Behind a war there are always a thousand reasons – more or less irrational – from economic reasons to geopolitical constraints. However, wars are decided, fought and carried out by people, so Psychology also plays a leading role in understanding why humanity unleashes wars over and over again throughout the world.
Erich Fromm, a social psychologist of Jewish origin who fled Germany after the Nazi party took power, became a convinced activist for international peace and a keen analyst of freedom and authoritarian tendencies in contemporary society. In the 1960s he wrote a lucid analysis of the psychological causes of war, those on which all of us – rulers, opinion leaders and citizens – should work to avoid armed conflicts.
Only a radical change in our way of thinking can lead to lasting peace
1. Lack of mutual trust
Fromm was convinced that the lack of trust in the other, who is always seen as the enemy, is the main reason that is at the base of the arms race and the consequent wars. When we believe that we cannot trust a State or its Government because it has interests opposed to ours, we are likely to expect the worst and try to protect ourselves.
He explained that “Trust is related to rational and healthy-minded human beings, who behave as such”. If we believe that this “adversary” is mentally balanced, we can evaluate his movements and anticipate them within certain limits, know his objectives and agree on certain rules and norms of coexistence. We can “Know what he is capable of, but also anticipate what he can do under pressure.”
On the other hand, when we think that an adversary is “crazy”, confidence vanishes and fear supplants it. However, on many occasions the qualification of “crazy” really only responds to our inability to see and understand his reasons, to introduce us to his logic and his way of seeing the world. Obviously, as each of the perspectives are more antagonistic, the more difficult it will be to understand the other’s vision, the less we will trust and the more likely it will be that a conflict will break out.
2. The confusion between possible and probable
In life, there are events that are possible, but quite unlikely. There is a chance that we will be hit by a meteorite while we are walking down the street, but the chances are infinitesimal. Understanding that difference allows us to maintain some sanity and helps us feel more secure. Therefore, our confidence increases.
On the other hand, Fromm believed that one of the psychological causes of wars and the desire for arms consists precisely in confusing the possible with the probable. However, “The difference between the two ways of thinking is the same as that between paranoid thinking and healthy thinking,” he pointed out.
According to Fromm, we do not stop to analyze the data with a minimum dose of confidence in life and in humanity, but rather we adopt a paranoid attitude. That paranoid thinking makes the unlikely highly possible, which triggers the need to defend yourself. In fact, Fromm stated that many times the “Political thought is affected by these paranoid tendencies.” Instead, focusing on actual probabilities allows us to take a more realistic and balanced approach to solving potential problems, rather than creating new ones.
3. Pessimistic view of human nature
Those who are in favor of the arms race think that the human being is perverse and has “A dark, illogical and irrational side”. These people believe that they must prepare for the worst because those who are different can attack them at any time. That pessimistic vision of human nature makes them distrust a priori.
Fromm was not a deluded person. He knew the barbarism of the Nazis, he knew about the atomic bombs, he lived through the Missile Crisis and he experienced the Cold War. Therefore, he recognized that “Man has the potential for evil, his entire existence is mediated by dichotomies that have roots in the very conditions of existence.” However, he did not believe that we have an aggressive instinct ready to jump at any moment but rather the opposite.
In fact, he pointed out that in most wars there is actually an “organizational aggressiveness” that is far removed from the aggressiveness that arises spontaneously from anger because it is a way in which “The individual destroys only because he obeys and limits himself to do what they told him to do, according to the orders given”. For this reason, he affirms that “If vital interests are not threatened, it is impossible to speak of a destructive drive that manifests itself as such spontaneously.”
4. Idol worship
One of the psychological causes of war that drives people to fight is precisely idolatry, a common problem in the past that extends to the present. When our idols are attacked, we perceive it as a personal attack because we identify with them, we feel that it is an attack against our vital interests.
With the expression idols, Fromm does not refer only to the religious ones but “Also to those we worship today, the idols of ideology, sovereignty, nation, race,religion, freedom, socialism or democracy or exasperated consumerism”. Anything that blinds us and with which we completely identify can become an idol.
However, there comes a point where what we idolize becomes more important than the life of the human being itself. We are willing to sacrifice people to defend those idols. All because we are victims of a kind of “identity panic” that pushes us to defend what we believe is part of us. For that reason, Fromm stated that “As long as men continue to worship idols, attacks against them will be perceived as a threat to their vital interests.” In this way, “The circumstances that we have created have been consolidated into powers that dominate us.”
For all this, Fromm concluded that “A peace movement can be successful only on condition that it transcends itself and becomes a movement of radical humanism […] In the long term, only a radical change in society can give life to lasting peace.” Only when we get rid of those fears and gain confidence in ourselves, leave behind the mental stereotypes with which we analyze the situation and open ourselves to dialogue recognizing the needs of the other, can we begin to put out fires, instead of lighting and feeding them.