| |
In 'Service of Their Ambitions'
|
|
|
In 'Service of Their Ambitions'
|
|
by Sean Gonsalves
|
| |
Nonviolent struggle is a noble idea. But war and violence, unfortunately, find their roots in human nature, or so I have been informed on more than one occasion.
Being the stubborn fool that I am, I've never accepted bald assertions about "war instincts" and what have you. So naturally, I ask, what or where is the evidence?
The answer I get is almost always the same: "A cursory glance at history will show that warfare  between competing groups is as old as civilization itself," in the words of a recent email respondent, commenting on last week's installment.
So in my search to move beyond this intellectual impasse, I came across some correspondence between Freud and Einstein - among the greatest minds of the 20th century - and it made me feel a little better.
Essentially, they said the same thing the guy who wrote me said, although their hope for overcoming this alleged innate instinct for violence was real and hadn't degenerated into the cynical pessimism on display in international diplomacy today.
Shuddering at the horror of World War I, Einstein, a physicist and pacifist, wrote to the founder of modern psychology about "that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who...regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority."
He asked Freud: "How is it possible for this small clique to bend the will of the majority, who stand to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions?"
Einstein's answer, which Freud agreed with, was that "man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction."
Freud responded: "The most casual glance at world history will show an unending series of conflicts between one community and another."
Freud said this was the effect of instincts and that our only hope was in educating our instincts. But Einstein noted that "experience proves that it is rather the so-called 'intelligentsia' that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions."
Apparently, not much has changed in that department. The 'intelligentsia' is still the most passionate of war apologists.
But isn't it a leap for Einstein to go from "man has within him a lust" to "disastrous collective suggestions"? Doesn't it suggest that this so-called lust within is influenced, if not created, by external "collective suggestions"?
Fast-forward 50 years to famed biologist and intellectual godfather of sociobiology, E.O. Wilson. Wilson wrote a book called "On Human Nature" and his chapter on aggression asks: "Are human beings innately aggressive?" Two sentences later, he writes, "the answer to it is yes." And in the following sentence he offers his proof.
"Throughout history, warfare, representing only the most organized technique of aggression, has been endemic to every form of society, from hunter-gatherer bands to industrial states."
Well, with all these references to "history," we would do well to consult a historian.
The noted historian Howard Zinn offers some insight on the correspondence between Einstein and Freud, and the assertion made in Wilson's book.
"Here is a peculiar situation. The psychologist (Freud) finds his evidence for the aggressive instinct not in psychology but in history. The biologist (Wilson) finds his evidence not in biology but in history.
"This suggests that the evidence from neither psychology nor biology is sufficient to back up the claim for an aggressive instinct, and so these important thinkers turn to history. In this respect, they are no different from the ordinary person, whose thinking follows the same logic... ."
Zinn continues: "This logic is widespread in modern thought...and yet, it is almost certainly wrong. And furthermore, it's dangerous. Wrong, because there is no real evidence for it. Not in genetics, not in zoology, not in psychology, not in anthropology, not in history, not even in the ordinary experiences of soldiers in war. (Zinn flew bombing missions in World War II). Dangerous because it deflects attention from the nonbiological causes of violence and war."
The distinguished biologist P.W. Medawar agrees: "By far the most important characteristic of human beings is that we have and exercise moral judgment and are not at the mercy of our hormones and genes."
In 1986, an international conference of scientists gathered in Seville, Spain, and issued a statement on the matter: "It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation... . Modern war involves institutional use of personal characteristics, such as obedience, suggestibility and idealism... . We conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war."
The far more interesting question is not whether we have innate instincts for war and violence but why we put ourselves in the obedient service of "their" ambitions?
Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff writer and syndicated columinist.
Copyright © 2001 Cape Cod Times.
###
|
 Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
|
|
|
| |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
