Advertisement
In 1932, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein conducted a correspondence
	subsequently published under the title ‘Why War?’ See ‘Why War: Einstein
	and Freud’s Little-Known Correspondence on Violence, Peace, and Human
	Nature’.
	https://www.transcend.org/tms/2015/04/why-war-einstein-and-freuds-little-known-correspondence-on-violence-peace-and-human-nature/
	
 In many ways, this dialogue between two giants of the 20th century is
		symbolic of the effort made by many humans to understand that perplexing
		and incredibly damaging feature of human experience: the institution of
		war.
		
		In a recent article, the founder of peace research, Professor Johan
		Galtung, reminded us of the legacy of Freud and Einstein in this regard
		and reflected on their dialogue, noting some shortcomings including
		their failure to ‘unpack conflict’. See ‘Freud-Einstein on Peace’.
		https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/06/freud-einstein-on-peace/
		 
		Of course, Freud and Einstein weren’t the first to consider the question
		‘Why War?’ and their dialogue was preceded by a long sequence of
		individuals and even some organizations, such as the Women’s
		International League for Peace and Freedom and War Resisters’
		International, who sought to understand, prevent and/or halt particular
		wars, or even to understand and end the institution itself, as
		exemplified by the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1928 outlawing war. Moreover,
		given the failure of earlier initiatives, many individuals and
		organizations since Freud and Einstein have set out to understand,
		prevent and/or halt wars and these efforts have taken divergent forms.
		
		Notable among these, Mohandas K. Gandhi was concerned to develop a mode
		of action to deal with many manifestations of violence and he
		dramatically developed, and shared, an understanding of how to apply
		nonviolence, which he labeled satyagraha (holding firmly to the truth),
		in overcoming large-scale violence and exploitation. He successfully
		applied his strategic understanding of nonviolence to the Indian
		independence struggle against British colonial rule. But while Gandhi
		was happy to acknowledge his debt to those who had gone before, he was
		not shy in proclaiming the importance of finding new ways forward: ‘If
		we are to make progress, we must not repeat history but make new
		history. We must add to the inheritance left by our ancestors.’
		
		My own journey to understand human violence was caused by the death of
		my two uncles, Bob and Tom, in World War II, ten years before I was
		born. My childhood in the 1950s and 1960s is dotted with memories of my
		uncles, stimulated through such events as attending memorial services at
		the Shrine of Remembrance where their war service was outlined. See ‘My
		Brothers’ on my father’s website.
		https://thelastcoastwatcher.wordpress.com/my-brothers/
		 
		But by the early 1960s, courtesy of newspaper articles and photos, I had
		become aware of exploitation and starvation in Africa and elsewhere, and
		as a young university student in the early 1970s I was reading
		literature about environmental destruction. It wasn’t just war that was
		problematic; violence took many other forms too.
		
		‘Why are human beings violent?’ I kept asking. Because I thought that
		this question must have been answered somewhere, I kept reading,
		including the work of Freud and Karl Marx as an undergraduate, but also
		the thoughts of many other scholars, such as Frantz Fanon, as well as
		anarchists, feminists and those writing from other perspectives which
		offered explanations of violence, whether direct, structural or
		otherwise.
		
		By the early 1980s I had started to read Gandhi and I had begun to
		understand nonviolence, as Gandhi practised and explained it, with a
		depth that seemed to elude the activists I knew and even the scholars in
		the field that I read.
		
		Separately from this, I was starting to gain a sense that the human mind
		was not something that could be understood well by viewing it primarily
		as an organ of thinking and that much of the literature and certainly
		most of the practitioners in the field of psychology and related fields,
		especially psychiatry, had failed to understand the emotional depth and
		complexity of the human mind and the implications of this for dealing
		with conflict and violence. In this sense, it was clear to me, few had
		understood, let alone been able to develop, Freud’s legacy. This is
		because the fundamental problem is about feeling (and, in relation to
		violence, particularly suppressed fear and anger). Let me explain why.
		
		Violence is something that is usually identified as physical: it
		involves actions like hitting, punching and using weapons such as a gun.
		This is one of the types of violence, and probably the one now most
		often lamented, that is inflicted on indigenous peoples, women and
		people of colour, among others.
		
		Separately from this, Gandhi also identified exploitation as violence
		and Galtung elaborated this concept with his notion of ‘structural
		violence’. Other forms of violence have been identified and they take
		many forms such as financial violence, cultural violence and ecological
		violence. But violence can be more subtle than any of these and, hence,
		much less visible. I have given two of these forms of violence the
		labels ‘invisible violence’ and ‘utterly invisible violence’.
		Tragically, ‘invisible violence’ and ‘utterly invisible violence’ are
		inflicted on us mercilessly from the day we are born. And, as a result,
		we are all terrorized.
		
		So what are ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence?
		
		In essence, ‘invisible’ violence is the ‘little things’ we do every day,
		partly because we are just ‘too busy’. For example, when we do not allow
		time to listen to, and value, a child’s thoughts and feelings, the child
		learns to not listen to themSelf thus destroying their internal
		communication system. When we do not let a child say what they want (or
		ignore them when they do), the child develops communication and
		behavioural dysfunctionalities as they keep trying to meet their own
		needs (which, as a basic survival strategy, they are genetically
		programmed to do).
		
		When we blame, condemn, insult, mock, embarrass, shame, humiliate,
		taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie to, bribe, blackmail, moralize
		with and/or judge a child, we both undermine their sense of Self-worth
		and teach them to blame, condemn, insult, mock, embarrass, shame,
		humiliate, taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie, bribe, blackmail,
		moralize and/or judge.
		
		The fundamental outcome of being bombarded throughout their childhood by
		this ‘invisible’ violence is that the child is utterly overwhelmed by
		feelings of fear, pain, anger and sadness (among many others). However,
		parents, teachers and other adults also actively interfere with the
		expression of these feelings and the behavioural responses that are
		naturally generated by them and it is this ‘utterly invisible’ violence
		that explains why the dysfunctional behavioural outcomes actually occur.
		
		For example, by ignoring a child when they express their feelings, by
		comforting, reassuring or distracting a child when they express their
		feelings, by laughing at or ridiculing their feelings, by terrorizing a
		child into not expressing their feelings (e.g. by screaming at them when
		they cry or get angry), and/or by violently controlling a behaviour that
		is generated by their feelings (e.g. by hitting them, restraining them
		or locking them into a room), the child has no choice but to
		unconsciously suppress their awareness of these feelings.
		
		However, once a child has been terrorized into suppressing their
		awareness of their feelings (rather than being allowed to have their
		feelings and to act on them) the child has also unconsciously suppressed
		their awareness of the reality that caused these feelings. This has many
		outcomes that are disastrous for the individual, for society and for
		nature because the individual will now easily suppress their awareness
		of the feelings that would tell them how to act most functionally in any
		given circumstance and they will progressively acquire a phenomenal
		variety of dysfunctional behaviours, including many that are violent
		towards themselves, others and/or the Earth.
		
		Moreover, this emotional (or psychological) damage will lead to a unique
		combination of violent behaviours in each case. And some of these
		individuals will gravitate to working in one of the social roles that
		specifically requires, or justifies, the use of ‘legitimized violence’,
		such as the violence carried out by police, prosecuting lawyers,
		magistrates and judges, as well as that inflicted by the military.
		Others, of course, will operate outside the realm of legitimized
		violence and be labelled as ‘criminals’.
		
		But, you might be wondering, what is the link between what happens in
		childhood and war?
		
		The answer is simply that perpetrators of violence, and those who
		collaborate with them, are created during childhood. And these
		perpetrators and collaborators are all terrified, self-hating and
		powerless – for much greater detail of the precise psychological
		characteristics of perpetrators of violence and their collaborators, see
		‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence and ‘Fearless Psychology
		and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’
		http://anitamckone.wordpress.com/articles-2/fearless-and-fearful-psychology/
		  – and they go on to perform all of the key roles in creating,
		maintaining, equipping, staffing and legitimizing the institutions of
		war and in conducting it.
		
		If it weren’t for the violence to which we are all mercilessly subjected
		throughout childhood, there would be no interest in violence or war of
		any kind. If we were raised without violence, we would be naturally
		peaceful and cooperative, content to spend our time seeking to achieve
		our own unique evolutionary potential and to nurture the journey of
		others as well as life itself, rather than just become another cog in
		someone else’s military (or other bureaucratic or corporate) machine.
		
		If any of the above resonates with you, then I invite you to make ‘My
		Promise to Children’.
		https://nonviolentstrategy.wordpress.com/strategywheel/constructive-program/my-promise-to-children/
		 
		In addition, if further reducing the violence in our world appeals to
		you, then you are also welcome to consider participating in ‘The Flame
		Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’, http://tinyurl.com/flametree
		signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a
		Nonviolent World’ https://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com/
		and/or considering using the strategic framework on one or the other of
		these two websites for your campaign to end violence or war in one
		context or another: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy
		https://nonviolentstrategy.wordpress.com/ and Nonviolent
		Defense/Liberation Strategy.
		https://nonviolentliberationstrategy.wordpress.com/
		 
		A child is not born to make war. But if you inflict enough violence on a
		child, and destroy their capacity to become their own unique and
		powerful self, they will be terrorised into perceiving violence and war
		as their society wants them to be perceived. And violence and war, and
		the institutions that maintain them, will flourish.
		
		If we want to end war, we must halt the adult war against children as a
		priority.