Tag: aggression

Theories of war and peace

Posted on by kathiemm

Why do people go to war? Are they just naturally aggressive? Are they “blank slates” who are conditioned by rewards and punishments to fight?

War cemetery photo from Bavaria, Germany
Durnbach War Cemetery, Bavaria, Germany. (From WikiMedia Commons; Permission granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.)

A few psychologists have developed theoretical “constructs” that may shed light on these questions. These ideas could prove useful in understanding the apparent readiness of humans to tolerate and participate in wars and other inhumanities at the urging of their political and military leaders.

In this blog, we will discuss some of these theoretical frameworks.

We use the term “constructs” to remind readers that “constructs” are what theories address. That is, philosophers and scientists impose their own theoretical constructions on reality to try to make sense out of it. They invent terms like “aggressive instinct,” “fight or flight,” and “need for power” to try to explain the behaviors they see.

The ultimate test of any theory is its (probably temporary) success in helping people make sense out of the complexities of their experience.

Our goal will not be to convince you of the rightness or wrongness of any theory. Rather, we invite you to consider with us the extent to which the theories help us understand why throughout history so many people (but by no means all of them) have seemed so ready to slaughter and be slaughtered.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Remembering Nagasaki, 1945

Posted on by kathiemm

World War I was not the war to end all wars; neither did the dropping of a second U.S. atom bomb at Nagasaki, Japan bring lasting peace to the world.

origami peace cranes
Origami peace cranes

Since August 9, 1945, and the end of World War II, the U. S. has committed troops to more than 100 armed conflicts around the world—in widely dispersed areas such as China, Korea, Palestine, Lebanon, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, the Congo (Zaire), El Salvador, Libya, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, the Persian Gulf, Panama, Colombia, the Philippines, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Many of these armed interventions provoked controversy and protest among American citizens; others barely reached public awareness. The goals were always lofty; the results frequently horrendous; the true motives often highly suspect.

Although the U.S. has used armed force with increasing frequency to achieve a wide range of goals across the globe since World War II, the actual number of armed conflicts occurring each year has declined rather steadily in recent decades—from around 164 in 1982 to 40 in 2000 and only 28 in 2008.

The consistent decline in armed conflicts is one basis for optimism concerning the possibility of world peace. Despite the involvement of the United States in ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is good evidence that increasing numbers of people around the world can see alternatives to violence as a means of resolving conflicts.

Public support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is declining even as funding continues. What will it take to get the country’s leadership to listen to the voice of the people who oppose these wars?

Future blogs will discuss the kinds of thinking people bring to their judgments concerning the legitimacy—and illegitimacy–of a government’s use of armed aggression and alternatives to that aggression.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Remembering Hiroshima, 1945

Posted on by kathiemm
atomic cloud over Hiroshima
Photo from the National Archives via Wikimedia Commons

Today, August 6, 2010, is the 65th anniversary of the dropping of the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. This U.S. military action instantly killed over 70,000 Hiroshima residents, almost entirely civilians.

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” Thus spoke J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the principal architects of the bomb.

Despite that condemnation, many Americans still believe that bombing Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was morally justifiable and that maintaining a nuclear arsenal is a sensible policy.

During the Second World War, the Japanese people were demonized and dehumanized by the media. Many Americans, already racist, believed the Japanese all deserved to die. Yet today–and indeed for several decades–Japan is and has been a major ally of the U.S., viewed as an essential partner in maintaining stability in Asia.

In a world with rampant armed conflict and many apparent threats to individual and family security, it is important to search for pathways away from death and destruction. We have chosen today to launch our new blog, dedicated to the promotion of world peace.

The blog has several specific purposes:

1. Promote optimism concerning the possibility of peace.

2. Explore how people in power and the mainstream media persuade citizens that various forms of government-sponsored aggression, such as war and torture, are justifiable.

3. Present examples of serious conflicts that have been resolved without warfare.

4. Demonstrate that a major pathway to peace is through responsible activism.

5. Translate into user-friendly language the best of relevant scientific and academic work contributing to the understanding of war and peace. In particular, we will periodically mention some of the major findings from the work of our own international research team.

6. Help readers find useful tools and important resources to support their own efforts to seek and promote peace.

7. Encourage readers to share their opinions and contribute their own stories and examples of “engaging peace.”

Please join the dialogue about Engaging Peace. We welcome your comments.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology