case study

Candida Darling 06010546 March 26, 2009 Human Development personality and individual differences

Case study:

Using a Socio -Cognititive and a Phenomenological Approach.

Case A:

Madonna Ciccone is a highly successful female singer and actress. She is now in 50 years old, still releasing singles, giving sell out concerts and is a frequent figure in the press. She is famous for being both a perfectionist and having a tendency toward both rebellious and scandalous behaviour.

Madonna is the third oldest child out of six children, born to Italian immigrants to the USA. She had a very strict catholic upbringing, including much iconography, regular prayer and the presence of altars in her family home. She lost her mother (to cancer) when she was only five years old and was brought up by her father and her stepmother (who she did not get along with). She often looked after her siblings as a child, and considers herself as something of a Cinderella figure. Following a brief stint as a cheerleader, she was known as something of a bohemian and poet as a teenager. She became highly rebellious and rejected her religious upbringing. She is highly intelligent, and has frequently displayed evidence of perfectionism. She is an excellent dancer, and started a degree in dance in 1976.

As an adult she has explored the mystical wing of Judaism; the Kabbalah. She has donated £1.75million to the Kabbalah Centre of Los Angeles and an additional £2,600 to Spirituality for Kids (an offshoot of the Kabbalah group).

She is well known for regularly changing her image/identity in the media (hair colour, style, music style) and has often been a controversial stage figure. She has had a string of relationships, and has two children from different fathers. She also (controversially) adopted a boy, David Banda, from Malawi. She is currently going through an acrimonious divorce with husband Guy Ritchie, and is already involved with a new man.

Socio-Cognititive Theory/Approach.

Socio-Cognititive Theory (SCT) has its roots in the behavioural learning tradition (Pervin, 1993), and was initially brought forward with the cognitive theory of Kelly (1969). It was advanced by theorists Rotter (1971), Mischel (1977) and Bandura (1986), to concentrate on human thought processes as at the centre of the personality, and that this cognition develops in a social or learned context ( Guerra, Huesmann, Spindler, 2003; Haslam, 2007). This idiographic theory has developed through to modernity, but continues to draw on original theories centred on: locus of control, expectancies, beliefs, goals and standards, all contributing to the uniqueness of coherence of personality (Dweck & Legett, 1988; Locke & Latham, 2005; Sutin & Robins, 2008).

Humanistic Approach.

This is also an idiographic theory, considered the 3^rd force in psychology, as it draws away from behaviourism and psychodynamic theory. Its main protagonists are: Maslow (1943) and Rogers (1961), whose theories are at the core of the humanistic paradigm, which is phenomenological in method, subjective, hermeneutic, and focuses on the Self as central to its theories. Its fundamental approach to personality is one that is person-centred and it asserts that a person can change and grow across the lifetime, with childhood experiences affecting an individual, but not causing them to reach or fail to reach self-actualisation (Kamins & Dweck , 1999); self- actualisation is understood as an innate drive which works with internal concepts, such as the ego, in order to reach full human potential (Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt & King, 2009). With terms such as conditions of worth; need for positive regard; congruence; and self concept at its core (Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka & Finke, 2009), humanistic psychology asserts a person has an innate drive toward positive realisation of potential.

Using these theories to explore Madonna, it could be suggested that her interpretation of her parents’ religious adherence could have caused her to search out a religion once she became a parent. Madonna’s affinity with Kabbalah can be explained by vicarious conditioning and observational learning (Bandura, 1986; Aron, Fisher, Mashek, Strong Li & Brown, 2005; Bandura, 2008). When Madonna was a child, she witnessed parenting according to religious standards; thus observational learning or vicarious conditioning took place. She has rejected her Catholic upbringing, and using unique competencies and her own skills, she has turned to Kabbalah for spiritual fulfilment and guidance on child rearing (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham, 2005).

However, the leap from the strict Catholicism Madonna rejected, cannot simply be explained by vicarious conditioning or learned behaviour; the link is tentative at best. Also her perusal of faith began long after adulthood and the witnessing of her parent’s faith; thus it would be expected that Madonna having no faith for many years would not return to it after such a long absence, as one of the criticisms of SCT is that it does not initially depend largely on childhood experience (Dweck & Legett, 1988;Bandura, 1989).

The humanistic approach would suggest Madonna’s search for spirituality is an intrinsic part of her search for self-actualisation. According to Maslow (1943) this is at the pinnacle of reaching self-actualisation (Cervone & Pervin, 2008). The time delay in this perspective would be expected, as Madonna would need to have fulfilled her other needs before attempting to define her spirituality. It could also be argued that Kabbalah is more in line with Madonna’s ideal self (Higgins, 1987), as having a sense of individuality, feelings of worth, and being accomplished in interpersonal communication are at the centre of Kabbalahist teaching (see Meyer, 2008; Schlegel, Hicks, Arndt & King, 2009).

In addition, recent research in SCT provides more evidence to support the idea that Madonna’s adherence to Kabbalah is a factor related to childhood experiences, together with her own perceptions and cognitions. Because it can be shown that she perhaps fulfilled her schema of a parent by engaging in religious practices, these schemas, used to define and contextualise the world from memory, may be used long after the event has passed, as was proven in recent research by Guerra, Huesmann, Spindler(2003): this is what she had observed as a child with her step-mother and father’s adherence to the Catholic faith and their spiritual dimension of child rearing. This also demonstrates triadic reciprocity (Bandura, 1986): taking Madonna’s perspective on parenting, using cognitions she has created for her own specific goal, in accordance with her unique set of beliefs (Bandura,1989; Cole, Daly & Mak, 2008).

Although it still could be asserted that this theory is weak, in that it minimises any unconscious processes which brought Madonna to adhere to religion and also does not take the distress her mother’s death may have caused in to account (Dowdney, 2008). It nonetheless does explain her behavior in a rational conscious way due to her beliefs and schemas (Pervin, 1993; Haslam, 2007).

Moreover Guerra et al. (2003) suggest that a truamatic event such as death would make the cognitions of that time more accessible ( Guerra, Huesmann, Spindler, 2003) thus alluding to a reinforcing of parenting behaviour specific to that time. Furthermore Higgins (1987), focusing on a phenomoligical perspective, suggets that individuals are more likely to access ought-self behaviour in novel circumstances, so it could be asserted that Madonna may look to others behaviour for cues regarding her then unfamiliar circumstances as a parent (Higgins, 1987;Higgins, 2002).

Furthermore, humanistic psychology would suggest that as Kabbalahistic teaching encourages individuality and growth, it is more likely to prevent any incongruence developing between her ideal self and actual self, which is possibly scandalous and rebellious, and her adherence to a religion which is considered a traditional endeavour (Higgins, 2002;Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist, 2008). This approach would also expect her rebellion to be part of her self-actualisation (Frick, 2006). Her search for positive regard from a religious group would perhaps negate the childhood negativity she received from her strict Catholic upbringing and thus lessen discrepancy between ideal/ought and ideal/actual-self concepts (Higgins, 1987; Kamins & Dweck , 1999).

This choice of religion clearly alludes to Rotter’s locus of control; in fact as she consistently takes control of her own situation, it can be asserted that Madonna has an internal locus of control (Rotter, 1971; Mills, & Blankstein, 2000).

It could tentatively be espoused that SCT can account for the reason why she adopted her son David: this is what she saw her step-mother do for her and her siblings, and thus observational learning took place (Bandura, 1986). This conditioning, according to Bandura, is not an actual process, but Madonna’s internal representation of events expressed in self-directed future behaviour (ibid). Thus, together with Madonna’s own schema of a mother and Madonna’s self-regulation toward a goal of being a public mother, circumstances were created where Madonna could improve her schema of herself as a parent ( Ferry, Fouad & Smith, 2002; Dowdney, 2008). For example, her competency and beliefs in her skills in her ability to create and manage scandalous situations were ensured in the controversial public adoption of David, and by managing these circumstances she remained competent, using her own unique skills and thus created self-efficacy in parenting personality (Bandura, 1986; Aron, Fisher,Mashek, Strong, Li,& Brown, 2005).

Maslow (1943) and later proponents of this facet of the humanistic approach, Lewellyn, & Rathweg ( 2005), would suggest Madonna’s reason for adopting David to be far less complicated, and that she had reached self-actualisation as she was thinking of others, experiencing unselfish b-love. Her giving of large sums of money to charity would support this view (Maslow, 1967). However, accepting this explanation would include the facet of privacy that Madonna does not have, as she courts the press (Kamins & Dweck , 1999). David’s adoption was highly controversial, so she would not have received positive regard, and as a consequence would have experienced incongruence (Schüler, Job,Fröhlich, & Brandstätter, 2008). Although an aspect of Madonna’s personality may be her scandalous and rebellious side, thus negating incongruence and opposing her religious activity, she could perhaps lessen the discrepancy that such a conventional act (giving to charity adopting a child) may have cultivated (Higgins, 2002; Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist, 2008).

Moreover, Madonna assumed the role of ‘Cinderella’ in her autobiographical account held in her memory, and as she experienced high self-efficacy in prior child rearing and housekeeping (Charles & Carstensen, 2008), it should lead to self-efficacy regarding motherhood and adoption, as she would have to have ‘adopted’ her 3 half-siblings in her account held in her memory (ibid). Charles & Carstensen (2008) assert that the consequences of the cognitive interpretation of events in childhood, as either negative or positive, result in further behaviours to enhance the positive or negative outcome. This empirically agrees with both Mischel and Bandura (Sutin & Robins, 2008; Cervone & Pervin, 2008).

Concurring with this, there are similarities within the humanistic paradigm: Madonna, in order to reach congruence between ideal self and ought self (Rogers, 1951; Higgins, 1987), would seek out opportunities where she could embody her perception of who she is (in this case her concept of Cinderella), together with circumstances where she is able to do what she may perceive society thinks a good person ought to do, for example adopt a child because she is wealthy (Mills, & Blankstein, 2000). Moreover, Madonna could distort her impression of the circumstances (Rogers, 1951 ;Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist, 2008) and assume perhaps that the press are making the adoption controversial on this occasion, as they are used to seeing her as controversial in line with Higgins (1987) theory of others-ought- Self.

Although it is hard to measure the correctness of this hypothesis, and therefore this is purely conjecture, this is a predominant criticism of humanistic psychology (Cervone & Pervin, 2008), it does nevertheless appear to be a reasonable assumption, although it is possible that if Madonna was to undertake client centred therapy and the q-sort method was use it could be possible to measure the extent of discrepancies between Madonna’s ideal and actual selves. Higgins (2002) suggests an individual regulates between roles before deciding on the salient approach in a situation thus discrepancies occur which can be measured in a clinical situation although again subjectively as is the nature of Humanistic psychology (Higgins,2002).

Similarly; regarding the Socio Cognitive approach Bandura (1986) asserts that persons can reason using language about past, present and future hypothetical events. An individual will seek out instances where their self-efficacy is high and thus will enhance their self esteem (ibid). For example, Madonna’s continued pursuit of a public performance career creates self-esteem through self-efficacy (Dweck & Legett, 1988; Haslam, 2007), and as theses skills are successive over a long period of time (34 years), in that cheer leading led to dance, which led to performing, that led to continued success, the behaviour is cognitively entrenched ( Ferry, Fouad & Smith, 2002). However, this pursuit of success could in part be the cause of Madonna’s perfectionism and could have caused the problems in her successive relationships.

First it is important to explain that perfectionism is described by theorists of both paradigms to be maladaptive in many cases (Bandura, 1989; Dweck & Legett, 1988; Mills, & Blankstein, 2000; Frick, 2006). Madonna’s perfectionism could be seen a result of cognitive misrepresentations based on defective learning as a child (Beck 1976: Sutin & Robins, 2008). The authors espouse that when a child has authoritarian parents and experiences praise only for good behaviour and not as an individual, the individual strives for perfection as a means of praise and self-esteem (ibid). Rogers (1951) and Hewitt, (2006) would agree with this, as it appears to be Madonna’s perpetual drive toward feelings of worth which are conditional, could be pathological, and derived from her need for acceptance and love and positive regard (Mills & Blankstein, 2000;Hewitt, 2006)).

Furthermore, humanistic theory suggests that when children do not receive unconditional positive regard, they fail to self-actualise as adults (Sorotzkin, 1985). In SCT they then set unattainable goals, which produce: first rebellion in young adults, but consequently a long-standing, maladaptive perfectionism, which then impacts upon interpersonal relationships (Dweck & Legett, 1988; Charles & Carstensen, 2008).

Possibly, although high-efficacy in performance would have led to successful interpretation of her ability to perform and thus perfectionism, this could also explain how the unsuccessful relationship with her parents could be the cause of her low expectations and low efficacy in her relationships (Aron, Fisher, Mashek, Strong, Li, & Brown, 2005). This is further supported by socio-cognitive theorists, using the terms structure and expectancies (Bandura,1989; Fournier, 2005). Although she has had limited success in maintaining long-term relationships, she is adept at establishing them, thus her cognitions pay off to some degree.

Kelly (1969);Raskin, (2002) and Fournier (2005) would suggest her continued try at relationships was her personal construct for relationships being put to the test, tried out and discarded when they failed to work. Similarities and differences contrast to create corollaries (ibid). This Kellian perspective could also account for her constant image change and openness to reward, i.e. seeking love.

In fact, Madonna’s fluidity could be part of her success in the face of failure or loss in personal relationships (Aron, Fisher, Mashek, Strong, Li, & Brown, 2005; Fournier, 2005). This idea would be supported by the humanistic approach, as a string of relationships may give Madonna the opportunity to find aspects of her ideal self in her sexual partners. According to Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka & Finke (2009), each person sustains the other by eliciting significant aspects of the partner’s ideals; each person progresses toward his or her ideal self, and couple well-being is enhanced (Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka & Finke, 2009). Conversely, the unconstructive component of a relationship developed in this manner is that it is dependant, and according to Maslow (1967) a property of d-love destined to fail.

However, for SCT with only conscious subjective thoughts, no emotion or unconscious drives, it may be suggested these theorists fail to address why, in the face of such failure, Madonna continues to pursue relationships.

SCT can nevertheless tentatively explain this aspect of Madonna’s personality with the information at hand, as Bandura (1986) and Charles & Carstensen (2008) suggest, motivations are cognitively generated and with a Cinderella schema in mind perhaps Madonna feels she needs to find the appropriate coping method to attain her efforts of that princely love and complete the Cinderella Story/Schema (Aron, Fisher, Mashek, Strong, Li, & Brown,2005). As can be seen from the recent research discussed above, the search for a significant other is an intrinsic part of reaching human potential (Rusbult, Kumashiro, Kubacka & Finke, 2009), and sufficiently explains Madonna’s persistent search for love, especially in lightof the fact that she refers toherself as a Cinderella figure.

Further exploring this case study it is noted: Madonna is engaged in an acrimonious public divorce, thereby achieving publicity and attention, which she prizes as a reward; this would contribute toward her self-efficacy in the public domain, according to Bandura (2000) and Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist (2008). This does not explain though, why Madonna continues in her religious pursuits. However, Madonna’s need for her spirituality may outstrip any discomfort, due to not only observational learning and vicarious conditioning (Bandura, 1986), but also her creativity may lead her to engage in Kabbalah, despite sometimes not fully adhering to all its tenets (Charles & Carstensen, 2008).

It is stated that Kabbalah is the creative strand of Jewish mysticism; it encourages followers to be engaged in creative pursuits and recognises women’s abilities, including intelligence (IQ) (Oelberger, 2006; Tirosh-Samuelson, 2008). Kaufman (2006) reports a strong correlation between IQ and creativity, and asserts the imaginative factor as typically female and generally rated higher by women. He found that this creativity influenced self-esteem and academic self-concept, and also had a positive correlation to open-mindedness, which it could be asserted could help explain Madonna’s diverse behaviour in line with her adherence to Kabbalah (Kaufman, 2006).

This explanation could be extended to her constant change of image. It is reported that once a cheerleader, she eschewed this competitive public image for the bohemian and poet role, which could have gained her further peer approval and led to a development of a schema where she knows she will gain approval for image change (Bandura, 2000). In tandem with this, she may at this point have self-directed herself toward the situation in which she had most self efficacy: dance (Dweck & Legett, 1988; Fournier, 2005); and thus caused her to put her career at the very centre of who she is, causing her to be unable to retire.

Humanistic psychology; according to Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist, (2008) would further support this idea in relation to two very important facets: one, as Madonna is wealthy and has high status in her field, she is unlikely to experience profound stress due to divorce (so long as her career is intact), and thus courting the press would enhance her self image. They report in all their experiments that high influence participants were invulnerable to the typical stress of situations; in fact they reported that intra-personal stress had a positive effect on their creative expressions. (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist, 2008).

So it can be maintained according to Socio-Cognitive psychology that Madonna’s behaviour has rational and understandable motivations, she thinks about what she is doing and makes conscious choices accordingly (Cole, Daly & Mak, 2008;Bandura,2008). The Humanistic perspective would suggest her behaviour to be driven toward self-actualisation and that she would need unconditional positive regard to reach this actualisation, perhaps she is searching for this in religion, work and relationships which are possibly the cause of discrepancies in her self portrayed publicly and reported privately (Higgins, 2002;Hewitt, 2006).

In closing it is important to explain that using these theories to critically evaluate a personality is by no means exhaustive, there are criticisms to both theories which have been basically addressed throughout, although there are far more dimensions of these theories to be attended to which cannot be in an essay of this nature.

2673 words excluding references.

References:

Ferry,T.Fouad,N. & Smith,P. (2002). The Role of Family Context in a Social Cognitive Model for Career-Related Choice Behavior: A Math and Science Perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 57 (3), 348-364.

Guerra,N. Huesmann,R. Spindler,A. (2003). Community Violence Exposure, Social Cognition, and Aggression among Urban Elementary School Children. Child Development , 74 (5), 1561-1571.

Aron, A. Fisher,H. Mashek,D. Strong,G. Li, H. & Brown,L. (2005). Reward, Motivation, and Emotion Systems Associated With Early-Stage Intense Romantic Love. 15, 327-337.

Bandura,A. (1986). Social Foundations of thought and action: A Social Coginitive Theory. (Schustack & Friedman, Ed.) 2008, 185-189.

Bandura, A. (2000). Excercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy. Personality a Reader , Schustack, M. & Friedman, H. (2008), 190-197.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist , 44 (9), 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (2008). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. &. Bryant, Media Effects;Advances in Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 94-124). New York: Taylor Francis.

Cervone,D. & Pervin,L. (2008). Personality; theory and research (10th ed.). Chicago: Wiley.

Charles,M. & Carstensen,C. (2008). Unpleasant Situations Elicit Different Emotional Responses in Younger and Older Adults. Psychology and Aging , 2008 (3), 495–504.

Cole,A. Daly,J. & Mak, F. (2008). Good for the soul: The relationship between work, wellbeing and psychological capital. Journal of Socio-Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof .

Dowdney, L. (2008). Children bereaved by parent or sibling death. Psychiatry , 7 (6), 270-275.

Dweck & Legett. (1988). A Social-Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality. Psychological Review , 95 (3), 256-273.

Fournier, V. (2005). Cognitive Maps in the Analysis of Personal Change During Work Role Transition. British Journal of Management , 7 (1), 87-105.

Frick, P. (2006). Pathways to Conduct Disorder. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America , 15 (2), 311-331.

Galinsky, S. Magee,G. Gruenfeld, W.Whitson,I & Liljenquist,H. (2008). Power Reduces the Press of the Situation: Implications for Creativity, Conformity, and Dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95 (6), 1450-1466.

Haslam, N. (2007). Introduction to personaltiy and Intelligence. London: Sage.

Hewitt, P. (2006). Positive Versus Negative Perfectionism in Psychopathology. Behavior Modification , 30 (4), 472-495.

Higgins,T & Rholes,L. (1978). “Saying is believing”: Effects of message modification on memory and liking for the person described. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 14 (4), 363-378.

Higgins,T. (2002). How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: The Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 12 (3), 177-191.

Higgins,T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect. Psychological Review , 94 (3), 319-340.

Kamins,U & Dweck,I . (1999). Person Versus Process Praise and Criticism:Implications for Contingent Self-Worth and Coping. Developmental Psychology , 35 (3), 835-847.

Kaufman,C.H.(2006). Self-Reported Differences in Creativity by Ethnicity and Gender. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 20, 1065–1082.

Kelly, G. (1969). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. In M. &. Scumaker, The Personality Reader (pp. 175-178). London: Pearson.

Lazarus, R. (2006). Emotions and Interpersonal Relationships: Toward a Person-Centered Conceptualization of Emotions and Coping. Journal of Personality , 38, 9-46.

Lewellyn ,L. & Rathweg, M. (2005). Exploring Religion-Health Mediators among African American Parishioners. Journal of Health Psychology , 10 (4), 511-527.

Locke,P & Latham,K. (2005). Goal Setting Theory;Theory building by introduction. In K. &. Smith, Great Minds in Management;The Process of Theory development (pp. 128-151). Oxford: Oxford Publications.

Madonna Fan Site. (2009, February). Madonna Ciccone Biography. Retrieved March 17th, 2009, from http://madonnaciccone.info/: http://madonnaciccone.info/biography/

Manley, M.E & Wilson,V. (2000). Anxiety, Creativity, and Dance Performance. Dance Research Journal , 12 (2), 11-22.

Maslow,A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review , 50, 370-396.

Maslow,A. (1967). Self Actualization and beyond. In The Personality Reader (2nd ed., pp. 255-265). London: pearson;Schustack, M. & Friedman, H.2007.

Meyer, J. (2008). The Kabbalah Centre and Contemporary Spirituality. Religious compass , 2 (3), 409 - 420.

Mills, J. & Blankstein,K. (2000). Perfectionism, intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, and motivated strategies for learning: a multidimensional analysis of university students . Personality and Individual Differences , 29 (6), 1191-1204.

Oelberger, J. (2006, March). Positive change and the study of Kabbalah:a qualitative look at beginning students:. Doctoral dissertation (Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Psychology) . Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center .

Parker. (1998). Birth-Order Effects in the Academically Talented. Institute for the Academic Advancement of Youth, Johns Hopkins University Gifted Child Quarterly , 42, 29-38.

Pervin, L. (1993). Personality theory and research. (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Raskin, D. (2002). Constructivism in Psychology: Personal Construct Psychology, Radical Constructivism, and Social Constructionism. American Communication Journal , 5 (3), 17-35.

Rogers,C. (1951). Some Observations on the Organization of Personality. American Psychologist , 2, 358-368.

Rotter, J. (1971). External and Internal locus of Control. In M. &. Schustack, The Personality Reader (pp. 179-184). London: Pearson.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs , 80 (1), 1-28.

Rusbult, V. Kumashiro,J. Kubacka, T & Finke,I. (2009). “The Part of Me That You Bring Out”: Ideal Similarity and the Michelangelo Phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 (1), 61-82.

Russell,D. & Abraham,T. (2004). Maladaptive Perfectionism as a Mediator and Moderator Between Adult Attachment and Depressive Mood. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 51 (2), 201-212.

Schlegel,H. Hicks,W. Arndt, Y. & King,S. (2009). Thine Own Self: True Self-Concept Accessibility and Meaning in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 (2), 473-490.

Schüler,J. Job,V. Fröhlich, F. & Brandstätter,V. (2008). Dealing with a hidden stressor: emotional disclosure as a coping strategy to overcome the negative effects of motive incongruence on health. Stress and Health , 12, 52-59.

Smith,L Weigert, W. & Thomas, P. (1979). Self-Esteem and Religiosity: An Analysis of Catholic Adolescents from Five Cultures. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 18 (1), 51-60.

Sorotzkin, E. (1985). The quest for perfection: avoiding guilt or avoiding shame? Psychotherapy , 22 (3), 564-571.

Sutin,R. & Robins, H. (2008). When the ‘‘I” looks at the ‘‘Me”: Autobiographical memory, visualperspective, and the self. Consciousness and Cognition , 17, 1386–1397.

Tirosh-Samuelson, R. (2008). Kabbalah: A Medieval Tradition and Its Contemporary Appeal. History Compass 6/2 (2008): 552–587, , 552-587.

how special is the special relationship

How special is the ‘Special Relationship’ (with special reference to Suez and the Iraq War)?

Introduction.

One of the most discussed, reviled and yet celebrated relationships the United Kingdom (UK) has with the wider world, is that of the ‘Special Relationship’ with the United States (US).

The penguin dictionary of international relations describes it as “part of international rhetoric...and regarded as having permanent even structural basis ...” Evans and Newnham also espouse: “However the relationship, (except for brief periods during and after WW2) is rarely as affectionate as the term suggests” (Evans,G. & Newnham,J. 1998, p 506). The special relationship is ubiquitous in diplomatic dialogue (Langley 2006/2007), the US and the UK have ‘virtually integrated’ their defence and intelligence according to Wallace and Phillips ( p 264,2009) and the relationship orbits between intimacy and mistrust, dependant on global political circumstances, Morgan, (2001). The UK has economic, legal and strategic alliances with other states (Maguire, S. & Smith, M. 2008); as does the US, professing to have Special Relationships with France, Germany Israel and South Korea (Bilefsky 2007).

Caveat; The specialness of the relationship cannot be denied, however it also depends on what is meant by ‘special’, there are various meanings in the Oxford English dictionary for example:

1. designed or organised for a particular person, purpose, or occasion;

2. better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual;

3. particularly great or important, or having an extra quality,

(Oxford Dictionaries 2006)

This essay will explore the ‘special relationship’ and state how close to the characteristics of “special” [it] is based on findings.

History, 1776 and beyond:

The US was a colony of Britain until the 1776 declaration and war of Independence, in the years following, relations between the two countries were sporadic and littered with mistrust, despite fighting alongside one another in minor conflicts leading up to, and in WW1 (Bayliss 1984).

Investigating the historical background, it is apparent that the US has argued against imperialism loudly on the world stage (McCormick 1999), suggesting Britain is a main perpetrator of this heinous crime,’ tantamount to burglary’, particularly Eisenhower during the Suez crisis (Dockhill 2002). Nevertheless, the US has embarked on many an imperialist adventure: in Cuba during the Spanish war of independence and the Bay of Pigs debacle, in Panama, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua and Chile (Keen 2008). Suggesting it shares (with UK) the philosophy of intervening in ‘less mature’ or ‘able states’ affairs whist espousing a vehement dislike of imperialism. The US has a form of ‘protectorate’ that began in the late 19thc and is still thriving today (Keen 2008). This Pax Americana has been described a natural progression from Pax Britannia and begins to explain why the relationship is special (Azubuike 2005) it is partly because of a shared vision of the future, a perusal of liberal democracy, forced or otherwise (Naughtie 2004).

Furthermore, it could be suggested that these interventionist adventures were an extension an ideology: the right of all people to over throw tyrannical government, (albeit with the assistance of an hegemonic state such as the US). Grounded in the US’ constitution the declaration of independence states: “...whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” (Himmelfarb 1990). Therefore, it can be asserted that the declaration of independence may shed some light as to why Britain and the US disagreed over Suez, Vietnam, the Falklands and Grenada yet were close allies in other conflicts such as the Gulf war, Kosovo and the Iraq war (Himmelfarb 1990, Morgan, K.O 2001). It could be the insisting of one country that it has more noble purposes for trespassing on another states’ territory than the other, which has caused similar behaviour but differing rhetoric and the occasional alliance.

Even with shared philosophy (albeit not espoused), relations were strained in the mid war years and the U.S did not initially help Britain in WW2. For example: in the face of Churchill’s pleas for defunct US destroyers urging it was “a matter of life and death” Roosevelt refused insisting it was against congressional and public opinion (p3,Bayliss 1984). However, an agreement was made, exchanging the much needed destroyers for a 99 year lease allowing US Air and Naval bases on British Empire land (Bayliss 1984). It can be asserted that (this could be the beginning of the practical aspects special relationship, before the much quoted ‘Sinews of Peace’ speech of 1946 ,Wallace,W. & Phillips,C. 2009), and also shows the terms for the relationship in the future, one of engaging promises from the leaders with deals that leave Britain the poorer partner in the relationship.

Tangible and material aspects of the Relationship.

Having asserted the roots of the relationship are founded in imperialism (the political, military, or economic domination of one country over another) (Evans,G. & Newnham,J. 1998), and a shared denial of this imperialism, explaining that at the onset the US had the superior position this essay will explore concrete characteristics of the relationship.

After working closely in WW2 sharing intelligence, defence, operations and arms, (Wallace,W. & Phillips,C. 2009), the McMahon act (stopping all information sharing regarding nuclear science) came as a huge blow to Anglo-American relations and reasserted US’ control of the relationship (Bayliss 1984, Dockhill 2002). Britain continued developing atomic weaponry and energy as it’s scientists had been leading the field in the early 1940s, the two countries perused technology solo until the revision with the Burns templar agreement 1950; stating that the US and the UK share to the ‘greatest practical degree military and intelligence information’ (p 7;Bayliss 1984).

At present this agreement endures with other defence, intelligence and strategic cooperation policies being founded since; including military bases (over 15,000 US military personnel are employed in 8 bases) (Wallace,W. & Phillips,C. 2009) and the strategic sharing of nuclear war heads (enabling Britain able to compete globally in arena she truly could not financially afford to do) (Hendershot 2009).

Furthermore, in the last four conflicts the UK shared the human and financial cost of war. Although Britain has not enjoyed the rebuilding contracts the US has had and the UK has spent more money on Afghanistan in relation to GDP than the US at a rate of 110% to the US’ contribution, this will be discussed further on (Azubuike 2005, Wallace,W. & Phillips,C. 2009).

Realistically it can be argued the US and the UK both enjoy different facets of this agreement, the UK have defence abilities above her capabilities, influence in military decision making and is the only ‘level one partner’ in coalition with the US; the US have a smaller state to lend credibility to its actions (Azubuike 2005, Corera 2009). This is invaluable on the world stage, principally in lending integrity to US claim that it is not hegemonic but philanthropic (Bayliss 1984, Morgan, 2001).

Although, (raising some scepticism to the philanthropic and fraternal attitude the US purports to hold), it can be asserted that at the inception of this ‘Special relationship’ in defence policy, the US was keen to ensure the UK was not courted by the USSR and it is from a ‘dog in a manger attitude’ that ‘friendships’ were renewed.

For example: in 1947 the Soviets asked to buy 20 Nene and Derwent engines, from Clement Attlee’s government, (the Soviet planes at this time were incapable of making the journey to the US) but with these engines the threat of atomic strikes became very real to Washington; however, against the US’ recriminations and with mounting debts the British government sold the engines. Washington was outraged yet Britain ignored them, eventually Britain and the US entered into the Burns templar agreement and the McMahon act was scrapped (Engel 2003, Naughtie 2004). Britain and the US although allied in defence and intelligence; continue to act independently and against each other’s express wishes, on a number of military matters; including Suez and Vietnam, this leans toward the relationship being special in purpose, or occasion.

Finance and Culture

In his book American academic Dr Robert Hendershot states that there is no relationship anywhere else in contemporary Global politics like the one between Britain and the United States, he suggests there are nebulous qualities that supersede the alliance of intelligence and weaponry, Hendershot insists that although [it] is changing and morphing due to power shifts the relationship is indestructible due to the value placed on Anglo- American relations by the U.S. electorate. Furthermore he suggests that the historical narrative is posthumously being transformed citing the involvement of Britain in the bicentenary celebrations as being evidence of this (Hendershot 2009). The Anglo-Saxon bloc share music, film television and fashion; these impact on values that exceed finance, it is a liberal capitalist shared view made concrete by language and popular culture (Bayliss 1984, Naughtie 2004).

This assertion is undeniable, however beyond warm and fuzzy sentimentality, the relationship is not one of equals; as explained, the relationship began as part of a war time coalition, arguably between comparatively equal financial partners; Britain at this time had a large empire including India. However the war effort had a significant effect on the British economy leaving Britain heavily in debt; the US in this time became a ‘super power’ with industry flourishing and a time of plenty just beginning (Dock hill 2002).

After WW2 Britain became economically weak and faced decline, meanwhile the US under the Marshal plan (1947-1951) sent aid in the form of $12.5 billion to Western Europe to aid recovery (Azubuike 2005). Attached to this money was the clear assertion that the US expected a European federation to be created, Britain was not keen (McCormick 1999). Recovery in Western Europe left the UK behind, with both Germany and France overtaking Britain in economic performance. This had a profound effect internationally, making Britain a disadvantaged state, in economic and financial diplomacy (Williams, & Phillips 2009).

Therefore although Britain and the US are bound by language, culture and history (Naughtie 2004) it is not a relationship held between equals. Furthermore, in the 1950s the economic might of the US reined over the whole globe, this meant that no concerted action could be taken without America’s agreement (Azubuike 2005); it was under these conditions that Suez erupted.

Suez a catastrophe amongst crises

The Suez canal, considered the British Empire’s jugular east-west connection, was legally owned by a coalition of French and UK share holders and carried a right of free passage set by the Constantinople convention of 1888 (Bayliss 1984).

The Suez crisis described as ‘Britain’s last spin of the imperial dice’ was motivated by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s decision to capture the Suez Canal and nationalise it to pay for the Aswan Dam; a project which would increase hydro-electrical power and enlarge arable land (Dunne 1990). This project was essential to plans for Egypt’s development, both internally and by increasing supply for export markets (Dockhill 2002).

At this time British colonies were (although depleted) still considerable, including: Singapore, Malaya, Hong Kong, much of the Caribbean and Africa (Guardian 2001). Having the canal under Egypt’s control was both ‘embarrassing and unacceptable’ according to the Prime Minister Anthony Eden, who also demonised Nasser likening him to Hitler or Mussolini (Morgan, 2001). Britain was not prepared to concede control of the canal, thus with the aid of France and Israel, a military operation was planned to reclaim the territory; ignoring the U.N general assembly who prohibited the action with overwhelming negative votes, (Dockhill 2002).

In addition this annexing by Nasser was a consequence of the US’ decision not to finance the Aswan dam project, believing it to be anti-Israel and pro-Soviet. Britain also withdrew a promise of financial support believing it to be a risk the British were unable to take without the US (Dockhill 2002), not surprising given the facts above.

However, the US was engaged in warily scrutinising the events of the Hungarian revolution and could not criticize USSR for hegemonic behaviour and “boast of moral superiority to the emerging third world, whilst assisting Britain and France storming the Suez Canal” (p63, McCormick 1999). Therefore, the US not only, did not assist, but condemned the action in virulent terms, also threatening to withdraw support for a nearly bankrupt Sterling if Eden did not depart from Egypt immediately; the UK capitulated. Furthermore, the US furious because of the devious way the action in Egypt had taken place, cut back intelligence sharing to a bare minimum (Morgan, 2001). As a result Eden finally realised that Britain was not capable of action independent of the US (McCormick 1999).

It can be asserted that Suez was a turning point for the ‘Special Relationship’; Britain was humiliated and the United States was considered the dominant partner from then on. In the years following, the Empire declined further with almost all Crown colonies becoming independent by 1981 (Morgan, 2001); meanwhile the US grew in stature holding Bi-Polar Super power status whilst engaged in the cold war with the USSR, and finally the claim that the U.S. had won the cold war and was the world’s only Super Power (Maguire, S. & Smith, M. 2008).

The Suez crisis’ effect on the Special relationship was profound; Bayliss states “Suez demonstrated the limits and fragility of the Special relationship, which both countries had carefully built in the 1940/50s...Both Dulles and Eden seemed to have regarded the clash of interests involved more important than the Anglo-American Alliance” (p 7; Bayliss 1984). This is a theme that reappears repeatedly, ultimately proving the relationship flourishes when there are shared goals, this will be discussed below with reference to Iraq. In addition to this assertion it can be suggested Suez set another president: the ignoring of the U.N. in matters of security.

Iraq a pathological partnership

On September 11^th 2001 the U.S were subject to a terrorist attack which killed over 3000 people; this changed U.S security dramatically and led to a close coalition between Britain and the U.S, in two wars over the next 8 years (Naughtie 2004)

Described as the most serious foreign policy crisis since Suez (Azubuike 2005); the Iraq war of 2003 brought the U.K. into a coalition that defied the U.N, members of the British cabinet and resulted in record breaking protests held worldwide in opposition to the war (BBC 2011). It is this defiance that has led to charges of Britain being a pawn or poodle in its relationship with the U.S; by embarking on an illegal war (Corera 2009).

However, Britain led the coalition with the U.S and there were 21 contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom (Pike 2006).

Although no other coalition member came close to spending as much money (Wallace & Phillips; 2009), or sending as many troops. For example: Britain sent 18,000 troops, resulting in 179 British Ministry of Defence personnel deaths (including 136 combatant deaths) (MOD 2009), there have been 4439 U.S military deaths (9/11 Comission 2004) and 11 Spanish (Pike 2006).

Furthermore, on the subject of the 9/11 attacks, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld pronounced “that from this day forward the mission must determine the coalition, the coalition must not determine the mission” (p 11, Gnesotto et. al 2003), it can be asserted that this means Britain had no choice but to agree to the war in Iraq; as this was the U.S’ intention, the coalition members irrelevant as it were.

However, Azubuike (2005) espouses (in his examination of the special relationship) there was no significant political or ideological pressure to agree to the Iraq war; in fact majority opinion was distinctly realist (no one has the right to enter sovereign territory). Iraq was and is considered an illegal war (BBC 2011), there were no financial or monetary pressures which the US could have used to force Britain to agree to do it’s bidding, (as it did at the time of Suez) and there was significant pressure both nationally, within Europe and the U.N to not go into Iraq. Also, there were no significant economic interests for Britain to protect by assisting in the invasion of Iraq. British oil companies stood to lose more than they gained (Azubuike 2005). Therefore Blair must have had prevailing reasons to become part of this much maligned endeavour.

This paper asserts the special relationship reached a zenith during the office of Tony Blair 1997-2008, relations between Tony Blair and Bill Clinton had been described as affable and friendly, the two men (both on the middle right of the left; proclaiming New Labour and New Democrats for their respective campaigns) were obvious companions sharing social time as well as the dictates of office (Naughtie 2004, Blair 2010 (c)).

Blair undeniably had influence on Clinton, for example: during the 1999 Kosovo conflict it was [him] who informed and shaped US policy, persuading Clinton to deploy ground troops, considered essential to the campaign (Blair, 2010).

Furthermore this influence was respected by Clinton who espoused; (in the aftermath of 9/11) “that he had confidence in Blair’s influence expecting him to be able to restrain Bush from any hasty attack on Iraq. He observed that Blair’s consistent bullish attitude on Iraq and the need to deal with the threat from Saddam Hussein would make him quite effective behind the scenes” (p 136 Azubuike 2005).

Analysing the relationship held with George Bush; Blair explains that although their politics on a national level were polar opposites, disagreeing on social care, health and educations his relationship with Bush regarding 9/11 was immediate support. Britain would stand shoulder to shoulder with America, and he recalls the ‘chilling’ events of 9/11 espousing that the world had changed irrevocably (Blair 2010 (b)). This rhetoric is reminiscent of Churchill’s however, unlike 1946 there appears to be no benefit to the U.K at this time of supporting the U.S so it can be asserted that the reasons explained previously; of shared culture and the nebulous qualities of the relationship are the cause of the support in the Iraq war. In addition, it can be claimed that with shared intelligence (thus intelligence staff) and a core belief (perhaps misjudged) in a desire to eliminate weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by Sadam Hussain, the special relationship had found its ultimate apex .

Perhaps sentiment of perceived threat to western civilisation was the nemesis for this action, furthermore, although there were terrorist attacks in the heart of London in 2005 and Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was arrested in Iraq (to be detained at Guantanmo bay) for masterminding those bombings, it is 9/11 that dominates the discourse on Iraq ( O’Neill, Reid and Evans 2007) although this arrests contravenes human rights law and is contested.

It is fair to maintain that like Fidel Castro in his speech of 16 October 1953, history will absolve the actions and prove the foundations of the Special relationship at this time (Keen 2008). Dialogue regarding Iraq is fraught with disagreement the premiers argue their case to this day and neither espouses regret for their actions, it is possible therefore that at this point in history; two very similarly minded men tackled an international crises with opinions that despite huge opposition happened to agree with one another, this may be the cause of the Special Relationship being in revival and altogether more influential. The specialness was due to being ... organised for a particular person,(Blair-Bush) purpose (9/11 and further threat) , or occasion (the war in Iraq) (Oxford Dictionaries 2006).

Conclusion

It can be claimed in answer to: “How special is the ‘Special Relationship’ (with special reference to Suez and the Iraq War)?” that [it] is Special, special does not mean equal nor does it mean fair this paper asserts:

The evidence shows the relationship is special, having nuances of “particular importance, having an extra quality” (Oxford Dictionaries 2006), because the nations share a language, culture and many customs; there are agreements in trade, intelligence, defence, operations, and weaponry, so although swathed by rhetoric, there is a factual basis for the term (Bayliss 1984;Hendershot 2009).

As was discussed above the relationship is most advantageous to both when the states’ share a goal, utilising this meaning of special “designed or organised for a particular person, purpose, or occasion” (Oxford Dictionaries 2006); although having the U.K disagree with international action does not affect the U.S to the extent the reverse effects the U.K (as has been shown with Suez) (Azubuike 2005). Thus the U.S. holds the superior power in the relationship; however, it would be difficult for the U.S. to alienate the U.K. entirely due to the perceptions of the American electorate (Naughtie 2004, Hendershot 2009).

This term has endured over 60 years, with a total of 23 changes of Premier and is espoused to be ongoing by the present incumbent heads of state, despite insincere press coverage targeted at the term, (Naughtie 2004;BBC 2010b;Blair 2010;Darling 2011). Moreover, although the press make much of personal relationships between premiers it is not this that is a basis for the international success or failure of the relationship; but it does add to the specialness as described above.

It is “better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual” (Oxford Dictionaries 2006) in that often in the past 60 years British and American premiers have shared relationships different and what appears closer than that which is usual in global politics particularly: Churchill-Roosevelt; Thatcher-Reagan and Blair-Clinton-Bush (Inboden 2010).

3580 words excluding references

References:

9/11 Comission. “The 9/11 Comission Report.” http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, An independent, bipartisan commission, Washington, 2004.

Azubuike, S. “The "Poodle Theory" and the Anglo-American "Special Relationship".” International studies, 2005: 123-139.

Bayliss, J. Anglo-American Defence relations; 1939-1984. London: Macmillan, 1984.

BBC. Barack Obama: UK relationship is 'truly special. 7 July 2010b. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693215 (accessed December 30, 2010).

BBC News (a). Special relationship between UK and US is over, MPs say. 28th March 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8590767.stm (accessed December 28, 2010).

Bilefsky, D. “The Special Relationship Tries to Swim the Channel.” The New York Times, 28 october 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28bilefsky.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=says%20United%20States%20still%20has%20special%20relationship%20with%20Britain%20and%20that%20Obama%20and%20Brown%20talk%20frequently%20..&st=cse.

Blair, Tony. A journey . Random House Audiobooks, 2010.

—. “Tony Blair on Clinton, Bush and the American Character.” Time magazine, September September 2010.

Brown, D. 1956: Suez and the end of empire. 14 March 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education1 (accessed December 27, 2010).

Corera, G. Spotlight on special relationship. 2 February 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7870801.stm (accessed January 20th, 2011).

Dockhill, S. Britain's retreat from East ofSuez; The choice between Britain and the world? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Dunne, M. “The Suez Crisis and the Politics of the Anglo-American Special Relationship.” 1990. (accessed December 28th, 2010).

Dunne,T. & Schmidt, B. “Realism.” In The Globalization of world politics, by S. & Smilth ,S. Bayliss, 141-161. New York : Oxford University Press, 2001.

Engel, J. “Why the cold war forced the British government to choose between keeping a friend and arming an enemy.The Comet Affair.” Military Aviation-Air & Space Magazine, 1 september 2003: 2-6.

Evans,G. & Newnham,J. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin group, 1998.

Gnesotto et. al. Shift or Rift: Assessing US-EU relations after Iraq. Edited by Gustav Linndstrom. Paris: The European Union institute for security studies, 2003.

Guardian. 1956: Suez and the end of empire. 14th March 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education1 (accessed December 28th, 2011).

Hendershot, R. "Family Spats: Perception, Illusion and Sentimentality in the Anglo-American Special Relationship". California: http://www.bepress.com/, 2009.

Himmelfarb, D. “The Constitutional Relevance of the Second Sentence of the Declaration of Independence.” The Yale Law Journal 100 (October 1990): 169-187.

Inboden, W. “U.S. must work on special relationship no matter who wins in May.” Foreign policy magazine, 18 March 2010.

Keen, B. & Haynes,K. A History of Latin America. Bristol : Wadsworth, 2008.

Langley, R. “Colman, Jonathan. A ‘Special Relationship’? Harold Wilson,Lyndon B. Johnson and Anglo-American Relations ‘at the summit’,1964-68. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. 192pp.” 49th Parallel (review), 2006/2007: 1-2.

Maguire, S. & Smith, M. The European Union and the United States;Competition and Convergence in the Global arena. New York: Plagrave Macmillan, 2008.

McCormick, J. Understanding the European Union. London: Macmillan, 1999.

Mearsheimer, J. Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism. 18 May 2005. http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp (accessed November 17th, 2010).

MOD. Operations in Iraq: British Fatalities. December 2009. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishFatalities.htm (accessed February 1, 2011).

Morgan, K.O. Britain since 1945;the peoples peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Naughtie, J. The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency . London: Macmillan Digital Audio, 2004.

O’Neill, Reid and Evans. “7/7 ‘mastermind’ is seized in Iraq.” The Times, 28th April 2007.

Oxford Dictionaries. Paperback Oxford English Dictionary. 6th. OUP Oxford, 2006.

Pike, J. Iraq Coalition Troops. 2006. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm (accessed January 21st, 2011).

Wallace,W. & Phillips,C. “Reassessing the special relationship.” International Affairs 85, no. 2 (2009): 263-284.

References 650 words