Violence As An Integral Part Of Human Nature

I have always held a few unpopular opinions in life, and while I often find many of them to be backed up by real science and facts, most of them I have come to as a result of my own personal experience in life. The one I will talk about today is one of those rare ones that comes as a result of both. Violence, as being an integral, and inalienable, part of human nature.

“War… war never changes.”

You knew I couldn’t resist that reference. But, the sentiment actually bears out. If we consider the entirety of human history, rather than just the last few decades, we can see that war really doesn’t change. Neither the motivations for it, nor the progression of it. Sure, the specifics change quite a bit, along with the political realities and the technology and strategy, but at the end of the day we still have war… and we always will.

So, why is that? Well, there are a lot of reasons, I believe, but today I am going to delve into the idea that war is a natural state of humanity that derives from normal psychological reactions in individuals and groups. I will talk about the development of law within national and global communities and relate it to the use of force both inside and outside of those community structures. I will also elaborate upon the psychological and emotional benefits of war to a nation’s citizenry, and I will explain how these benefits are key to the development of identity within a nation, without which the national culture cannot survive.

From The Dawn Of Time

War has always been a part of the human experience, because conflict itself is an integral part of human nature. It is no more possible to get rid of the human need to go to war than it is to do away with other uniquely human psychological needs, such as the drive to amass possessions and wealth or the almost religious quest to achieve land ownership. Humans want things. And more importantly, they want to have more things than the other humans around them, or better yet, to control those other humans and thus have some possession of their things through them.

From the first ape to beat another ape with his fists, and thus get more fruit and better mates, humans have conditioned themselves to struggle for dominance and power over others. It is, quite simply, what we do best.

Go grab a random world history textbook somewhere. Go ahead, I’ll wait… Got one? Now, open up to a random page. Now, I am willing to bet you that, if you actually do this, the page you land on will either be talking about a war that is already happening, the aftermath of one that just wrapped up, or the emerging tensions signaling a war to begin shortly. The reason for this is that almost all human history is wrapped up in war. War is what brings about all the historically significant things our cultures place value on, and almost all of our technological advances, and even our discoveries. Colonization, and in the process beating back the native “savages,” is a form of warfare as well, because no matter what else, war is almost always about taking something from someone else and making it yours, by force.

To put it simply, war is the historical rule for human civilizations, not the exception.

Why We Fight

And it all comes back to our innate need to dominate. Either by forcing others to do things or by taking things that they already possess, most human endeavor comes down to it. Even modern day salespeople will talk about their jobs as if it were a battle. Strategies and tactics to get people to buy the products, misdirections and maneuvers to try and trick them into being upsold or signing up for recurring charges… whatever. It is all war. It is all about taking from others. That, in essence, is what it means to be human.

There are a lot of people out there who are smarter and more well read than I, and I am sure many of them will use lots of bigger words to disagree with me, but all I really have to do to prove my point is gesture out at the world. What do you see most around you? Sure, you see some sharing, and some apparently selfless acts, but on the whole, across the entire spectrum of existing humanity, what do you really see?

Greed. Arrogance. Narcissism. The seeking of power and profit above all else, and I really mean all else. How many millions have died because some leaders or politicians somewhere wanted more territory? How many species are extinct now because humans wanted shark fin soup or elephant-ivory inlaid scabbards for their swords? How many delicate ecosystems are literally paved over to build parking lots for the employees of the local coal-fired power plants that themselves are choking the planet to death for the sake of cheap energy? How many robberies and violent carjackings happened in your city today? How much money and effort is being devoted to war right this minute by nations around the world? Right this very minute, as we all contemplate the degradation of the planet’s carrying capacity and the severity of the comin ecological collapse and periods of resource scarcity, how many national leaders are talking about war, conquest, and power rather than peace, cooperation, and mutual aid?

Sigmund Freud, in a letter to Albert Einstein regarding war, reflects on conflict being integral to human nature, calling war “the original state of things: domination by whoever had the greater might – domination by brute violence or by violence supported by intellect.” He notes that this “death instinct” enhances a creature’s ability to survive, by being able to destroy another creature, and therefore represents a “biological justification” for violent human conflict. He even goes so far as to admit that it is pointless to attempt to eliminate this proclivity for war, and that any society that claims to have done so is perpetrating a fraud. In the end, he asks, “Why do we not accept it as another of the painful calamities of life?”

We Don’t Want War Anymore…

Many people these days certainly do seem active at perpetuating the fraud that we have eliminated the proclivity for war from humanity. You see it all the time, “It’s the 21st century! We don’t want war anymore!” Oh, really? Well, if that were truly the case, then there probably wouldn’t be very much war. And yet… 

The only thing I think that has been eliminated from human society with regards to war and conflict is the desire to participate in it personally. Sure, no one wants to go to war themselves… but they definitely want the benefits. They want the freedoms. They want their nation to be prosperous and to have plentiful resources. They don’t want to go hungry and they don’t want to wake up one day and find out that they are now Russians, right? Da, you got it comrade.

Even on a personal and individual level, most people will eventually turn to violence when they feel they have no other recourse. Despite the mealy-mouthed idea of saying that “violence is never the answer,” if you read the news at all you will see that, quite often, it is exactly the answer to the question asked. 

Violence isn’t the answer… but we need to send guns, tanks, and bombs to Ukraine!

Violence isn’t the answer… but that guy who killed my kid should get the death penalty!

Violence isn’t the answer… but I killed her for cheating on me!

Violence isn’t the answer… but Luigi is one of us! 

Huh. Seems like we answer with violence quite a bit.

Sticks and Stones

What is it that prompts people to react violently? Well, back to Freud, he attributes war to “conflicts of interest between men” that are only settled when “one side or the other (is compelled) to abandon his claim or his objection by the damage inflicted on him and by the crippling of his strength.” J. Glenn Gray, an American philosopher and writer, says it “arises from the frustration of action and consequently thwarted self-realization and deprivation of freedom” that, in turn, leads to passions for which the response is “violence, usually unplanned and spontaneous.” Gray goes on to differentiate between “force” and violence”; he gives “force” the legitimacy of authority while denying that legitimacy to mere “violence.” However, Freud notes, “law was originally brute violence and that even to-day it cannot do without the support of violence.” He says that law is simply the raw power of a community, as opposed to the “violence of a single individual.”

Basically meaning that all law is meaningless without the capacity and willingness to use violence to back it up. And that is true. What is law without force? How many people, really, do you think would willingly submit to consequences if there was no way to force them to such a submission? Humans need violence, because without it, and the threat of it, there would be no order whatsoever. It would only take one thief in a community of thousands of others to completely destroy that community over time if there were never consequences to their actions. That applies both to individuals and nations equally. In part, that is the biggest danger present in Putin’s current invasion of Ukraine. It isn’t the death and loss of sovereignty for Ukrainians, although that makes for good political handwaving. No, the real danger is that he will get a win here, capture territory and get away with it, and by doing so, he will demonstrate to the rest of the world that the system of “rules-based” order we have mostly lived under since World War Two is actually toothless.

Like unsavory elements in society seeing an easy crime and people getting away with it, such imperialistic and acquisitive success will spawn many others to try their hand at it as well. We will begin to see old rivalries and territorial disputes pop up all over the globe.

Meat will be back on the menu. Which is precisely what Putin and China’s Xi Jinping had in mind when they cooked up this little stew back on February 4th 2022… but that is another article of mine. For now, back to our discussion of war being integral to human nature.

Who And What We Are

Key in the development and maintenance  of any cultural community is identity, which is often expressed as nationhood. Freud says “the structure of human society is to a large extent based upon” identifications. Michael Gelven, yet another philosopher, calls these identifications the “we-they principle”. He shows that the “we-they principle” is an essential way in which we think about the meaning of our own existence. He demonstrates the need for belonging to a larger group, the nation, saying that for humans, “being a native of my country matters.” He goes on to say that this identification as a people typically outweighs our normal desire for peace.

Today, we are starting to see these national identities being broken down along political and ideological lines, but it is still the same thing. It is the association of an identity group with one’s core self. I am a Democrat or a Republican. I am Pro-choice or Pro-life. I am for Capitalism or for Socialism. Whatever. These are deeply held identities, and when challenged, they bring out our natural and innate instincts for violence. I am sure you have seen that. Go online and look at any forum, any post involving a discussion between any of the groups I just mentioned. These days, trying to keep a lid on the violent rhetoric flying back and forth is a full time job for most moderators.

Part of this identification with the nation and/or the ideology is the willingness to eliminate threats to the identity, which esteemed journalist and author Chris Hedges calls “part of the redemption of the nation.” Hedges insists that while war is “nearly always a sordid affair”, the state requires the “myth” of glorious, heroic warfare to survive as a community. And it is true. Look at how often war can bring people together. Look at the rabid support for Ukraine present in many “identity groups” around the world. Look at the support for both sides of the war in Gaza.

In his book, “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning,” Hedges says, “War fills our spiritual void”, giving the nation a shared purpose or calling, satisfying our core beliefs, such as the belief in self-sacrifice. Gelven also notes this when he says, “…the more vivid and ghastly the depiction of war’s misery, the more it is treasured. In this regard, war imitates love, and often feels like love at its outset.” That is pretty spot-on when you think about it. 

Sullivan Ballou, a major in a regiment of Rhode Island volunteers during the Civil War, referred to this strong emotional pull in a letter he wrote to his wife only days before he was killed in battle. Ballou says, “Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.” On a side note, wouldn’t it be great if people still wrote this way? With real passion and feeling? 

Anyway, this part of our communal identity can be traced back for centuries. The idealizing of suicidal self sacrifice in war has been a part of our shared human heritage for millenia. Even now, in our so-called “enlightened” times, we still reward valor in death on the field of battle with our highest honors and our greatest praise. 

For The Love Of War

For many, war can even become a substitute for love. Hedges proposes, “…the most acute form of suffering for human beings is loneliness”, and he speculates that some “found fulfillment in war, perhaps because it is the closest they ever came to love.” And indeed, something else I know from experience is that you will find no closer bond among unrelated men than those who have fought side-by-side through war and come out the other side together.

In many ways, however, war can be more like a narcotic than love, in that it requires “…a higher and higher dose to achieve any thrill…finally, one ingests war only to remain numb.” That was Hedges again, as he describes fighters in Central America engaging in a frenzied orgy of death, speaking in unintelligible shouts, “high on the power to spare lives or to take them.”

Yet, Hedges insists that drugs are themselves a “pale substitute” for the “awful power and rush of battle.” And again, from my own experiences, I can attest to the truth of that observation. Coming down from war’s high can be difficult. Hedges notes that once removed from war, “we sink into despair, a despair that can lead us to welcome death.” Many who returned from the depths of the Vietnam War, itself an only lightly restrained conflict, exhibited such despair quite publicly. Hedges furthers this connection by branding war as “necrophilia…hidden under platitudes about duty and comradeship.” He concludes that war leads us “into a frenzy in which all human life, including our own, seems secondary.” Some can never relinquish the thrill of warfare, and are drawn back in until they are destroyed by it, consumed, Hedges says, “by a ball of fire.”

And, for what it is worth, that is exactly the path I see the world currently on, with national leaders of the types we have now. They are of the same spirit as the conquerors of history, but now we are possessed of nuclear weapons, and I think Hedges “Ball of fire” that consumes us will be a physical one, in the end.

Give Me Liberty, Or…

Still, for all of its destructive power, Freud insists that in war we can find the potential for good. Sometimes, even within an identity group or nation, there are injustices that will not be remedied by the ruling power, which creates laws by itself and for itself, with little regard for lower classes of society. Often “rebellion and civil war follow, with temporary suspension of law and new attempts at a solution by violence.” If war can become the vehicle for establishing a more lasting peace, a peace that “makes further wars impossible”, then war might be seen as appropriate. In this case, if war promotes justice and restores a long-lasting peace, future wars become less likely. And that, my friends, is starting to seem more and more like the way some nations are going right now…

Something else of interest that Freud says is that “Wars can only be prevented with certainty if mankind unites in setting up a central authority to which the right of giving judgment upon all conflicts of interest shall be handed over.” This is also the fantasy idea of many people in online communities such as Reddit, who try to spread the various ideals of “perfect” societies and “fair” governmental structures. Unfortunately, nations will never agree to such a surrender of sovereignty or self-interest, because to do so would be to dispose of both their national identity, and their innate human natures which, as we have seen, is indispensable to their survival as an individual people. Further, even if this universal surrender of authority were agreed upon, there would still occasionally be the rise of small groups or individuals for whom the rule of law or rights of the innocent are of little account, and for whom violence is the accepted path. For people such as these, war is often the only weapon that promises the restoration of peace. The Ukrainians, for example, did not invite war, nor seek it out, but it came for them all the same, and now they must fight it, and fight it well, or die. Maybe not all die physically, of course, but certainly as a nation and as an identity.

So, we should be able to see that it is impossible to permanently eradicate the scourge of war. It had remained within our power recently to limit it to situations where war was the last available remedy for injustice, or in the instance where violence must be met with violence to restore peace. But that has only ever lasted as long as every national leader agrees to the status quo. As soon as a weakness is perceived, the primal human nature and drive toward violent conquest raises its head again. Throughout the vast chronology of human history, this was a situation we could live with. It was never good, and war was always a horror, but life, and the world, went on after.

The Final Battle?

But not now. Now, this time, when we inevitably rise again to that world-ensnaring state of total war that we always, always have historically, well, this time it will be different. This time, the king doesn’t die alone. This time, the dictator doesn’t commit suicide in a bunker or get lead to the gallows as a war criminal afterwards. None of that is possible for a nuclear armed conqueror. The only thing worse than such a person who wins is one who is losing… because they won’t lose alone. They have the power to carry out that oldest and most closely held of personal warrior-ethos acts.. To spit in the eye of the enemy that killed them, and to take them down with them.

And all the rest of us go along for that ride. We have had a good run so far. Since the invention and application of nuclear weaponry, we have managed to avoid these major conflicts. But that was never a permanent state of affairs. The drive for global domination has led to more war in history than any other factor, and it rises again, always. 

It has risen again now. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and several others. And hey, if the American president is to be believed, we can add the United States to the growing list of nations that are looking to expand their territory the old fashioned way. And eventually, they will be in conflict with each other, and then…

War. War never changes.

We have to try and understand that reality. We can’t hide from it or deny it, or pretend that our newly created ethical and moral ideals will wipe out tens of thousands of years of human nature. To do this, we must fully comprehend human nature as it actually is, rather than simply wish for human nature to be different, as it perhaps should be. We have to embrace it, and to prepare to face that nature, both in ourselves and in the world at large.

As Michael Gelven put it quite well, “To understand war is thus to understand ourselves.” If we anticipate the factors that bring on war, such as permanent states of injustice, a people’s sense of powerlessness and situations that encourage and invite primal acts of aggression, we might have some chance to rebuild things a little bit differently the next time around. Perhaps we can get close enough to the reality of our own human natures and learn to feed them carefully, rather than repress them until they emerge explosively. Perhaps we can learn to react with foresight, use selective violence early, and swiftly, and thus avoid large-scale conflicts later. Denying the human need for conflict altogether is eventually counterproductive. Like any repressed emotional need, it will eventually burst forth, and often in much worse form than it started. Instead, perhaps by accepting the reality of our violent human natures, we can then begin the process of making large-scale war a little less likely. Which, in whatever imperfect world that emerges post-collapse, might just be the best we can hope to do.