The focus of Milligan’s Big Ideas course this semester is on “War.” The Stampede is presenting a series of articles, essays and other features on the class, which will include interviews of students and the faculty who are leading the class. This week, Psychology Professor Dr. Joy Drinnon touches on the, which is the first of three faculty pieces in this series.
In 1986, a psychologist organized a meeting of scientists from around the world to address this very question. They issued the Seville Statement on Violence, which asserts five core ideas concerning violence. In essence, they refute the idea that war is an inevitable byproduct of our genetics or any single motivation. I think this is a helpful place to start any discussion of the psychology of war, because while looking for causes (in the hopes of preventing it), it can seem inevitable or at least intractable.
Whether we are looking at the biological precursors of aggression, the psychological processes of hate and division, or the social systems that contribute to conflict, it can seem like war is unavoidable. It is not. Nevertheless, it is helpful to understand why humans find war easier to slip into than peace. I have selected four main topics for my unit in the course.
The first of four readings in my area is an article on the use of propaganda to sell us on the need for war. If war were inevitable, there would be no need to persuade our fellow citizens to produce weapons of mass destruction and rain those down on civilians and enemy combatants alike. War must be sold to us as justifiable, noble, patriotic, and winnable. Propaganda is a great tool for dividing humans into good or evil, which serves to justify the dehumanization of some and the protection of others.
My second reading is on Terror Management Theory (TMT). According to TMT (Reiss & Jonas, 2019), reminding people of their own mortality (invoking “terror”) results in defensiveness that can make people intolerant and more aggressive. TMT studies show that when fear of death is high, people turn to their ingroups and worldview for comfort, which generally leads to more prejudice, aggression, and conflict. However, fear of death can lead to compassion when a person’s worldview is one that promotes peace and equality. The problem is breaking the cycle; because conflict and war create the conditions (e.g., death, isolation, destruction) that give rise to the defenses that so often produce more terror.
My third reading addresses the consequences of war and its vicious cycle. We will read about the multifaceted effects of war on civilians, such as PTSD. The main article by Anjum et al., (2023) lays bare the immediate trauma and limbo for refugees affected by war and its aftermath. While the context of this article is Ukraine, the factors that affect people are generalizable to any war. The article also offers practical suggestions for how to work with civilians and refugees.
Finally, we will end the unit and course with the introductory chapter from the book Psychological Components of Sustainable Peace. It gives an overview of six requirements for a peaceful society: positive interdependence, global identity, respect for human rights, freedom, fair recourse and taboos against using violence to solve problems. It also summarizes 13 psychological components of sustainable peace, such as cooperation, social justice and education. I hope that “peace” will be a Big Idea one day because discussing one chapter is inadequate.
I’ll end my unit in the course, and this summary, with a powerful quote “just as ‘wars begin in the minds of men’, peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us” (Adams et al.,1990).