Removal|Exploring the origin of the differences and the way to deal with them from the movie "Red Tide Storm"

Reyes 2021-12-10 08:01:24

Transportation source:

Original author: Meipu

Wechat account: Talk about political affairs

Group posting time: July 27, 2018

Handling instructions: Because I like this movie, I just search WeChat whenever I think of it. It's so enjoyable to see this one! Can't help but carry it. . If there is any infringement, please notify me to delete it. PS. I feel that Yazi who reads film reviews on HowNet is also good (but I did not find this article when I searched on HowNet.

Exploring the Source of Disagreement and Its Solution from the Movie "Red Tide Storm"

The original Meipu talks about political affairs2018-07-27

Abstract: Disagreement is a common phenomenon in the interaction between actors. However, there is currently no consensus in the academic circles regarding the root causes of differences and the basic mode of handling them. This article takes the movie "Red Tide Storm" as the starting point. The core concern is: What caused the two factions headed by the captain and the deputy captain to disagree on the same situation? What are the possible ways for the two parties to deal with this disagreement? What is the generation mechanism of various processing modes? Why is the eventual mutiny inevitable? Why is it hard to distinguish between right and wrong in the ending? Based on the analysis of the existing logic of action, this paper adheres to the practical logic, and believes that the root of the differences lies in the difference of background knowledge, and the final cause of the mutiny lies in the difference of background knowledge with two or more actors. The interaction in the situation continues to expand to a level that neither side can tolerate, and then the conflict erupts. The so-called background knowledge refers to unconscious, non-representative, and inexplicable knowledge. This kind of knowledge mainly comes from the actor's empirical knowledge, which is the knowledge acquired by the actor through long-term self-experience, and is the natural accumulation in the long-term practice process. In practice, the difference of background knowledge is based on whether A and B adhere to their own opinions or compromise. There are four modes of disagreement handling: mutual compromise, A tolerance and acceptance, B tolerance and acceptance, and outbreak of conflict. The story narrative of the movie "Red Tide Storm" provides a strong test for this core hypothesis. Based on this, this article believes that the key to bridging differences lies in the sharing of information, understanding each other in practice, and then bridging differences and achieving candid cooperation.

Keywords: practical logic; background knowledge; disagreement; information

"Red Tide Storm" is a fictional movie that describes the storyline: A US nuclear submarine named "Alabama" was commanded when it carried out a nuclear attack on a nuclear bomb base controlled by armed insurgents in the Caucasus region of the former Soviet Union. The text sent by the Ministry of Information contained in the text was an order to prepare for the launch of a nuclear bomb. He was accidentally attacked by an enemy ship during preparations. During the attack, the command center sent a message again, concerning whether it was finalized to launch a nuclear bomb. However, because the Alabama nuclear submarine dived too deep to avoid enemy submarines, and the communication equipment was damaged due to torpedo avoidance, the message from the National Command Center was only half accepted and the instructions were incomplete. At this time, everyone on the ship didn't know whether the re-sent message asked them to continue firing nuclear bombs or stop firing nuclear bombs. The captain and deputy captain had different opinions on whether to immediately launch nuclear weapons to strike enemy targets. Captain Ramsey was worried that Russia would launch a nuclear bomb and should proceed with the nuclear bomb launch procedure preemptively. The deputy captain Hunter believed that the content of the message was incomplete and needed to be reconfirmed. Perhaps the message was ordered to stop the launch of nuclear bombs, and Russia may have also stopped the launch procedure. If the launch procedure is continued in this way, it is very likely to lead to a nuclear war. Resulting in the death of millions of people. Captain Ramsey and Deputy Captain Hunter insisted on their respective views and fought in the enclosed submarine until they met each other. Based on this, the core question that this article focuses on is: What caused the two factions headed by the captain and the deputy captain to disagree about the same situation? What are the possible ways for the two parties to deal with this disagreement? What is the generation mechanism of various processing modes? Why is the eventual mutiny inevitable? Why is it hard to distinguish between right and wrong in the ending? In short, the root causes of differences and the basic mode of handling differences.

In response to this core issue, this article intends to focus on the following three parts: one is to find the root cause of the differences; the second is to analyze the basic mode of handling differences; the third is to propose effective measures to bridge the differences.

1. The origin of differences and their roots

What is "divergence"? In short, it is antagonistic difference, and because of this difference, antagonistic behavior is produced. In the movie, Captain Ramsey and Deputy Captain Hunter showed differences in working styles and preferences at the beginning. Later, they gradually showed differences in attitudes towards war, and even had disputes (kitchen fire + emergency exercises). Is it just a conflict of personality, habits, and opinions? As soldiers, they shared a unified consensus that the soldiers "strictly obey the orders of the superiors" (not questioning each other in front of the crew, causing confusion). However, as the final ruling of the military court: "In this rebellion, you are both right. At the same time, you are both wrong." This is a dilemma. So, what is the reason for the final mutiny? Why is there such a contradiction that is both right and wrong?

(1) Three kinds of action logics in western international relations theory

To explore the cause of the mutiny, we must first analyze the logic of the action. The core issues of Western international relations theoretical research represented by realism, liberalism, and constructivism can be attributed to the exploration of the logic of action of international actors. The three major schools take power structure, international system, and international culture as independent variables. Of course, with the rise of non-Western international relations theories, substantive causal factors began to slowly turn to intellectual causal factors, "from appearance knowledge to background knowledge, from rationality to practical ontology" [] The most important turn in relational theory. The three action logics in the theory of international relations provide independent variables that can be used for reference to explain the behavior of actors.

1. Rationalist theory and consequential logic: interest determines action

The rationalist theory of international relations follows the logic of consequence, that is: "The basic motive for an actor to take action is a balance of interests." [] Following the assumption of a rational person, it is believed that the actor can pass costs and benefits when faced with a decision-making situation. The calculation closely links the means and the purpose together, so as to choose the means that maximizes the benefit and take action.

2. Constructivist theory and appropriateness logic: norm-shaping action

For constructivists, the logic of action is the logic of appropriateness. The so-called logic of appropriateness means that the basic motivation for the action by the actor is to think about whether the action conforms to the social norms, that is, the norm determines the action. In a normative social environment, actors will determine their own interests and take actions based on their roles and identities. In the long run, social norms will be internalized into behavioral norms of actors.

3. Practical theory and practical logic: Practice guides action

The theory of practice was originally the research content in the field of sociology, and its research results began to enter the field of international society after the 20th century. The introduction of practical theory into the field of international relations began with the study of Emanuel Adler and Barnett on the security community. In 2008, the publication of Vincent Polliott's "Practical Logic: The Practical Theory of the Security Community" in "International Organizations" marked that the practical theory has attracted the attention of the mainstream academic circles of Western international relations theory. In 2011, "International Practice" edited by Emmanuel Adler and Vincent Polliott systematically expounded the theory of practice. The highlight of the practical theory is the "practical choice". "The action of the actor is not simply the result of the balance of interests, nor is it purely regulated thinking. This kind of practice is the daily action that conforms to the actor's qualifications." Practice is the bridge between material and idea. Without practice, material cannot be produced. Meaning and ideas cannot be actions.

What directly drives action in practice is practical awareness, and this practical awareness is "the actor’s intuitive grasp of how he plays a certain game. When the actor encounters a social situation, the past experience will be activated and presented. Now, and automatically tell the actor what to do.” [] The practical logic is that the actor will act in accordance with the practical experience, and the practical theory highlights the background knowledge from the beginning.

(2) The difference of background knowledge: the root cause of disagreement

In essence, the root of the disagreement lies in the difference of background knowledge, and the motivation of this mutiny in the movie "Red Tide Storm" is that the difference of background knowledge continues with the interaction of two or more actors in specific situations. It expands to the point that neither side can tolerate it, and then the conflict breaks out. The so-called background knowledge refers to unconscious, non-representative, and inexplicable knowledge. This kind of knowledge mainly comes from the actor's empirical knowledge, which is the knowledge acquired by the actor through long-term self-experience, and is the natural accumulation in the long-term practice process.

The importance of background knowledge can be traced back to the influence of Weber, Whitehead, Wittgenstein and Toulmin and their Dewey pragmatism. As far as a person's background knowledge is concerned, two main assumptions play an important role. The first hypothesis is that a person’s value rationality shapes their long-term preferences for behavior, including whether they believe that doing something is legitimate, and that this belief in appropriateness is shaped by their past experience and recent reality. The second hypothesis is that the instrumental rationality of which strategy prevails affects a person's specific orientation in response to a certain situation. According to Weber’s definition, value rationality refers to “consciously the pure belief in the unconditional inherent value of a specific behavior-ethical, aesthetic, religious or any other interpretation-regardless of whether it is achieved or not." Rationality refers to "through the expectation of external affairs and the behavior of other people, and using this expectation as a condition or as a means to achieve one's goal that is in line with rationality and consideration as an outcome." On the one hand, tools Rationality has priority, and the realization of value rationality must be based on instrumental rationality; on the other hand, value rationality is more essential, providing ultimate value for instrumental rationality, and instrumental rationality is restricted by value rationality.

Appropriateness beliefs determine the overall direction of a person’s behavior preferences and shape a person’s long-term preferences; consequential expectations determine the degree and speed of a person’s behavioral preferences change, and affect the specific orientation of a person’s behavior. Bourdieu believes that habit is a "persistent and transmissible system of temperament, which combines past experience and action at every moment to make it a coordinate for cognition, judgment, and action, enabling people to cope with vastly different situations." When habit and field interact, it will produce a kind of awareness to guide action, or it is a kind of explicit or potential game rules that can be grasped imperceptibly. Practical theory inherited this point, believing that background knowledge enables actors to automatically and without thinking about the situation they face and make their own decisions. Practice makes appropriateness beliefs and consequence expectations present dynamic characteristics in long-term trends and specific situations, connecting the general logic of one's actions in series.

"Practitioners" or "experiencers" replace "rational people", and the differences in background knowledge have caused inconsistencies between actors, that is, disagreements. This inconsistency presents more and more obvious differences with the deepening of practice. When this difference accumulates to an intolerable critical point, conflicts will erupt.

The settings of Captain Ramsey and Deputy Captain Hunter in the movie "Red Tide Storm" are two opposites from the beginning. Their differences can be summarized as the following two points: (1) Properity belief: execution of orders VS. think throughly. Captain Ramsey, as a general who experienced World War II, has a firm character as a traditional soldier-extremely obedient to the orders of his superiors. His world is kept at the simplest level. There is only one dog around him, divorce, and he is dedicated to the cause of the military; he is a strong incentive to his subordinates, using words such as "If you are not the best, you should participate in the air force" and other words to induce the superiority of the subordinates Sense, increase the confidence of subordinates. As a general, he firmly believes that “young soldiers must be trained to do tasks that cannot imagine the consequences, and they need to be given a firm belief: they are doing the right job.” Decades of experience are the source of his belief in appropriateness and support. This is why he believes in appropriateness. In the course of the war, this belief in appropriateness can increase the chances of success for all team members. In the enclosed space of the submarine, commands are accepted in one direction. In encounters, you can only make decisions based on pre-learned responses and abstract instruments. In ships, these decisions have a high level of gambling, because it is impossible to fully grasp the information. After hesitating for a while, it is possible that everything will be over--the Deputy Captain Hunter hesitated to order the leaky tank to be sealed. It can be said that it is a bit lucky that it did not make the whole ship sacrifice.

Deputy Captain Hunter is a post-war baby boomer: a stronger education background, a deeper understanding of family, the earth, and war, and understand that war is the greatest tragedy, especially the disastrous consequences of nuclear war. As a young person, his personal qualities and military training results are undoubtedly excellent. He has a deeper research on the theory of war, and he has a deeper thinking about the impact of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, his happy family cannot bear the results of nuclear war. He has a clear and sober understanding of the action of "button launch": nuclear war has disastrous consequences, which is not desirable for the entire planet and mankind. . He has his own belief in appropriateness-love for the earth, love for family, love in human nature. Absolutely correct and absolutely "ideal." No matter how deeply Captain Ramsey studied the profile of Deputy Captain Hunter, he would not be able to understand Hunter's confrontation in a short time. It takes time and a lot of background information to understand Hunter's decision in depth. What is not written in Hunter's archives is his love for the earth, family, and humanity. This kind of love is actually Hunter's belief in appropriateness, and it also seems to be difficult to understand Hunter's deadlock. In the face of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war involving the life and death of the entire planet, his belief in appropriateness stems more from his own background knowledge and expectations of the consequences after the launch of a nuclear bomb.

(2) Anticipation of consequences: if it is right, the catastrophic consequences suffered by our side vs. if it is wrong, the catastrophic consequences suffered by both parties. Captain Ramsey abides by the military's duty to execute orders, and believes that if the time is missed and the other party preempts, we will bear the catastrophic consequences. The Deputy Captain Hunter believes that if the second message is to cancel the launch order, then the launch will lead to the outbreak of a nuclear war, and the entire outcome will be catastrophic consequences that humans and the earth cannot bear. As Deputy Captain Hunter said to the radio repairman: "You are Captain Kirk...you need to take the responsibility for the life and death of all mankind..." To have him thoroughly understand the importance and consequences of the mission is from a human perspective. Let him have a responsible commitment. I firmly believe that "What I am shouldering is an important and huge task."

The difference in this background knowledge has been continuously expanded in practice: from the initial perception of Lipizzaner Stallion, this difference is merely a difference, and has not been intensified into a disagreement. Lipizzaner Stallion is a world-famous horse, produced in Spain. The most amazing thing is that it is black when it is a foal, and it becomes white when it grows up. On the way the team members deal with disputes over the surfing team, Hunter set himself to understand them, and positively encouraged them to assume their own military responsibilities. On the contrary, Captain Ramsey used forceful means: “Anyone who feels that he cannot bear the pressure of this war can leave the submarine immediately.” Think about the two conversations between Captain Ramsey and Deputy Captain Hunter. Typical "differences in background knowledge". Captain Ramsey believes that whip and stimulation can make people subdue, while young Hunter believes that self-awakening and thinking can make people change. This "difference in background knowledge" was completely inspired when nuclear missiles were launched, and eventually evolved into mutiny.

2. The basic mode of disagreement handling

Now that the background knowledge has shown differences, and has been continuously expanded in practice, and evolved into differences, how to deal with such differences? This involves a "disagreement handling" model (as shown in Table 1). This model gives four strategies for handling disagreements: mutual compromise, A tolerance and acceptance, B tolerance and acceptance, and outbreak of conflict. The key to these four processing strategies lies in: Whether A and B both adhere to their own opinions or compromise.

In "Red Tide Storm", these 4 modes have appeared at different times, and the handling methods are different, and the most serious evolved into conflicts.

Regarding "A Tolerance and Acceptance", the most representative incident was that the deputy captain removed the captain from his duties and imprisoned him in accordance with the nuclear weapons launch regulations. The deputy captain Hunter adopts procedural protection. When the main duty violates the rules, the post will be naturally removed, and the deputy captain will automatically take over. Refusal to agree to launch without the cancellation order and the launch order is still in effect. Theoretically, the new order has not been accepted and the authenticity is unclear. As a soldier, the original order should be executed. Under this circumstance, this approach taken by the Deputy Captain Hunter was a risky move, but his decision was legal, albeit with great risks. Captain Ramsey stubbornly insisted on launching illegally. During the dispute between the two sides, the captain was angry and dismissed the deputy captain in an attempt to launch a nuclear bomb by bypassing the deputy captain. This action violated the Naval Law’s nuclear bomb launch regulations, and the deputy captain seized the handle and dismissed him in accordance with the law. . The captain didn't agree emotionally, but he still sent someone to imprison the captain in accordance with the law. The captain compromised, and the command power legally fell into the hands of the deputy captain Hunter.

Regarding "B tolerance and acceptance", the most representative incident was that the captain initiated a mutiny and imprisoned the deputy captain. After successfully destroying the enemy submarine and gradually eliminating its own faults, the mid-level officers loyal to the captain Ramsey launched a rebellion (though they themselves believed it was a counterinsurgency) and regained control by armed forces. The Deputy Captain Hunter compromised and was locked into the dining room.

Regarding "compromise with each other", the most representative event is 5 minutes waiting for the message to be received.

Regarding the "outbreak of conflict", that is, 3 military operations: 2 for the captain and 1 for the deputy captain. Captain Ramsey insisted on following the first order to launch a nuclear bomb, and Deputy Captain Hunter insisted on waiting for the second order and prevented the launch of the nuclear bomb. This disagreement between the two parties' insistence on their own opinions caused the conflict to erupt.

3. Conclusion

Mutiny is the theme of this movie, and it is also the biggest attraction. First, the deputy captain dismissed the captain from his duties and imprisoned him in accordance with the nuclear weapons launch regulations, then the captain initiated a mutiny and imprisoned the deputy captain, then the deputy captain initiated a mutiny and re-entered the control room, and then the captain again. The second mutiny entered the control room, and the two parties temporarily compromised and waited for the message to be received. Three mutinies are certainly not a good thing, but the mutiny that took place in the nuclear submarine Alabama embodies the fine traditions of the US Navy and is also an act in the US national interest. The captain ordered the immediate launch of nuclear bombs against the enemy in order to prevent delays in fighter planes and prevent the United States from being attacked by enemy nuclear weapons. The deputy captain requested to stop the launch and continue to float on the nuclear submarine in order to really understand the integrity of the command of the national command center and prevent an irreversible nuclear war from happening. Therefore, the actions of both of them are in the national interests of the United States, and thus the final ruling of the military court in the ending: "In this rebellion, you are both right. At the same time, you are both wrong." This is one. A dilemma. Of course, the final message proved that the deputy captain’s judgment was accurate. The rebels had surrendered and stopped launching nuclear weapons into the United States. Therefore, the National Command Center also ordered the immediate cessation of nuclear weapons launches. The truth came to light, everyone cheered, and even the people who were proven wrong were relieved (no one wants a nuclear war). Captain Ramsey announced that Deputy Captain Hunter had taken over the control room and walked silently back to the cabin. The one who had been imprisoned His place. And it was the message that made the truth clear: the temporary compromise between the two parties during the conflict enabled the smooth and complete reception of the second message, and the complete presentation of the war situation and the order of the national command center, allowing the differences to be bridged. The root of the disagreement lies in the difference of background knowledge. This disparity expands to a degree that neither side can tolerate with the interaction of two or more actors in specific situations, and then the conflict erupts. This kind of background knowledge mainly comes from the actor's empirical knowledge, which is the knowledge acquired by the actor through long-term self-experience, and is the natural accumulation in the long-term practice process. This difference exists in reality and cannot be ignored. In a closed space like a ship, the captain and deputy captain fully demonstrated such a major event as the launch of a nuclear bomb.

At the end of the film, the U.S. Naval Commission of Inquiry investigates the mutiny that took place in the USS Alabama nuclear submarine. Unexpectedly, the captain Ramsey not only admitted his mistake, but also voluntarily asked for early retirement and recommended the deputy captain Hunter to take over as the captain. This kind of ideology and spiritual realm is worthy of our deep consideration and study. Of course, "Red Tide Storm" is a Hollywood blockbuster, which means that there must be a perfect ending-Ramsey and Hunter's suspicions are released and an understanding is reached. This is a good wish: "Frank cooperation", one party convinced the other party with facts and won his understanding and support. In fact, this ending is not only beautiful and ideal, but also the most difficult. Because you need to continue to understand each other after a long time of interaction in the right situation. Only when we understand each other in practice and bridge the differences can we realize candid cooperation.

In this article, regarding the root causes of the differences and its processing mode, although it is only based on the conclusions drawn from the movie "Red Tide Storm", the film’s narrative has been strongly tested, but this analytical framework is also applicable to explain different cultures to a certain extent. The roots of the differences between countries in the context and their handling modes, to a certain extent, also explain the normalization of differences between countries under different cultural backgrounds and the difficulty of mutual understanding, which fits the liberal institutionalism’s approach to the relief of information asymmetry. The role of phenomena and constructivism’s emphasis on interactive culture. Of course, on the one hand, the applicability of the root causes of disagreements and their handling models needs to be tested based on specific international phenomena; on the other hand, there are differences in the logic of action between countries and individuals, and the differences in background knowledge are more reflected on the individual level. Obviously, but for the country, the role of this practical logic needs to be further studied.

Reading 87 watching 1

View more about Crimson Tide reviews

Extended Reading
  • Seamus 2022-03-22 09:01:50

    The plot is good, the atmosphere is well rendered

  • Henri 2021-12-10 08:01:24

    I heard the original sound ten years ago, until now I finally added the movie. The overall feeling is that Scott’s brother has made a conscription film advertising the Navy after topgun, which shows the combat procedures are extremely rigorous and pays attention to the details. All the officers and soldiers wearing glasses are round-frame glasses, which is supposed to prevent sharp collisions. So far I have watched four submarine movies Das Boot, K19, Red October and Red Tide in a row. It’s really cool.

Crimson Tide quotes

  • Peter "Weps" Ince: Maybe it's not as bad as it looks...

    [pager beeps]

    Peter "Weps" Ince: It is.

  • Hunter: [over the intercom] Radio, X-O. Mr. Zimmer, get those communication systems back online now.

    Zimmer: [over the intercom] We're working on it sir.

    [to himself]

    Zimmer: Aye, aye, Captain.

    Vossler: Are we ready?

    Zimmer: Yeah, we're ready. Go.

    [sparks fly when Vossler touches the circuit board with his soldering iron]

    Vossler: Oh fuck.

    Zimmer: The system crashed, the radio buoy got severed, what the fuck does he want us to do?

    Vossler: Shit electrons?

    Zimmer: Hey, we need this radio repaired. Not smart-ass remarks.