August 28, 2004

THE ARCHETYPAL FOUNDATION OF WAR

Summary and Critique of

Stevens, Anthony, The Roots of War and Terror (Continuum, New York, N.Y.), 2004.

THE UNIVERSALITY OF WAR

AArmed conflict has repeatedly and remorselessly afflicted every part of our planet where human beings have come into contact with one another B not only in recent times, but, in all probability, since our species came into existence@ (p. 6.)

AWarfare is a constantly recurrent and universal characteristic of human existence@ (p. 7).

AHistory, both ancient and modern, demonstrates an apparently inexorable alternation between periods of war and periods of peace@ (p. 8).

AThe yang of war and the yin of peace represent fundamental forces at work which have proved, up to the present, to be inescapable@ (pp. 8-9)

APerfect Peace has never ruled exclusively over the affairs of men@ (p. 9)

WAR AS A MANIFESTATION OF CONFLICT

AClausewitz=s notorious definition of war as a >continuation of policy by other means= implies that the policy to be continued is one involving conflict@ (p. 9).

[Karl von Clausewitz, Prussian general and military strategist, 1780-1831].

AConflict is endemic to the human condition as it is indeed in the nature of our universe@... We inhabit a universe of unimaginable violence...@ (pp. 9-10).

AWherever human communities exist, conflict is generated both within them and between them at all levels of intimacy... Cooperation is found too, but then conflict is cooperation=s shadow@ (p. 10).

[Shadow: The aspect of the self which remains unconscious] (p. 247).

AConflict has always characterized relations between communities, tribes, city-states, nations and alliances right up to the present@ (p. 10).

AConflict is a principle of nature. Indeed, Darwin recognized it as the primary force at work in evolution@ (p. 11).

AConflict is also endemic in our own personalities@ (p. 11).

AWars, like any other form of human disagreement, are an expression of our penchant for polarizing issues and taking sides@ (p. 16).

WAR AS A MANIFESTATION OF AGGRESSION

A...Aggressive patterns of behavior... characterize the interpersonal relations of social animals@ (p. 19).

AThe past two decades have witnessed the intrusion of neo-Darwinian thinking into psychology and psychiatry and this has revolutionized how we look at human nature@ (p. 20).

ALike Hobbes, Freud conceived natural man (i.e., pre-literate, pre-agricultural man) as a thoroughly irrational creature, whose demonic propensities had to be curbed if civilization were to survive@ (p. 21).

AFreud=s view was close to [that of] Nietzsche who also saw natural man as a >wild beast=, a >beast of prey=, >the magnificent roving blond beast, craving booty and victory=@ (p. 21).

WAR AS A MANIFESTATION OF EVOLUTION

AWar is an archetypal phenomenon@ (p. 24).

AWhenever a behavioral trait is found to be characteristic of all human communities, irrespective of culture, race or historical epoch, then it should be considered to the expression of an innate propensity or archetype@ (p. 25).

[Archetype: An innate neuro-psychic center possessing the capacity to initiate, control and mediate the common behavior patterns and typical experiences of all human being, irrespective of race, culture or creed] (pp. 243-244).

AWarlike and peaceful behavior patterns are likely to be expressions of a complex of inter-related archetypes@ (p. 25).

AFrom the archetypal standpoint, wars may be regarded as natural phenomena possessing a periodicity and a function somewhat similar to forest fires@ (p. 26).

A[We have to] transcend our historically conditioned view of peace as the normal, good state and war as a pathological, evil state, and consider the possibility that they may be alternating phases of a dynamic process, whose biological purpose has been to (1) Keep human groups in a state of ecological balance (i.e., balance with each other and with the environment) and, (2) Select the >fittest= genes among male members of the community@ (pp. 26-27).

THE WAR ARCHETYPE COMPLEX

Our archetypal warlike propensities are based on (p. 56):

1. In-group/Out-group Differentiation:

AAttraction and repulsion, like life and death, are principles which function in apparent opposition to one another throughout nature. The human infant=s attraction to its mother results in it becoming firmly attached to her by the age of approximately seven months. At about the same time, children begin to show signs of wariness and withdrawal when approached by strangers@ (p 28).

AThat we become attached to some groups of people and hostile to others is no less an actualization of our genetic endowment than is the fact that we walk upright on two feet or copulate in the horizontal position@ (p. 29).

AIt is this fundamental dichotomy, built into the behavioral repertoire of each species, that is at the basis of conflict between different kinds of animals and manifests itself in war between different groups of human beings@ (p. 29).

ASince fighting is universal among animal species, it cannot be regarded as accidental or abnormal but rather as a natural consequence of animate existence on this planet@ (p. 36).

AAggression, no less than sexuality, is indispensable to the survival of every species@ (p. 36).

AFrom the purely biological standpoint, one of the most important consequences of aggressiveness is that it promotes differential reproduction B that is, the fittest, more aggressive, more dominant males have the pick of the most desirable females and thus sire the next generation@ (p. 37).

AViewed from the strictly biological point of view, sanctioned use of violence between human groups would not have come into being, had it not contributed to the propagation of the species@ (pp. 38-39).

AAlthough war has usually been catastrophic for the defeated, evolution has tended to smile on the victor@ (p. 39)

2. The Male Psyche

a. Male Bonding:

AGroup solidarity... [is] based on... (1) The bond between kin (blood ties) and, (2) The bond between males [which is] formalized through group initiation rites. The importance of these bonds lies in the contribution they make to group survival by promoting efficiency in both hunting and wars...@ (p. 46).

AMale bonding and collective belligerence [are] complementary and mutually dependent activities@ (Tiger; cited p. 46).

AThe universally apparent tendency of men to band together for the purpose of hunting and warfare is an underlying biologically transmitted propensity with roots in human evolutionary history (or phylogeny)@ (Tiger; cited pp. 46-47).

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@ (Tiger; cited p. 150).

b. The Male Capacity for Group Conflict:

AWar... is the consequence of the mobilization of archetypal structures [which reside] in the male psyche@ (p. 47).

AThe male capacity for group conflict is an innate >facility=, in the sense that it is an open program which may be brought into action whenever circumstances appear to demand it@ (p. 51).

AMen have an unfortunate knack of finding causes for war (as did the Bush administration in launching its war on Iraq) where the logician [and] international judiciary think no cause exits. The archetypal hypothesis makes this behavior comprehensible@ (pp. 53-54).

Male Boredom:

AFinding boredom unendurable, young men of all cultures crave excitement, commitment, achievement, success. All of these needs can be met by participating with comrades in a warlike adventure, which can also bring fame, valor, honors, women, riches, esteem@ (pp. 190-191).

THE DEFINITION OF WAR

AWar... [is] the 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@ (p. 59).

AThe phenomenon I wish to address is the seemingly ubiquitous propensity of human males to affiliate in groups for the purpose of using organized violence against other male groups B an activity that I shall refer to as basic war@ (p. 59).

THE FUNCTIONS OF BASIC WAR

The contributions of basic war include:

1. Mastery of the Planet:

AHuman survival and eventual mastery of the planet have depended on male cooperation in the use of weapons@ (p. 60).

A[The] inhibitions on violent aggression that we do possess (sympathy, pity, empathy) are rendered ineffectual when we use weapons of long range@ (p. 65).

2. Homeostasis B Demographic and Ecological:

AWar and peace are, and always have been, essentially cyclic phenomena@ (p. 68).

AThe contribution of basic war to the survival and success of our species has been demographic and ecological. Basic war [has] kept groups in balance with each other and with the environment. Reduced per capita food supply... generates in-group tensions [which] when [they] reach a certain level, [seek release] in warfare with an enemy group [leading to a] reduction of the pressure of people upon the land [and a] reduction in competition for resources within the group@ (Vayda; cited pp. 67-68; and pp. 73-74).

AMen have a penchant for becoming passionately identified with symbols, which represent for them what they hold most dear. Homeland, faith, king, country and the flag can all serve as idealized symbols of the in-group for which the warrior will, in what seem to him to be appropriate circumstances, give his life@ (pp. 72-73).

3. Evolution:

AAggressive competition between individuals and groups is necessary for natural selection to proceed. And since no two animals can occupy the same space, it follows that conflict will occur whenever space is critically confined. Man is not different from any other animal in this respect@ (p. 73).

4. Peace within the Group:

ABasic war has [led] to the promotion of peace, collaboration, discipline and social organization within the group@ (p. 74).

AInner divisions, tensions, rivalries, power struggles and hostilities [are] contained through fear of the outer enemy, [with] aggressive feelings being directed outward against the common foe@ (p. 74).

AWar not only unites people, it also teaches them the social advantages of discipline and the goals that can be attained when individuals subordinate their personal interests to the interests of the group@ (pp. 77-78).

5. Civilization:

ABasic war has contributed to the evolution of our brains and to the development of civilization. One of the most extraordinary events in nature has been the rapid development in size of the hominid brain in the remarkably short time of two to three million years. The impressive genetic changes necessary to achieve this could only have occurred in response to powerful and unremitting selective pressures which penalized men with small brains and favored those with larger ones. Evidently, the faculties selected were those which large cerebral hemispheres impart B intelligence, speech, the capacity for social organization, strategic planning, tool and weapon making, and more subtle, a more differentiated consciousness of what is going on. All of these are invaluable in collaborative hunting and warfare@ (p. 77).

AThe function of the state was to defend its territory and its population, and use its police powers (an extension of its military power) to maintain domestic peace. Thus, the concept of nationality arose from territoriality, and civilization depended for its very existence on the institutionalization of war@ (p. 78).

6. Human Ingenuity:

AThe exigencies of war inspired human ingenuity and inventiveness, and stimulated the development of consciousness. Practical lessons learned in war concerning the use and management of the physical environment, animals and men were carried over into peacetime@ (p. 78).

7. Collaboration, Leadership and Subordination:

AThe fearful necessity of organizing for defense and offence led to the discovery of capacities for collaboration, leadership and subordination [which are] indispensable to running a civilized state@ (p. 78).

8. Systems of Communication:

AThe development of efficient systems of communication throughout history has probably owed more to the need to mobilize effectively for war than to any other single factor@ (p. 141).

9. The Formation of Symbols:

A[War is] richly symbolical. War makes one realize the true extent to which man is a symbol-forming creature and also the extent to which war may have contributed to the development of this faculty... Archetypes manifest themselves in the mind through symbols, and it is these symbols which possess the power to summon Mars@ (p. 168).

AIn peacetime, armies and weapons stand as symbols of military power which politicians move about the global chessboard and manipulate to suit their ends. When war is declared, victory depends as much on the leader=s capacity to manipulate the archetypal symbols of war as on the efficiency of the soldiers and weapons at his disposal@ (p. 168).

PRODUCING WARRIORS

AMilitary training is specifically designed to mobilize group loyalty, self-discipline, aggression and masculinity B a cluster of traits which together make up the kind of macho image which is deeply attractive to young males...@ (pp. 101-102).

ATo the young volunteer, it is often not the reality of the life of the combat soldier that is so appealing but what [this life] symbolizes. Military authorities take care to manipulate these symbols to their own advantage while, at the same time, doing everything possible to suppress in the recruit any sign of individuality, non-conformity, passivity and effeminacy@ (p. 102).

ABasic training represses deeply into the unconscious the anima (the archetype of the feminine present in every man) and strengthens the ego=s integration with the masculine archetype in all its phallic and aggressive aspects. This repression of the feminine in the Self is associated with the development of powerful feelings of loyalty to the male group@ (p. 105).

[Self: The psychic aspect of the human genome, the entire archetypal endowment of the individual, the dynamic nucleus responsible for the development, functioning and individuation of the personality. Human Genome: The complete genetic constitution of the species] (pp. 246-247).

AThe ability to prosecute war unperturbed by thoughts of lives lost or shattered, is a faculty that all war leaders and generals must cultivate@ (p. 214).

WOMEN

AThe civilian (peaceful) state and the military (warlike) state capitalize on... opposing masculine tendencies B [the former state bringing out] the fructifying, organizing, economic and political functions, [and the latter state bringing out] that which plunders, rapes, kills and destroys. A combination of [these] is apparent throughout the history of man=s relationship with Nature, which has been both generative and exploitative B like the relationship of man with woman@ (pp. 123-124).

ATwo archetypal programs become salient in masculine psychology between the years of puberty and young adulthood: (1) The archetypal system that promotes bonding with other males for purposes of aggression, and (2) The archetypal system that promotes bonding with a female partner for the procreation of the species@ (p. 127).

APolygamy favors the genes of successful warriors... since... [successful warriors] tend to have the pick of the most attractive brides@ (p. 135).

AThroughout history, the successful prosecution of a war depended on male repression of the feminine propensity to nurture, revere, and cherish life. It also depended on the exclusion of women from both the councils of war and the field of battle. In this sense, war has always been a masculine problem, since the responsibility for starting wars, fighting them and ending them belongs unequivocally to men@ (p. 136).

AMale bonding... [provides] communities [with] in good part their continuity through the past to the future@ (See the complete idea under Male Bonding, quote from Tiger, cited in Stevens p. 150).

AThe disinclination of women everywhere to enter the maelstrom of political life, with its masculine power struggles, status conflicts and public remedies for all ills@ (p. 186).

WAGING WAR

10. Social Obedience:

ALike other social primates, we share a collective inclination to comply with our leaders= decisions, to grant them the services they require of us, whatever the decision or the service may be, provided only that we perceive their authority as legitimate@ (p. 153).

AThe social compliance and conformity which we first discover in relation to our parents and later manifest in relation to our leaders, enable us to learn what is expected of us in the relaxed [at peace] and the mobilized [at war] states@ (p. 154)

AWhat we have to be taught is not the capacity to kill but how to control that capacity in the service of the group... Such selective control of potentially lethal aggression is at the heart of the >social contract= and would explain the universality of the superego prohibition, >Thou shalt not kill (members of the in-group)=@ (p. 154).

11. Leadership:

ALeaders are... indispensable to the organization and prosecution of a war@ (p. 155).

AIt is from the >dominant five percent= [of men] that a group=s leaders tend to emerge. A high proportion of them are aggressive personalities whose assertiveness shows little inclination to diminish once they have obtained recognized positions of power@ (p. 159).

AVictory depends... on the leader=s capacity to manipulate the archetypal symbols of war...@ (See the complete idea under The Formation of Symbols, quoting Stevens p. 168).

AThe overlap between political power and military power is in many respects a natural one which in a number societies is so complete as to represent a shared identity B those holding political power being of high military rank@ (p. 150).

TRANSCENDING WAR

ASalvation can only lie in the development global consciousness, a vision of our beautiful planet as a whole entity, with all men and women as members of one family living in homeostatic balance with the biosphere@ (p. 238).

AThe more we can strengthen our sense of identity with all humanity, and the more we can extend our sense of territory from our homeland to the planet, the less likely we are to be possessed by the archetypes of war@ (p. 238).

AOne is left with the conclusion that nothing can save us but the kind of symbolic transcendence proposed by Jung B a transformation resulting in the birth of a new consciousness capable of reconciling humanity with itself and with the planet on whose healthy existence all life depends@ (p. 240).

AHowever, the collective actualization of the Anthropos on the trans-personal, trans-national, trans-ideological and trans-spiritual plain would require such unity of purpose and the mobilization of such huge reserves of human libido that it is hard to conceive of it happening, except through some apocalyptic catastrophe such as nuclear war@ (p. 241).

[The Anthropos: Figure common to many of the world=s mythologies; the prototypical man from whom all humanity is descended] (p. 243).

APerhaps horror, the experience of horror, the consciousness of horror, is our only hope@ (p. 241).

ALife on this planet has become a race between consciousness and catastrophe. The crucial opposition to be reconciled and transcended, if we are to be saved rather than destroyed, is not between totalitarianism and democracy, not between Christendom and Islam, but between consciousness and the archetype imperatives to war@ (p. 242).

CRITIQUE:

OMISSIONS BY ANTHONY STEVENS

1. Man enthroned (Again): Under the mask of an archetype complex imprinted in men=s brain inducing them to band together and kill the Aother,@ the author reveals an arch-conservative agenda. Men, being the driving force behind war, also drive civilization, creativity, ingenuity, organization, symbol formation and even evolution itself. Women are but available mates, either as prostitutes (when the id of warriors, released from superego controls, seeks satisfaction) or incubators (when, returning from battle, men seek to be re-united with their anima).

2. Oligarchy: The five percent of the men who are dominant (Aalpha males,@ p. 158), are selected by the vigorous Darwinian selection of war and rise to be leaders. All of us others should defer to their leadership B the other men because they have imprinted in them the archetype of submission, and women because they are not interested in politics and in any case because nature has endowed them to specialize in intimate relationships. Democracy is obviously not on the author=s agenda.

3. Omissions: Omitted from the author=s analysis are the following (see list of relevant books in the next section):

Childhood and its relation to the later need for an enemy.

Women and their contribution toward civilization, including the all-important function of channeling all culture through the funnel of the mother-child relationship; and by giving birth, providing for the continuity of the community (a function the author attributes to men (see under Male Bonding, quote from Tiger, cited in Stevens p. 150).

The bias of Western toward Eastern thought.

The importance of trauma and post-traumatic stress syndrome, even inter-generationally B singularly common because of the very prevalence of war.

The need to differentiate war from both aggression and other types of conflict. War (including its early form, the raid) differs from all other types of potentially lethal conflict, such as disputes, brawls and capital punishment, in its incorporation of the concept of substitutability B the substitution of any member of the out-group for the purpose of killing.

Other than Aarchetypal@ causes of war. Among the many causes of war other than Aarchetypal,@ are accidental wars (the more complex the system, the higher the chances of an accidental breakdown and today=s societies are increasingly complex); the evolutionary stage in which a civilization finds itself (the gains in benefit to its population per unit of investment); the prevalence of conditions propitious for war and torture; leaders= dishonesty and secrecy; and inter-generational conflict (the older lead, the young ones die).

The evolution of non-violence. For example:

Lack of Evidence for Warfare in the Paleolithic Period: Except for one isolated instance (the ANubian site 117", around 11,000 B.C.), Kelly finds a total lack of evidence for warfare in the Paleolithic Period (2,900,000-10,000 B.C.). Evidence for war starts with the development of agriculture, around 7,500 B.C., and war is prevalent throughout the world by 3,000 B.C.

Very Little Killing in Climax Ecosystems: Heinberg finds cooperation at its fullest in stable (Aclimax@) ecosystems, such as old-growth forests. The colonization of the planet by humans has resulted in only rare instances in which humans have had the long period of time required to integrate themselves completely into their ecosystem.

Democracy as a Method of Non-violence: Rummel finds that democratic societies do not wage war on each other.

Trend toward Non-violence: Schell traces the significant and increasing number of political changes that have occurred without violence since the first major non-violent upheaval B the Glorious Revolution, in England, in 1689.

The evolution of sympathy, empathy, ethics and morality, principally symbolized and enshrined in the world=s great religions.

The evolution of social consciousness B from family to clan, band, tribe to our present nation state.

The danger of the neurobiological viewpoint B Ablaming the brain.@

The view of the author=s peers in the mental health profession.

Direction of Cause and Effect: Taking a neurobiological viewpoint, the author assumes that neuronal circuits are the cause of ideas. There is no evidence that the cause and effect relationship is in this particular direction rather than the other way around B ideas being the cause of activation of specific neuronal circuits.

Weakness of Suggested Remedies: Having given us his views and also noting that we are headed for a global disaster, the author=s suggestions for remedies are weak. Jumping from the possibility of genetic engineering (pp. 180-182), to having women participate in political decisions (pp. 186-187), to team sports (pp. 193-196), to entertainment (pp. 196-198), to a AStar Wars@ race (pp. 198-200), to the need for an extra-terrestrial threat that would increase our cohesion (p. 239), the author settles on an enlargement of consciousness B perhaps brought about by the Aexperience of horror.@

The author gives no cue as to the mechanism by which Ahorror@ would enlarge our consciousness. From his description of the raw brutality of Aalpha men,@ it is unlikely that they might help us avoid the catastrophe toward which we are headed.

Peace without Equality or Justice: The author=s plea that Aall men and women [should live] as members of one family@ falls flat when one realizes that he means a patriarchal family in a military oligarchy (see the author=s complete idea for saving us from catastrophe under Transcending War, quote from Stevens p. 238; see his idea of a Afamily@ under Women, quotes from Stevens pp. 136, 150 and 186; and see his idea of governance under Leadership, quote from Stevens p. 150).

It appears that Stevens wants peace without equality, justice or democracy. But we should not rebel since, if we are to be saved from catastrophe, the fight should not be between totalitarianism and democracy but rather a fight to make our consciousness global.

SOME WORKS OMITTED BY ANTHONY STEVENS

(Contemporary authors in the mental health profession are listed in bold-faced type and with an asterisk)

THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILDHOOD

deMause, Lloyd*

The History of Childhood, deMause, Ed. (Jason Aronson, Northvale, New Jersey), 1974.

Foundations of Psycho-history (Creative Roots, Inc., P.O. Box 401, Planetarium Station, New York, N.Y. 10024), 1982.

Reagan=s America (Creative Roots, Box 401, Planetarium Station, New York, N.Y. 10024), 1984.

The Emotional Life of Nations (Karnac/Other Press, New York. N.Y.), 2002.

Miller, Alice*

For Your Own Good -- Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence (Farrar, Straus, Giroux, N.Y.), 1980.

Thou Shalt Not Be Aware -- Society=s Betrayal of the Child (Noonday, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, N.Y.), 1981.

THE VIEW OF WOMEN

Gioseffi, Daniela, Ed., Women on War B An International Anthology of Writings from Antiquity to the Present (The Feminist Press, City University of New York, New York, N.Y.), Second Edition, 2003.

Griffin, Susan

Woman and Nature B The Roaring Inside Her (Sierra Club, San Francisco), 1978/1999.

A Chorus of Stones B The Private Life of War (Anchor), 1992.

Roy, Arundhati, War Talk (South End Press, Cambridge, MA), 2003.

Waring, Marilyn

Counting for Nothing B What Men value and What Women are Worth, 2^nd Edition (University of Toronto, Toronto, ON), 1999.

THE VIEW FROM THE EAST

Said, Edward, Freud and the Non-European (Verso, New York, N.Y.), 2003.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRAUMA AND POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME

Danieli, Yael* (Ed.), International Handbook of Multi-generational Legacies of Trauma, (Plenum, N.Y.), 1998.

Van der Kolk, Bessel*, Psychological Trauma (American Psychiatric Press, Washington, D.C.), 1987.

Van der Kolk, Bessel, Alexander McFarlane* and Lars Weisaeth*, Eds., Traumatic Stress B The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body and Society (Guildford, N.Y.), 1996.

THE NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE WAR FROM AGGRESSION AND OTHER TYPES OF CONFLICT

Kelly, Raymond, Warless Societies and the Origin of War (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI), 2000.

SOME NON- AARCHETYPAL@ CAUSES OF WAR

Accidents

Dumas, Lloyd, Lethal Arrogance B Human Fallibility and Dangerous Technologies (St. Martin=s, New York. N.Y.), 1999.

The Evolutionary Stage of a Civilization

Tainter, Joseph, cited in Heinberg, Richard, The Party=s Over B Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (New Society, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada), 2003, pp. 32-35.

Conditions Propitious for War

Millett, Kate, The Politics of Cruelty B An Essay on the Literature of Political Imprisonment (W. W. Norton, New York, N.Y.), 1994.

Leaders= Dishonesty and Secrecy

Butler, Smedley, War is a Racket (Feral House, Los Angeles, CA), 1935/2003.

Griffin, David, The New Pearl Harbor B Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Olive Branch, Northampton, MA), 2004.

Lifton, Robert* and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America -- A Half Century of Denial (Avon/Hearst, N.Y.) 1995.

Inter-generational Conflict

Many of the works cited in this section, particularly deMause.

NON-VIOLENCE

Lack of Evidence of Warfare in the Paleolithic Period

Kelly, Raymond, Warless Societies and the Origin of War (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI), 2000.

Cooperation vs. Violence in Climax Ecosystems

Heinberg, Richard, The Party=s Over B Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (New Society, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada), 2003, pp. 16-19.

Democracy as a Method of Non-violence

Monbiot, George, Manifesto for a New World Order (The New Press, New York, N.Y.), 2003.

Roy, Arundhati, An Ordinary Person=s Guide to Empire (South End, Cambridge, MA), 2004, pp. 37 and 52-54.

Rummel, R., Power kills B Democracy as a Method of Non-violence (Transaction, New Brunswick, N.J.), 1997.

The Achievements of Non-violence

Schell, Jonathan, The Unconquerable World B Power, Non-violence, and the Will of the People (Metropolitan/Henry Holt, New York, N.Y.), 2003.

THE EVOLUTION OF SYMPATHY, EMPATHY, ETHICS AND MORALITY;

THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Smith, Hutson

The World=s Religions B Our Great Wisdom Traditions (HarperSan Francisco), 1958/1991.

Forgotten Truth B The Common Vision of the World=s Religions (HarperSan Francisco), 1976/1992.

DANGER OF THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT

Valenstein, Elliot*, Blaming the Brain B The Truth about Drugs and Mental Health (Free Press, N.Y.), 1998.

THE VIEW OF PEERS IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSION

Of the authors listed above, eight are in the mental profession (listed in bold-faced type and with an asterisk). The omission of their thoughts in Stevens= work is particularly disturbing.

REFERENCES CITED BY THE AUTHOR

The following references by Anthony Stevens are mentioned in the present critique:

Tiger, Lionel, cited on p. 46:

No reference.

Tiger, Lionel, cited on pp. 46-47:

No reference.

Tiger, Lionel, cited on p. 150:

Tiger, L. Men in Groups (Panther, London, U.K.), 1971 (no page number).

Vayda, Andrew, cited on pp. 67-68:

Vayda, A. AHypotheses about Functions of War,@ in M. Fried, M., Harris and R. Murphy, Eds., War B The Anthropology of Armed Conflict and Aggression (Natural History Press, Garden City, New York, N.Y.), 1968 (no page number).

***