|
Message |
| Posted By: |
firebird |
| Date: |
27-Feb-2003-05:06:35 |
| Subject: |
Why We Love War |
Why We Love War
January / February 2003
By Lawrence LeShan,
Adapted from The Psychology of War: Comprehending its Mystique
and Madness
And what we can do to prevent it anyway
Portraying humans as basically hating war might actually hinder
the
important work of deterring it, suggests research pyschologist
Lawrence
LeShan. New pyschological studies explain what history has long
shown to
be truethat war holds a deep attraction for large numbers of
people in
most cultures around the world. In accepting and understanding
this hard
truth, we may be better equipped to bring peace on earth. A
timely new
edition of his book The Psychology of War arrived last fall,
just as the
White House began beating the drumsand much of the American
public
eagerly fell in linefor a new war.
The Editors
To understand why humans go to war, and have done so throughout
history,
we have to acknowledge certain psychological facts. One of these
is a
relatively recent scientific insight: that humans organize our
perceptions of reality in a variety of different ways, and that
we often
shift between these modes without being aware of it. No single
mode
reveals the absolute truth of the world around us, and each
has
advantages and disadvantages. We also know that during war our
view of
reality is quite different than it is in peacetime. Once this
shift
occurs, war becomes more difficult to prevent or to stop.
Learning to
recognize this shift allows us to see the signs that a society
is moving
toward warand to understand what must be done if war is to be
avoided.
War is not an entirely universal activitythere have been a few
cultures
in which it is unknown. But under almost every form of economic
and
political organization, regardless of different family
structures,
child-rearing practices, and other social norms, people fight
wars on a
fairly regular basis. The problem of why we go to war has been
with us
for a long time. The Histories, written by Herodotus in the
fifth
century B.C., was one of the first attempts to pinpoint the
causes of a
particular war (in this case, between the Greeks and Persians).
Since
then, countless investigators have studied the causes of other
conflicts, but attempts to generalize from their conclusions
have
failed. Though many theories have been developed on why war is
so
widespread, none has helped to stop it, and none fits the actual
data on
how war happens.
As suggested in The Statistics of Deadly Quarrels, a classic
numerical
study of conflict by the British mathematical psychologist Lewis
Fry
Richardson, our accepted beliefs about when and why wars occur
have
little validity. For example, people of my generation were
taught that
the harsh peace treaties concluding World War I brought the next
world
war into being much more quickly. Richardsons analysis shows
the
oppositethat statistically speaking, the harsher the peace
treaty, the
longer the peace that follows it. During the Crimean War in the
early
1850s, A.W. Kingslake theorized that war is a foreign circus put
on by
rulers or ruling classes to distract citizens from troubles at
home. As
Richardson points out, this theory, though attractively simple,
does not
fit the data. In World War I, for example, Germanys rulers were
far
more occupied with trying to unify the country in order to fight
the war
than with fighting the war in order to unify the country.
Today, no single theory on the cause of war is generally
accepted.
Theres been a lot of discussion about using our knowledge of
psychology, sociology, and other social sciences to prevent war.
Much
has been done on techniquessuch as intercultural student
exchange,
international organizations, international mediation efforts,
and
armament reductionfor reducing wars likelihood. But there
appears to
be a great reluctance to deal with general theories about the
cause of
waror even to admit such theories are necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we can find new ways to prevent war, we have to
understand why it
is so popular. War at least promises to fulfill some fundamental
human
need or tension. One central human tension is the problem of how
to be
both an individual and a part of the larger group. Many of the
great
literary works explore this theme, dealing over and over with
how we try
to reconcile these conflicting drives. The same issue runs
through
modern textbooks on psychology, sociology, and anthropology. On
the one
hand is the drive to be more and more unique and individual, to
heighten
ones experience and being. On the other hand is the drive to be
a part
of something larger, a full-fledged member of the tribe.
There are two different means to satisfy these drives
simultaneously and
without contradiction. Both appear in every age and nearly every
culture. The first involves turning to one of the schools of
esoteric or
spiritual development, including Zen, Sufism, and the Christian,
Hindu,
and Jewish forms of mysticism. These schools agree that there
are two
ways of being-in-the-world. In what is generally called The
Way of
the Many, we view ourselves as separate and individual. In The
Way of
the One, we are seen as part of the total cosmos; nothing
within it,
including ourselves, is separate from anything else.
According to these traditions, humans have what the Roman mystic
Plotinus called an amphibious nature and must integrate both
views if
we are to survive, let alone reach our full potential. All such
schools
espouse various meditative techniques as a means for achieving
this
integration. Meditation can sharpen our perception, heighten a
sense of
self, and increase a sense of individual being. It can also lead
to a
more profound sense of oneness with all existence. The schools
insist
there is no contradiction here. The problem is that the
meditative path
is too lengthy and difficult for most people. Though it
promisesand
apparently often deliversa solution to this basic human
tension, its
historical influence has been small.
Historically, there is a second means of resolving this tension
between
our conflicting needs for singularity and group identification:
war.
Tolstoy described its effect in War and Peace: Every general
and every
soldier was conscious of his own insignificance, aware of being
but a
drop in that ocean of men, and yet at the same time was
conscious of his
strength as a part of that enormous whole. Again and again,
descriptions of war by experienced participants and by great
artists
(and Tolstoy was both) demonstrate that it fulfills these
fundamental
needs. War sharpens experience, heightens perception, and makes
one more
and more aware of ones own existence. At the same time, war
allows us
to become part of something larger and more intense. The Way of
the One
and the Way of the Many intensify each other.
The writer Jo Coudert recounts:
And in England, shortly after the war, I commented to a
Londoner
what a relief it must have been to have the bombings ended.
Oh,
she said, it was a marvelous time. You forgot about
yourself and
you did what you could and we were all in it together. It
was
frightening, of course, and you worried about getting
killed, but in
some ways it was better than now. Now were all just
ourselves again.
It is important to note that wartime consciousness is not
limited to the
front lines. Nor is it only known to men. It was once argued
that
allowing women to vote would lead to more peace, but in fact the
female
vote has had no effect on wars frequency or ferocity. The
attraction to
war is a human characteristic, apparently not limited by gender.
Though
war clearly does not deliver exactly what it promises, it does
offer
temporary solutions to psychological problems for a very large
percentage of the population. And once a war begins, the social
pressures to continue it are very strong. Anyone who questions
an
ongoing war is considered a traitor or a lapsed heretic, and
such people
traditionally are imprisoned or killed. One cannot question the
accepted
wisdom that the war being waged is a wonderful crusade to rid
the world
of evil.
And after a war, with the general disillusionment and social
confusion
that accompanies the failure of the postwar dream, no one cares
to
examine the contradictions. When Johnny comes marching home with
a
chronic disability from his wounds, we all try to forget our
recent bout
of psychological illusion as soon as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three ideas that, when they appear in society, should
be
regarded as signals that we are moving toward war, and that
strong
action must be taken against this drift:
*
The idea that there is a particular enemy nation that
embodies
evil, and that if it were defeated, the world would become
paradise. (The latter part of this statement is the
crucial danger
signal. The first part may well be trueas with Hitlers
Germany.)
*
The idea that taking action against this enemy (now the
enemy) is
the path to glory and to legendary heights of existence.
*
The idea that anyone who does not agree with this accepted
wisdom
is a traitor.
These danger signals often appear at the same time in two enemy
nations,
which probably speeds the slide into armed conflict. If they
appear in
only one, and that nation then attacks its enemy, then the
attacked
nation is likely to believe that it has been victimized (the
great
majority of wars start with an armed attack preceding a
declaration of
war). This in turn increases that nations sense that its
attacker is evil.
The way that people begin to perceive reality in the period
typically
preceding the outbreak of war is very seductive. I call it the
mythic
mode of perception, as opposed to the sensory mode we
ordinarily use.
Once mythic perception takes over, we cease to structure the
world in
our customary way and turn to the ways of a fairy tale or a
myth. In the
mythic reality we never question why evil exists; it simply is.
Since
the enemy is evil, were quite ready to starve, torture or kill
them;
after all, they cannot really be considered part of our own
species.
During a mythic war, God, history, and destiny are clearly on
ones
side. The division of the world into Good and Evil is so
complete that
not only similar qualities but also similar actions on the
opposing
sides are seen as fundamentally different. For instance, the
World War
II bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans and Hamburg by the
Allies were
seen as two different kinds of behavior. We bomb civilian
centers for
the good of mankind. They do so because they are evil. In a
mythic
reality, the enemy can only be stopped by force. Our defenses
are never
adequate; we always need a larger military, more atomic bombs,
and so
on, without end. Because the enemy has no regard for truth,
words can no
longer be relied on and real discussion stops. In regard to our
own
leaders, a Teflon factor appears; we quickly forget their
mistakes and
believe anything they say.
Ever since the philosopher Friedrich Schelling first described
the
mythic orientation in the early 19th century, many have noted
that the
shift to mythic consciousness is natural and easy for humans.
More
recently, social scientists from Ernst Cassirer to Erik Erikson
have
noted that it takes energy not to shift to this perspective. In
times of
stress and uncertainty the pulls become particularly strong. If
enough
people begin thinking mythically, a society can tip, making it
extremely unpopular or even dangerous to express the sensory
mode of
perception.
One fascinating dimension of mythic reality is that it usually
applies
to only two general areas: human behavior and interaction, and
the great
forces of the cosmos. It is not applied to the tools and
routines of
everyday life. We are perfectly clear about how these modes of
reality
relate, and about when and where to use each. We may be on a
great
crusade to make the world safe for democracy, but we drive on
the
correct side of the street to get there. All my means are sane,
my
object and motives are mad, said Captain Ahab of his mythic
quest for
Moby Dick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for a war to retain its mythic aspects, many of the
facts of
how war is really waged must be concealed. Any information that
lessens
wars psychological satisfaction is generally rejected. Since
the birth
of modern war correspondence and the telegraph in the mid 19th
century,
the public has shown a great desire for news about waras long
as it
makes the conflict seem heroic. Mythic wars have proven to be
the
greatest way ever discovered to sell newspapers. Wars like
Vietnam,
which came to be viewed through the sensory mode of perception,
are a
different story. As the terrible jungle fighting went on and on
in
Vietnam, even those who had first seen it in mythic terms were
disillusioned in the face of so much visual evidence to the
contrary,
via photos and television. After the conflict ended, war in
general
became unacceptable to many Americans.
There was one way in which the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was a
complete
success: It once again made war widely acceptable in this
country. The
media as a whole was magnificently managed by the military,
showing how
well theyd learned the lessons of the Vietnam fiasco, at least
in terms
of the press. The war had a mythic goala New World Order in
which the
forces of aggression would be stopped by a civilized coalition
led by
the United Nations. Brave allies were on the scene and the media
carefully avoided criticizing them. Murder, rape, and other
domestic
issues largely disappeared from the television news as all our
problems
became one problem. By the time the bombing got underway, the
war was a
fully mythic one.
The Persian Gulf War was, in fact, the cleanest, most bloodless,
most
idealized picture of war in a century and a half. The military
had
finally solved the dilemma of how to present war to a civilian
population. The United States had clearly entered a new era.
Whether
this was a conscious goal of the government remains unknown, but
its
effect today is clear.
Indeed, before we can understand the psychology of war we have
to
explore the role that government plays in perpetuating it. As
history
shows, governments are remarkably inept at preventing wars, even
when it
is clearly against their interests to fight them. This fact is
especially striking in light of how efficient they can become
once a war
begins. War seems to be a natural way of behaving for
governments;
indeed, our governmental forms today are descended from earlier
governments who saw war as their central function. In the
ancient world,
war was an accepted way to solve problems. (It wasnt until the
17th
century that peace began to be discussed as a natural and
permanent
state.) In theory, a constant, deeply concealed pressure toward
war may
be exerted by the structure of our governments, a structure
designed
partly for this purpose.
As a holdover from the violent past, every government today has
officials in charge of war or defense at its highest level.
Nowhere,
to my knowledge, is there an official at similar levels in
charge of
peace. The U.S. Constitution is perfectly clear as to which
organ of
the government has the power to declare war. Nowhere does it
state
which organ has the power to declare peace or to strive to
maintain it.
That perhaps explains why our government has developed the idea
of an
active peace program to only a minuscule degree compared to war
programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any serious effort to protect ourselves against war must
concentrate on
two areas: why war is so attractive to humans, and why
governments so
often act against their interests in moving away from peace. Our
first
step is to increase our awareness of the fact that war is a
tempting way
to solve certain human problems. We then must begin to teach our
young
how to achieve these benefits without resorting to armed
conflict.
This process cant begin until we acknowledge how easily we
shift from
sensory reality to mythic reality, especially when international
tensions escalate. The point is not to prevent such shifts; all
the
scientific evidence indicates that they are essential to
psychological
health. If we encourage the use of alternate realitiesas often
achieved
during meditation, play, listening to or playing music, and so
forthwe
increase the ability of human beings to reach new potentials.
Were also
more likely to become familiar with alternate modes of
perceiving
reality and know what they portend.
The ultimate goal is to be able to consciously choose between
war and
peace, uncontaminated by mythic thinking. The ambitions of a
Hitler, a
Pol Pot, or a Saddam Hussein may be so bad for the rest of us
that
declaring war against them is a reasonable and logical decision.
But no
war will accomplish mythical goals. It will not make the world
safe for
democracy, nor establish a thousand-year Reich, nor organize a
new world
order, nor establish the perfect society, nor end war, nor do
anything
else except solve a particular problem, at a high cost and with
unexpected results. And there will be unexpected results.
War has been so common in history that many have assumed it to
be part
of human nature or inevitable to the socialization process.
All such
theories are comforting in that they lessen our guilt by
assuming there
is nothing we can do. But in fact other social patterns just as
widespread as war, and deemed just as intractable, have been
abandoned.
Weve only given up slavery in the last 150 years. Under the
threat of
extinction, and using our new knowledge of the social sciences,
we must
get rid of war.
The time is now. Every war we fight since 1945 increases the
chance that
someone will again use the atomic bomb, destroying our
civilization and
perhaps the species. The day the first bomb was dropped was, in
Buckminster Fullers words, The day that humanity started
taking its
final exam. We had better pass.
Lawrence LeShan is a research psychologist, educator, and author
of more
than a dozen books, including The Dilemma of Psychology and How
to
Meditate. Adapted from The Psychology of War: Comprehending Its
Mystique
and Its Madness (Helios Press, 2002).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN DUBIOUS BATTLE
There are startling differences in the ways we perceive reality
during
wartime compared to peacetime.
PEACETIME
WARTIME
1. Good and Evil have many shades of gray. Many groups with
different
ideas and opinions are legitimate.
1. Good and Evil are reduced to Us and Them. There are no
innocent
bystanders; there are only those for or those against us.
Crucial issues
are divided into black and white, and opinions about them are
either
right or wrong.
2. Now is pretty much like other times.
2. Now is different from all other times. Everything hangs in
the
balance; whoever wins now wins forever. It is the time of the
final
battle between good and evil.
3. The great forces of nature, such as God or human evolution,
are not
often evoked in our disputes.
3. God is on Our Side, History will absolve us, and other
such
slogans indicate our belief that the great cosmic forces are
with us.
4. When this present period is over, things will go on much as
they have
in the past.
4. Everything will be vastly different after the war. Things
will be
better if we win and terribly worse if we lose. Winning or
losing will
change the meaning of the past and the shape of the future.
5. There are many problems to be solved and their relative
importance
varies from day to day. Life is complex.
5. There is only one major problem to be solved. All others are
secondary. Life has one major focus.
6. All people act from pretty much the same motives.
6. They act from a wish for power. We act from self-defense,
benevolence, and reasons of common decency and morality.
7. Problems start on different levelseconomic, political, or
personaland must be dealt with on these levels.
7. The real problem started with an act of will by the enemy and
can
only be solved by breaking his will or by making him helpless to
act on it.
8. We are concerned with what causes the problems were trying
to solve.
8. We are not concerned with causes, only with outcomes.
9. We can talk to those who disagree with us.
9. Since the enemy is evil, he naturally lies. Communication is
not
possible. Only force can settle the issue. We tell the truth
(news,
education). They lie (propaganda).
10. All people are fundamentally the same.
10. The same actions are good when we do them and evil when
the
enemy does them. There is doubt that we and they really
belong to
the same species.
Lawrence LeShan
|
The messages posted hear are those of the specific individual and may not represent the policies of Lila Publishing, the ideas of any other member of this bulletin board community or the teachings of Dr. Frederick Lenz. All copyrights are maintained by respective contributors and may not be reused without permission. By posting on this board you grant Lila Publishing a non-exclusive royalty free license under your copyright to use, store, display and reproduce your messages in whole or in part. All site assets, including these Perl scripts copyright © 1999-2002 Lila Publishing. These Perl scripts may not be directly linked to.
|
Communication Center - Version 3.50
© 1999-2002 Lila Publishing
|
