HUMAN NATURE AND WAR

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

 

Abstract 

There are two major perspectives in international relations concerning violence and human beings. The human nature theorists hold it that being violent is innate to all human beings. Therefore, human beings use the state as a vehicle for channeling violence. On the other hand, the cognitive theorists hold that human violence is a behavior that is learnt and is not innate therefore it can be unlearnt and even re-learnt. This paper seeks to discuss human violence in light of these two perspectives and weigh which one holds more truth and is clearly feasible. Nevertheless, it will dwell much in illuminating the view that, human violence is not innate but it is learned, therefore it can be unlearned in the same way.

People are not born violent, in fact a child is the most humble being in the world, and it will only become violent after being predisposed to factors that make it aggressive. In the same way, a violent person can learn to be peaceable, for example through psychological counseling and even through predisposition to a peaceful environment. In many instances when violence has been tried as a means to achieve peace in the world, it has ended up worsening the situation instead of being a solution. It is the environment that predisposes humans to be either violent or peaceful. Human beings are non-violent creatures by nature; they can only learn to be violent.

 

The human nature perspective

The human nature theorist explains that all human beings are violent in an innate nature. This theory purports that since time in history human beings have been violent. For example, the people of Paris had a celebration where they hang and burnt cats. The cruelty of this ceremony was demonstrated by the way kings and even queens celebrated and laughed as the cat dirge in pain when being roasted and carbonized.  Human theorists use this as prove that human violence is innate and began many years ago. However, since violence is learned and can be unlearned there is less such violence in the world today. Human violence has declined over the years and today people live with relative peace. The levels of cruelty has declined and there is no longer cruel sources of entertainment, there is no more human sacrifices like were offered in early Egypt, there is no more human slavery for labor, there has been decreased rates of genocides, there has also been reduced punishment inform of torture, death penalty especially for criminals has been on the decline and homicides in conflict resolutions in families has been reduced. This is contrary to the past time when such violent was appreciated as progress, barbarism, civilization and rise to power. On the same vein, conflict has been widely exposed today especially by the media than they were in the past. People have learned the ethos of peace and have demonized violence.

Human nature theorists also say that the there was much human violence in the past only that it was not as publicized as it is today. According to Pinker (2007), the human mind is not a blank slate, and if it were then it would even be more dangerous and ruthless. Pinker also says that if human mind was a blank slate that learns from the environment, then there would be mass killings and persecution of people that are rich as they would be thought to have got their wealth unfairly. He compares violence in the past with a tree that falls in a forest without anyone to hear it. This is because there is less statistics on violence. In addition, Pinker argues that it is more morally acceptable to have 50% of a 100 people killed in the past than to have 1% of one billion people killed in violence today (2007). However, since the onset of the seventeenth century, the world the magnitude of violence has been on the decline.  This is because the number of recorded war and warring nations has reduced. The time when some communities, for example the Maasai of Kenya relied on raiding and killing of their neighbors for livestock and wives, has completely faded away. Countries of the world have also formed organizations that will steer them into a peaceful world, for example, the African Union (AU) United Nations (UN) Organization. There is also an international way of resolving conflicts for example there are international peace mediators like Kofi Annan and there has been the establishment of International Criminal Court of Justice in Netherlands to help arbitrate cases of expansive human conflicts. The UN forces have also been working in restoring peace across the world. All these factors have contributed to a state of reduced conflict in the world today.

Human nature theorist also argues that there was more conflict in the past than today. Anthropologists have found remains of pre-historic people which had axe marks, arrowheads and men who died in the hands of others. This indicates that these people engaged in violence. According to Pinker (2007), raids and wars only resulted into the death of few people compared to those who die in wars today. He also adds that since there are a large number of people involved in modern warfare then there is increased number of deaths resulting from today’s acts of violence. For example, during tribal clashes and fights for resources many people lose their lives.

Human nature theorists also blame the misconception about early civilizations on the cognitive theorists. They say that their counterparts have not told the truth of the violent episodes depicted on the Bible. For instance, the Bible which is regarded as a spring of values is full of genocides where Hebrews killed many people through slaughtering them; they stoned others to death due to idolatry, adultery and even blasphemy. Other religions like the Muslims, Hindus, Chinese and Christians were also engaging in acts of human violence.

These theorists have refuted the claim that there has been an increase in the number of recorded warfare across the ages.  Pinker claims of increased recorded warfare are an indication of how the Associated Press has become a comprehensive cover for warfare information in the world than it does on other stories. According to Wilson (1978), human violence is played in the same way as other work like that of a judge, a waitress or even a teacher with little regard to who is behind it. This means that violence is innate and it requires less effort to accomplish, sometimes it happens unintentionally.

Human nature theorist also oppose the presupposition that violence has been on the decline since the time of world dictators like Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Iraq and Darfur war. They say that these are hallucinations and obscene wishful thinking. Human nature theorists are for the idea that human brutality and violence has been in existence across the world. For example, according to Wilson (1978) in the valley of Mexico about 15000 people were consumed before Cortez arrived. Wilson goes further to demonstrate how the priesthood and the nobles legalized human cannibalism in Mexico valley.

The human theorist also refutes blames on human aggression on perversion. They are for the idea that when a characteristic is innate it can develop better in some environments than in others. According to Wilson (1978), it is only when the words aggression and innate are redefined in uselessness that they can be used to refer to people as non-aggressive. This indicates that regardless of how we interpret the actions of human beings, they will remain to be aggressive. For example, when the British administrators recruited the Semai people in 1950, a group of people that were said not to know violence or killings, they proved wrong those who said they could not make good soldiers. According to Robert (1968), when Semai were given orders to kill they were blood drunk, and they killed and drunk the communist peoples’ blood. To the human theorist, this is a clear prove that violence is innate in human beings.

In addition, these theorists purport that warfare is the best tool for resolving human conflict. Wilson (1978) states that because warfare is an automatic catalyst it could bring to an end to most of the human conflicts since whoever would try to involve in it became a victim. War operates like natural method of selection hence bringing peace. It is also through war that people and societies would coexist with each other.

According to Stoessinger (2005), war cannot be equal with illness the same way as aggression it cannot be eradicated from human life. This means that human life is naturally aggressive. War is part of the human life. Therefore regardless of human efforts to fight the effects of war and its prevalence, there will be no time when the world will know total peace. In order for human beings to fight the impact of any serious aggressors then they must also be aggressive and involve themselves in warfare. Since human aggressors will always be there to challenge and threaten man’s life then man has to be inherently violent and aggressive.  Aggression just like any disease calls for a certain effort or fight. Human beings have to face the impact of any aggressors through being ready for the pain and exposure to dangerous scenarios, as this is the way to win battles.

Human nature theorist supports their claim for an aggressive human nature by claiming that it is paramount to saving their own lives. For example when the president of America Gorge Bush decided to attack Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein, he wanted to prevent the impact of the event of his nation being attacked first. Bush invaded Iraq through the application of the doctrine of preempting or striking first. Bush considered the act of waiting for the enemy to strike first as suicidal. This is the essence of war and aggression. Although such an act led to great criticism from opponents of aggression, majority of the people favored the move. A person like Saddam would kill his people could not have relented in striking the United States of America using a suicide bomber. The fact that many followers of these tyrants are always ready to die in suicide bombing is evidence enough to the natural violent nature of human beings. If a person is willing to die in order to kill or inflict pain on others is something more than just learned behavior. It is worth noting that even after capturing Saddam, war on terrorism continued. Osama bin laden continued the terror attacks in many parts of the world including Morroco and India. The same way after the murder of Osama bin Landen by the Obama government did not mean the end of terrorism. There have been a continued terror threats and attacks by members of Al-Qaida and Al-Shabaab across the world. According to Stoessinger (1968), forces like nationalism, alliances and militarism that have been seen as the reasons for war over the years. According to these theorists, none of these factors can be the sole cause of violence and aggression in the world today. For example, people blame the alliances for the world war I for instance when Kaiser Wilhelm formed an alliance teaming up with Austria that made Germany get into war with Allied powers. They assert that what Wilhem did save the world rather than made it a dangerous place for humankind. This is because he made the two alliances bring to an end the long lasting anxiety of war that tortured the populations.

Human theorist also asserts that the genocide that was witnessed in Rwanda where about eight hundred thousand people lost their lives would have been averted through earlier intervention. This is because at the onset of the genocide there were United Nation forces already deployed in Rwanda but they did not perceive directions on when to intervene in the conflict. As a result of late intervention the Hutus had managed to slaughter thousands of Tutsi using machetes. All this happened because the Germans and Belgians had placed the taller and lighter Tutsi in positions of power. This is why the Hutus had to chop off the Tutsi’s hands and also the legs in order to make them short like they were. This is an indication of the innate nature of human violence. Most of these people died while others fled their nation. Human aggression does not require sophisticated weapons but since it is inherent, they can use locally manufactured weapons and do a lot of damage.

On the same note, the former president of Uganda Idi Amin Dada ordered for the killing of thousands of Langi and Acholi people. According to Ghiglieri (2000), Amin was determined to completely wipe out his enemies; he believed that the only good enemy was a dead enemy. This is what drove him to order for the en masse killings of those that he perceived as his political enemies. Amin also ordered for the deportation of all the Americans from Uganda since they were perceived as helping his political enemy Milton Obote to get back to power. This indicates that violence is innate to humans since Amin did not retaliate or turn his anger onto the person that he believed was responsible for the political threats he experienced but on the other hand he turned hid range on innocent civilians. For example all the people of Langi tribe whose names began with an ‘o’ were supposed to be eliminate since Milton Obote belonged to their tribe. This aggression led to the killings of thousands of innocent Ugandans.

Similarly, according to Lorenz (1963), fighting has always been a continuous process and grows with the pressures facing different species. This means that like other species human beings do not always fight because of the existing resources but because of their relationships. This is why various animals were created with different defense mechanisms. For example some can camouflage, others have talons and others are very swift. Once the animals are attacked they pose a great opposition in defense. The same way human beings were created with an innate ability and instinct to fight. Whenever they perceive any interference with their comfort or a threat to their lives then they become violent in defense. The weapons they use for example machetes, pangas and even guns are just an addition to make them demonstrate what is coming from within them with ease. Their inner person is made with a certain degree of awareness that they can fight hence killing an enemy that is perceived as a potential killer can be done with ease. It is under the same notion that many people contemplate killing those that they perceive to be their enemies at one time in life.

Lorenz also purports that this inherent aggressive nature of species is the one that makes many of them perform ritualized fights, for instance a wrestling fight between brothers where they wrestle without hurting each other. This indicates that fighting is inherent in many species. The need to gratify it makes the animals fight in a mild way.

 Cognitive theorist perspective

On the other hand, the cognitive theorists look at human violence from the perspective of being learned and not instinctual hence it can be unlearned or re-learned.to this group of theorist there is no violence act that result from an inherent nature. People either learn to be violent through exposure or they intentionally prefer to be violent. For example exposure of children to violent movies and television programs makes them more aggressive. The mass media performs a cultivation effect I training the children to be violent.

According to Hermann (2005), people will respond to the same situation in different ways depending on the context. For example, the way a leader behaves during his campaigns may change when he get elected into the office. He further notes that leaders are likely to behave in accordance to the method they used to get into their positions. For example when presidents gets to their authority through coups, then they are likely to learn to become dictators. In the same way a president that experiences an attempt of being overthrown may become a dictator in a bid to crackdown on his opponent. This indicates that although one may not be a violent person in nature, there may come a time and situations that may make them learn to be very violent.

Human violence is a learned trait. A good evidence of this can be realized through live interviews of leaders on the media. According to Herman (2005), the response that leaders are likely to put forward during a one on one interviews may reveal who they are and what they are capable of doing. This is because in such interviews these leaders are not assisted by anyone apart from the simple preparations they go through before media appearances. These interviews are now common across the world for example the United States presidential candidates’ debate is a useful tool in learning what a candidate stands for.

Cognitive theorist believe that their counterparts who purport that human beings are violent and that it is inevitable for them to wage war, are either racist or sadists. For example, according to Fry (2007), the claims by Lorenz book that teaches that human aggression is inevitable and universal is an expression of his personality trait. Fry (2007) claims that Lorenz was one of the dangerous racists and propagandist in the Nazi regime in Germany. His appeal that no one should blame men when they become violent since they do so due to their biological composition does not hold any water. Lorenz could have learned to believe that human beings are inevitably violent through learning since he grew up in Germany at a time when Germany experienced many bloody fights. Violence can be learned.

Fry (2007) also gives a comparison correlation of studies of baboons being a close relative to man. He argues that although such studies portray humans as violent through examples of cannibalistic characteristics, group violence and genocides, human beings only learn to be violent.

Peace theorists claim that purporting that human race is violent by nature is a myth, human beings are cheated into engaging in violent acts and war. According to (Kelson, 2012) if people knew the truth about war then they could not fight. Kelson gives an example through the words of   president Thomas Jefferson that the greatest false ever employed was in persuading certain nations that they had to go to war for their own interest. Various studies of social lives and ecosystems that do not expose people to warfare shows that, human beings learn to be violent through predisposition. He therefore blames literature books that teach people that human beings are inevitably violent for predisposing people to violence. If people do not even read such books then there would be reduced violence in the world. The notion that human beings are violent could also have been unlearned.

Cognitive theorist blames violence on lack of a forceful way of implementing laws. They claim that if there is a way of reducing economic and social inequalities between people then there would be neither wars nor violence.  According to (Koehler, 2012 p.1) it is only social control that can control any institution, use of force and protectionism leads to crisis. Hostility, terrorism and violence are all created through nonfunctional institutions and procedures of resolving conflicts. Human beings will seek a peaceful way of resolving conflicts before they turn to be violent. They argue that in most cases violence comes in a way or retaliating or worse still as a means of revenging.  According to Fry (2007) people have the ability to create violence and in the same way they have greater capacity of solving conflicts even without becoming violent. Therefore human beings are not violent in nature.

In addition the peace theorists propose that people have got certain moral standards that influence their perception of violence. In most societies people are culturally oriented to a belief that there is no morality in violence and that violence is dangerous. According to Kahan et al (2006), people will only conform to their opinion of the extent to which an activity is dangerous with regard to their moral evaluation. It is this perception that influences how people interpret any form of aggression and in most cases; people would avoid violence no matter what. On the same note, belonging to a certain community affects the way people process information concerning every stimulus in their social world (Baumeister and Leary, 1995, p. 504). Therefore the cultural orientation on how to perceive and interpret stimuli is a learned behavior. People will interpret information with a group-mind-set and in most cases they will fear differing with the opinion of the rest of the group.  People can learn to be violent or even peaceable according to their cultural predisposition.

According to Kahan and Braman (2003), it is those that are egalitarian and even communitarian that worry about guns and violence since they fear strangers and their wellbeing. This means that most societies are peaceful from within and in many cases they would only fear that violence would only be provoked by those that don’t belong to their cultural world view. Meaning that human beings are peaceful by nature hence most cultures teach their people the dangers violent. This is the perception they grow up with.

Cognitive theorist also argue that scientists like Sigmund Freud who came up with a notion that human beings have death instinct , and Thomas Hobbes who devised the notion that war is natural to human beings, all have a cultural history. They argue that the believes and teachings of these scientist were to a large extent influenced by their culture since these scientists are also human beings coming from certain cultural orientation. Their environments taught them to have certain perspectives of world views. They learnt it hence it can also be unlearnt.

According to Zinn (1990), the argument posed by Sigmund Freud that violence and war result from man’s destructive instinct, did not have any poof for it in psychology. In fact Freud turns to the history than to his psychology field. This is enough evidence that there is not enough psychological proof that human beings have an instinct of being violent. On the other hand, Socio-biologists also turn to history than their field of study to prove that humans are violent by nature. According to Zinn (1990), Wilson who was a leading Socio-biologist argues that human beings are innately violent but ends up turning to historical evidences of war. This may indicate that there may be no enough evidence of the innate nature of human beings in Sociobiology. There is therefore no clear and sufficient evidence of the claimed human aggressiveness in nature both in biology and psychology. This means that whenever the Socio-biologists talks of the innate violent nature of humans, they do not refer to the inborn nature but to the nurturing environs of human beings. On the same note we can therefore argue that if human beings can become inherently violent through learning about it from the environment, then they can also learn to be peaceful if the environment teaches them so. Hence violence is not innate but it is either learned or unlearned.

Peace theorists also argue that in many studies of anthropology for example studies of Bushmen, early Indians and Tasaday people of Philippines have indicated that there is no similarity in being warlike or peaceful. Some societies were peaceful for example the Cherokee people of Georgia while others were warlike for example the Indians.  According to Grossman (2009), human beings are naturally resistant in killing their fellow humans being. This means that there naturally people do not take any pleasure in murdering others; in fact killing traumatizes even the combatant soldiers. He says that a man could only kill if he is faced by another one who tries to kill him instead. This implies that killing is a traumatizing act to all human beings including soldiers. It is with the same reason that soldiers avoided killing their enemies and preferred taking them captive even after they had killed their counterparts.

Grossman (2009) also argues that soldiers are motivated to kill and even to die by the sense of accountability that they enjoin themselves with to their comrades; sometimes this bond becomes stronger than their bonds with their wives. This explains why soldiers commit suicide when they perceive defeat or when their comrades are shot dead and they are left alone. They feel indebted that they could have protected their comrades. This indicates that they do not enjoy killing, they do it to fulfill their obligations.

Cognitive theorists also refute the claim that soldiers are trained to be aggressive at all times during drills and even combats. On the contrary they argue that there is no soldier that is trained to be aggressive without being obedient. The sergeant who teaches them is portrayed as a winner, aggressive and yet obedient hence a soldier who raises a blow without instruction or even gives a wrong shot with no instruction is punished. This shows that violence is not innate, it is learned. In addition it also indicate that human beings including soldiers at war do not like to be aggressive, they do it in a certain order and when authorized to do so. Violence is applied for a certain course.

According to Floyd (2010), the effects of war are far reaching and they corrosively affect generations compared to victory through war.  When a nation involves in war it is likely to be inherently enshrined into wars as the only solution to its problem. The effects destroy its long earned ethos. Floyd (2010) also argues that it is not natural to appreciate war and its effects on human life. This indicates that human beings do not like being aggressive or even violent. Furthermore, Floyd (2010) adds that human beings have the ability to always resist being dominated by primitive obedience and can look for ways of living in communion with others. Humans are therefore not violent in an innate manner.

Cognitive theorists are also for the idea that people can become violent depending on the way certain information is presented to them. Since violence is a learned trait, then the way information is packaged has an impact on the receiver. According to (Cohen, 2000) when information threatens peoples way of life or worse still threatens their lives, and then they can react violently about it.  According to (Fahey, 1992) if people are presented with information that affirms their way of life and values, they react in a peaceful manner. This shows that people are not inherently aggressive but they turn aggressive when resisting certain force that seems to disrupt lives. Peaceful means of solving conflicts yield better and long lasting results.

According to Fahey (1992), when America glorifies the military, it distorts its citizen’s view of domestic and foreign policy barring future democracy and stability of its production. This means that America has been on the verge of justifying the pursuit of its foreign policy regardless of whether its policies are offensive to others or not. The increased spending of its national revenue in military and preparation for war has denied its citizens the right to have a say in the distribution of their national resources. Fahey (1992) argues that it is dangerous to use force in order to achieve national goals. We can therefore deduce that violence is not natural, and it is learned since the American government instills a military mindset to its people through training, toy sales, spending and glorification of its military. Mankind will only involve himself in war as the last resort or in self-defense. Fahey (1992) therefore urges the young people to follow their conscience and weigh the morality of war. Since war is seen as immoral in the society then the implication is that people should endeavor to use peaceful means of conflict negotiation.

The Soldiers of Conscience Film

The film Soldiers of conscience (2008) also reveals that when combatant soldiers are given an opportunity to shoot their enemies, about 75%of them will normally opt not to. This is an indication that every human being both military and civilian has a conscience that is always against violence and aggression.  From the studies of this film we realize that regardless of being trained on how to eliminate their enemies, propaganda and even how to apply social means of sanctions, every soldier has a restraining force in eliminating a way of life from their fellow mankind.

This film indicates that every soldier in war or combatant mission has his own conscience that regulates how they pull the trigger. The impact of wars will also haunt the soldiers and their families even after they win wars. This is a proof that human beings are not violent by nature and that they only learn to be aggressive from training and learning.

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, the cognitive or peace studies theory presents a more logical and compelling explanation for the human conflicts which lead to war. This is evident from works of various theorists. The human nature theorist argues that man is inherently violent hence war is innate. They cite past cases of human aggression like the Jewish genocides, the Rwandan genocide and even the Somai people that were not trained on how to kill but ended up being brutal murderers in war. Others cite the traditional human sacrifice, the cat burning cerebrations in Egypt, the intercommunity wars of the medieval ages, the current tribal crashes and the recent wars in Darfur and Iraq.

However, most of the human nature theorists like Sigmund Freud in Psychology and Wilson in Sociobiology failed to give enough proof from their areas on how mankind is violent in nature. Instead, both of these scientists turned to history. On the other hand the Cognitive theorists have been able to proof beyond doubt that human beings will become violent through predisposition. They either learn to be violent from their environment or through training. Surprisingly, even after soldiers are trained on how to be brutal, violent and aggressive, they still find their conscience restraining them from killing.  Therefore, we can conclude that human beings are not violent by nature; they can only learn to be violent or to be non-violent. Man is peaceful by nature and he will not kill with an open conscience unless he perceives his life being endangered by the same enemy.

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal

Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psych. Bull., 117, 497-529.

Cohen, G. L., Aronson, J. & Steele, C. M. Pers. Soc. (2000). Psychol. Bull. 26, 1151– 1164

Fahey, J. (1992). Conscience and war. In J. Fahey and R. Armstrong, A peace reader: Essential    readings on war, justice, non-violence, and world order, 1^st ed. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist

Press.

Fahey,J. (1992) A Peace Reader. New York: Paulist Press

Fry, D. P. (2007). Beyond war: The human potential for peace. New York: Oxford University Press

Floyd, C. (March 8, 2010). Unnatural acts: Breaking the fever of militarism. Counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd03082010.html

Ghiglieri, M. (2000). The dark side of man: Tracing the origins of male violence. New York:

Basic Books.

Grossman, D. (2009). On killing: The psychological costs of learning to kill in war and society.

New York: Back Bay Books

Hermann, M. G. (2005). Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis. In J.M. Post, ed., The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. Dearborn, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Kahan, D. M., & Braman, D. (2003). More statistics, less persuasion: A cultural theory of gun-

risk perceptions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(4), 1291-1328..

Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., & Gastil, J. (2006). Fear of Democracy: A Cultural

Critique of Sunstein on Risk. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1071-1109.

Kelson, S. (2012). The Racket of War. In Counterpunch, Counterpunch Press, Pretoria

Koehler, J. (2012). Empire and Its Consequences. Blackwell Press

Lorenz, K. (1963). On aggression. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company

Pinker, S.  (2007). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial Of Human Nature. Edge, Harvard

University Press.

Robert K. Dentan. (1968). The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Stoessinger, J. G. (2005). Why nations go to war. 9^th ed. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth

Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Zinn, H. (1990). Declarations of independence: Cross-examining American ideology. New York: Harper Collins.