HUMAN NATURE & WORLD PEACE

We all know humans have the capacity to be our own worst enemy. We can perform the most terrible acts of violence on their fellows. From before recorded history humans have killed humans, and violence is potentially present in every society. There is no escaping the fact that the capacity to develop a propensity for violence is part of human nature. But that does not mean that aggression is inevitable: temporary anger need not give rise to persistent hostility, and hostility need not give rise to acts of aggression. And people also have the capacity to care for the needs of others, and are capable of acts of great altruism and self-sacrifice.

“HOWEVER unpalatable the fact, the real reason why we have wars is that men like fighting, and women like those men who are prepared to fight on their behalf."

So wrote van Creveld in 1991, implying that wars depend on the aggressiveness of individuals. The main purpose of this workshop is to examine the truth of this assertion, to pinpoint the sources of violence within and between societies, and thereby to point the way towards their elimination. This introductory paper, intended to stimulate and focus discussion, will argue that the role of individual aggressiveness depends on the sort of aggression that is under discussion, and that it is not an important factor in the genesis of major wars.
In our genes?
WHAT does it mean to say that the capacity for violence is intrinsic to human nature? In our own species, studies have shown that genetic factors are important for differences in anti-social behaviour, including aggression, especially when it is associated with early-onset and pervasive hyperactivity, though the genetic influence on violent crime seems to be less than that on petty-property. There are, of course, other biological factors which affect aggressiveness. In at least the great majority of countries, males are more physically aggressive than females. The incidence of violent acts tends to increase with age, reaching a peak in the late teens or early twenties, and then to decline (e.g. Blumstein et al., 1988). And such factors as hypoglycaemia, stress, drugs, and some forms of psychopathology, may be associated with aggressiveness.

Society at fault?
The role of family members and outsiders is influenced by the nature, values and norms of the society in which they live. In some cultures aggressive behaviour is encouraged, in others harmonious relationships are valued, and in yet others harmonious relations with the in-group, but hostility to outsiders, is the norm. Such norms may differ between boys and girls, firstborns and laterborns, between social classes, and so on. Where individuals or groups see themselves to be in danger of being exploited, they tend to cultivate an image of toughness and irritability. Such a situation was found in the frontier regions of the United States of America in the nineteenth century, and in many modern cities. The mass media both reflect and create societal norms, and most studies show a consistent but not necessarily strong link between televised violence and the viewers' aggressive tendencies.

Group aggession
Groups play large role in the cause of aggression, from inter-gang wars, through organised terrorism, to civil war based on religious or ethnic differences and often involving attempted secession - in other words, with much of the violence in the second half of the twentieth century. Thus violence between individuals, discussed in the previous section, and inter-state war, can be seen as the extremes of a (multi-dimensional) continuum containing diverse forms of inter-group conflict as an extensive middle-ground. And inter-group conflict may include acts of violence perpetrated by an individual who sees himself as representing a group, as in many acts of terrorism, or acts perpetrated by a group on an individual seen as representative of a group, as in the Apartheid violence against individuals seen as foreigners occupying jobs deserved by nationals.

Aggression between two groups requires cooperation between the members of each group. Here, then, is an immediate difference from inter-individual aggression, where factors conducive to cooperation mitigate against violence: in inter-group situations cooperation within each group can exacerbate the conflict.

Peaceful societies
Perhaps some lessons can be learned from reputedly internally peaceful societies. There have been very few of these, but some data are available on, for instance, the Zuni of the south-west USA, the Kung bushmen of the Kalahari, the Arapesh of New Guinea, the Xingo of Brazil, the Semai of Malaysia, and the Buid of Mindoro. Such societies seem to have an anti-violence value system which accepts the possibility of violence amongst its members, but stigmatizes quarrelling, boasting, anger and violence, and accords prestige for generosity, gentleness and conflict avoidance. Their cosmology, rituals and legends support the value system by beliefs in which helpful spirits are opposed by malevolent ones who prey upon men. Institutions for resolving disputes are prominent. The peacefulness of the ingroup is contrasted with the belligerence and sub-human nature of outsiders. Most of these societies tend to be egalitarian and collectivist in orientation.

The long term solutions to human aggression involve socialization and education of further generations. Adults must be educated in the use of parental styles that will lead to fewer aggression-prone individuals in the next generation. Education can also help minimize the effectiveness of war propaganda, and the mis-use of religion, and to increase understanding of other cultures and other beliefs.
Special attention must be paid to de-fusing old rivalries. It must acknowledge that old attitudes to war are not only immoral but have become outmoded by the technological advances in its destructiveness. We must invest in the teaching of tolerance, and cultural climates must be changed to glorify peace rather than war. Education must go beyond teaching and must aim to involve the succeeding generations in engaging in a process of re-cognizing that, at every level, violence is no solution. Community service can engender a feeling of responsibility. The change in climate might be signaled by erecting more statues to those who have elevated the human spirit (such as Tolstoy, Gandhi and Einstein) rather than the all too prevalent admirals and generals - dedicated to their ideals as the latter may have been. Visiting dignitaries could be greeted with flowers instead of soldiers and parades of military hardware. States could follow the lead of Costa Rica and by agreement abolish their armed forces, and that of Finland and prohibit the sale of military toys to children (Bruce, personal communication). Dismantling the military-industrial-scientific complex requires action of many types. Though these will require governmental action, governments must be spurred into action. Progress is likely to be slow, but progress must be made.