Ernest Jones

WAR AND INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY

THE aim of this essay is to raise the question whether the science of Psychology can ever shew us how to abolish War. It is a question that must have occurred to many of those who have been able to reflect on the events of the past months, and it is one of the most far-reaching questions that mankind as a whole has to face, one on which its future may to a great extent depend. We are beginning to realise as never before—for it is to be supposed that at the time of other cataclysms, such as during the destruction of the Roman Empire, mankind was less conscious of itself than now—how powerful is the check that War may impose on the advance of civilisation, and the sight, together with the accompanying horrors, has naturally stimulated the desire, always widespread even in times of peace, to devise if possible a means of surmounting this formidable obstacle. This desire has already manifested itself in the formulation of many schemes, mainly legal and political—from systems of international policing to conventions for compulsory arbitration—and the evidently unworkable nature of these may be taken as a measure of the emotional pressure that has brought them into being. It is characteristic of emotional states that they lead to attempts at immediate action instead of to thought, the preliminary investigation necessary to secure suitable action being dispensed with. The general attitude of pacifists is that, both on the moral and the material side, the evils of war are evidently greater than its benefits, even if the latter are admitted, and that consequently steps must be taken at all costs to prevent its occurrence. The sense of urgency is felt so acutely that any calm study of the factors involved is regarded as an intolerable delay, while any expression of doubt as to the desirability of the goal is repudiated with impatience. Illconsidered and, in all probability, unsuccessful action is the natural result of such an attitude. Certain cooler-headed and more thoughtful people, on the other hand, who take a longer view of the question, realise better its complexity, and see that the matter demands an intimate knowledge of human motives, desires and emotions. They therefore turn to Psychology for assistance in a problem which obviously belongs to its domain, and ask psychologists how it is to be solved. It is the purpose of the present essay to consider what kind of answer can be given to such an inquiry.

The individual and society

TpHE old problem indicated by the title of my paper has -•• been approached from many angles, political, moral, economic, and so on. Interest in it, however, has been stimvilated afresh by the profound discoveries of Psychoanalysis. Psychology inevitably impinges on Sociology via what is called Social Psychology. This is an attempt to estimate the relative influence on man of external and internal factors. The essential question here is what proportion of mans behaviour is determined by physical factors and by the institutions that constitute his social environment and what proj)ortion by his individual nature. It is a matter of some interest that bias is usually manifested in approaching this question. It would seem that temperamentally people are divided into those who would wish stress laid on the one set of factors and those who would wish it laid on the other. One might almost speak of there being two riews of human nature. One set of people sees a vast number of external influences, climatic, economic, geographical, physical, racial, etc., acting on a relatively uniform human nature, moulding it and modifying it from place to place, from epoch to epoch. The other sees a number of restless internal urges and cravings which seize eagerly on the varying material provided by the outer world and use it for the purpose of self-expression and self-protection.