Aggression, Violence & War

I was checking out something on the APA website yesterday and came across an archived statement that was of interest to me. I'm sharing in case anyone else finds it thought-provoking.

First of all, this APA is the American Psychiatric Association and when I read this "Position Statement" I thought it had just been posted. Everything seem so relevant to today's international environment. It wasn't until I was about halfway through that I thought to look at the date - it was written/approved on June 23, 1948. I'll just recreate an excerpt here but I encourage you to check out the entire statement on the website.

"The American Psychiatric Association is seriously concerned about the unusual psychological features which are part of the present international tensions. It believes it has a duty to offer a statement on these matters for the attention of national leaders in all countries and for the general public, whose health and welfare are intimately related to international tensions.

The American Psychiatric Association makes this statement because psychiatrists are expected to understand the psychological causes of difficult and faulty interpersonal relationships, and should be able to offer some advice on their improvement. Such knowledge and advice should be applicable whether the adjustment difficulties are between individuals or groups of individuals, even national groups of individuals.

Basically, antagonisms are due to the activity of the self-preservative tendencies and their accompanyng emotions of fear or greed. The original biologic value of such reactions was to insure progress and development and increasing superiority of the species. The utilization of this primitive behavior, harsh and cruel as it may have appeared to the weaker strains, has led to the evolution of Man.

But if Man is to survive and develop to still higher levels of intellectual and social achievement, should he not now utilize friendly cooperation rather than aggressive antagonisms?

This question is directed to all national leaders because they so largely guide the feeling, thinking and bevahior of the gneral public in their respective nations.

Those who have had the opporutnity of observing the general public in countries other than their own, realize there are only minor differences between the citizens of various countries. The friendly kindness of the common people, their willingness to work for the common good, their love of their children and their homes, their diligence and their self-sacrifice - these virtues and values are shared by nearly all people in all civilizied countries.

But if the common man begins to fear he may lose these necessary values to the good life, either by actual or threatened aggression from without, or by unfair propaganda from within by unprincipled leaders, the masses of the people may easily be induced to take a position of antagonism. They may develop anxiety and fears to and even incorrect beliefs about the common peple in other countries. To overcome these fears, to overcome this sense of insecurity, actual warfare may result...mutual confidence between leaders of the people in all countries, combined with mutual honesty, mutual forbearance, mutual support - positive healthful attitudes, conveyed from the leaders to their followers - should lead to a higher, better and healthier civilization than any we have known in the past."

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it, what the authors of that statement, written 60 years ago, would think of how much "higher" our civilization has evolved.