October 17, 2004

The Roots of War & Terror, Anthony Stevens. London: Continuum, 2004. 263pp.

Reviewed by Francoise Hall, Child Psychiatrist, Retired.

This book is of interest to psychohistory. Indeed, why the probability increases daily that humans will put an end to their own species, is of crucial interest not only to everyone on earth but particularly to psychohistorians whose self-imposed mission is to discover the why of history. Hence, it is with sadness that I express my negative impression of this book.

While the main thrust of the book is to show that war is likely to be an expression of a complex of inter-related archetypes, the author asserts this without discussion of other modern important works on the causes of war. Some of these include, for example, Lloyd deMause=s seminal work on childhood and the later need for an enemy; Danieli Yael=s work on the multi-generational legacies of trauma; Raymond Kelly=s work on warless societies and the origin of war; and Huston Smith=s work on the evolution of empathy and social consciousness.

The author defines war as Athe sanctioned use of violent aggression between groups of men B irrespective of the size of the group, the coherence of its organization, the sophistication of its arms, the nature of its motives or the ambition of its objectives.@ The definition of war thus omits mention of the environment. Yet, since cooperation is at its fullest and violence at its minimum in stable (Aclimax@) ecosystems, and since the rapid colonization of the planet by humans has resulted in only rare instances in which humans have had the long period of time necessary to integrate themselves completely into their ecosystem, it would seem that some mention of the environment would be appropriate before asserting that Awarfare is a constantly recurrent and universal characteristic of human existence . . . [and] endemic to the human condition.@

The functions of basic war, we are told, include the following B mastery of the planet; homeostasis (demographic and ecological); the legitimation of the aggressive competition between individuals and groups which is necessary for natural selection to proceed; the directing outward of in-group hostility and hence the maintenance of peace within the group; contributing to the development of the brain and hence, civilization; inspiring our ingenuity; honing our capacities for collaboration, leadership and subordination; driving the development of efficient systems of communication; and contributing to the development of our capacity for symbol formation.

Of course, since war is a male activity (as per the author=s definition), the benefits of war mentioned above, will accrue principally to men. Indeed, the author postulates special male capacities for same-sex bonding and for finding reasons for group conflict. In addition, young men of all cultures suffer from Aunendurable boredom@ and as a result, crave Aexcitement, commitment, achievement and success@B needs which can be met much more easily through war than through peace. Women seem to have little significance in the author=s conceptual framework about war. I had thought that at least, their unique role in providing for the continuity of the species would be recognized, but no. . . . The author quotes with approval Lionel Tiger=s (1971) statement that Amale bonding [is] the spinal column of a community. From a hierarchical linkage of significant males, communities derive their intra-dependence, their structure, their social coherence, and in good part, their continuity through the past to the future.@

The author is of the opinion that our Asalvation can only lie in the development of global consciousness@ and in his chapter entitled, ATranscending War,@ he looks at various possible ways to achieve this. He analyzes the potential of the following B genetic engineering; having women participate in political decisions; team sports; entertainment; and a AStar Wars@ race. He notes that an extra-terrestrial threat would increase our cohesion, then conjectures that an Aexperience of horror@ would perhaps engender the enlargement of consciousness we need. He does not detail, however, either the nature of such a Ahorror@ or the mechanism by which it would enlarge our consciousness. From his description of the raw brutality of Aalpha men,@ it is unlikely that they are the ones who would help us either avoid catastrophe or enlarge our consciousness. The author=s plea that Aall men and women [should live] as members of one family,@ falls flat (to my ears), when I realize from what he has said throughout the book that he means a patriarchal family in a military oligarchy.

It may well be that war results from the activation of an archetype complex. This cause of war should certainly be studied and this book is a contribution in that direction. It is just that the arguments the author provides fall short of convincing me.