Social Psychology Essay Two:
‘The Moral Equivalent of War’ in Modern times
By Nicholas Studdert
Is William James' classic essay from the early 1900's still relevant today? Reconsider James' arguments in light of social psychological theory and research which has ensued.
In 1906, in his classic essay ‘the moral equivalent of war’, William James proposed that war is both a necessary, if not historic and outdated, step in human social evolution and an avoidable tragedy. James criticises the suggestion, popular at the time among military writers, that war is a necessity for national unity because it provided a strong martial imperative for innovation and bred patriotism. Ideally, wrote the military party (as James describes it) there must always be a threat, real or supposed, for a nation to remain viable and vibrant, without which society degenerates. A passive collective is not sustainable because it fosters self-serving citizens, void of pride or passion for the collective itself and while it may serve to allow pleasurable pursuits to rule for a time, is ultimately finite. James acknowledges that war has been throughout history both the easiest and most successful form of human pursuit for purpose. That is, where the purpose is expansion or the advancement of one’s own group, conquest is the simplest avenue. In the evolution of human society, says James, the warlike groups have been selected but virtue of their success. Innovation and invention too are identified as moving at the most vigorous pace under the auspices of military need. Because of these advantages pacifism may make no head way with the military parties who view such disadvantages as death and suffering as worth the result. James does however differ in his prediction of the warlike pursuit’s role in future human society and the view of war as ‘a permanent human obligation’. The martial mind, he says, must be preserved for its rewards are the most cohesive forms of human cooperation, but as for the purpose to which it has historically been applied (war), it has become unnecessary and deplorable. In this way while war has been the driving force behind the development of the martial mind, it remains only a transitory step. James proposes the creation of a civil militant class, meaning the martial mind turned to civil purposes. Suggesting even a form of civil conscription he posits that the youth of America be forced to develop civil institutions in the same way young soldiers are forced to sustain and develop the ethos of the army for which they serve. This would, James argues, foster the same pride and unity in the collective as is seen in wartime. Through this avenue humanity may once and for all do away with the tastelessness of war and move to a productive yet pacifist culture.
James’ comment that “history is a blood bath” can be placed in stark perspective given that the century that followed was the punctuated by violence or as William Golding described it “…the most violent century in human history” (Hobsbawn, 1994). The 20th century saw the first ever World Wars, various acts of genocide and pogroms. Out of these conflicts rose former and current superpowers and demonstrations of national unity and patriotism that have proved to be both absolute and dangerous. It cannot be denied that the German national identity was particularly strong during the early rein of Hitler and particularly weak and fractured afterwards. Nations without a strong national cohesion have, for the most part, over the last century collapsed into internal military conflict, as can be seen in the cases of inter alia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and after invasion, Iraq. In the face of these developments it becomes incumbent on social psychologists to review James’ suggestion of an alternate path to national unity. Clearly it is prudent to compare developments in the field of social psychology over the most recent ‘blood bath’ of a century with the work of this early psychologist and philosopher. This essay will identify those social psychology theories that overlap with James’ work and attempt to map out why his statements about war hold continual relevance today and into the next century.
Firstly, James’ implies one of the fundamental findings of social psychology through his description of the unity and innovation that the martial process and mind brings. The phenomenon of in-group favouritism (as described by Tajfel in the 1970’s), the tendency to hold favourable attitudes of those within one’s own group and to hold unfavourable attitudes towards those outside the group, and the extremity of this effect, as with the minimal group effect, can account for the pride and unity found in well defined groups such as the military (Altemeyer, 2003; Greenwald, et al, 2002). Similarly, Sherif’s work on groups in competition from the 1950’s and 60’s demonstrated that competition for scares resources causes conflict and hostility between groups. Importantly however, Sherif’s realistic conflict theory states that such prejudice will diminish if the groups are placed in cooperation to obtain shared resources. The function of the strict group boundaries offered by the military as a driver of national unity can also be accounted for by the scapegoat theory demonstrated in the 1940’s by Hovland and Sears. A group will tend to blame bad outcomes on out-groups members and good outcomes (as is the case with individuals and the self-serving bias) on in-group members. James’ observation that the military mode of operation encourages unity has been confirmed by subsequent investigations into group attitude formation. The military, as James implies, offers clear goals, within well-defined boundaries and for obvious rewards therefore it plays strongly to the above mentioned group tendencies.
James, in his advocacy for the achievements in purpose of the military, places a strong emphasis on the ability of the martial process to get things done and to create a cohesive coordinated drive towards a goal. He suggests that this tendency serve civil purposes as well as it does military ones. Unfortunately, there may be evidence that strong group unity does not always produce the most favourable outcome. The term groupthink was coined by George Orwell in his classic novel 1984 and adopted by social psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970’s. The term refers to the tendency of members of a group to think the same way. Several factors contribute to this tendency and include, the group having high self-esteem, a strong and decisive leader, an initial similarity between members and group isolation (Hogg & Hains, 1998). Applying these criteria to military service it becomes clear that the martial group through its leadership structure and practical process not only facilitates groupthink but also encourages it. War having only ‘victory’ as its ultimate goal is well suited to the groupthink phenomenon. It can be seen that this coordination of thought serves a single purpose well. In James’ civil conscription however, the group is directed to many differing and fractured goals as a result of the complexity of social societies continued existence and development. Such goals may even, at times, come into conflict with each other. This fundamental difference in the operation of effort towards a shared goal in group-decision-making can be seen in the work of Stasser and Titus in the 1980’s. It was identified that the individual members of a group operate more to be accepted by the group than to achieve the group’s objectives and thus engage in groupthink (Kameda & Sugimori, 1993). In this way the decisions can be faulty (Hart, et al, 1993).
Not withstanding the criticisms that can be found in the social psychological literature James’ prediction remains valid. His assertion that the martial model of organised human endeavour may be effectively applied to civil pursuits can be seen in the modern practise of ‘peace keeping’. Where the authority represented by a military presence is needed to instigate and maintain cohesive and developing nations, including through building infrastructure. This shift from ‘keeping the peace’ to ‘nation building’ directly reflects James’ core thesis. The majority of research in social psychology has supported his observations that identify those factors which draw out the best-focused and generalised efforts of groups. William James’ insights into the workings of groups through his identification of the martial organizational model and its advantages has been reflected in almost every conflict throughout the 20th century. His description of the paradoxical relationship that humans have with war and both its disadvantages and profits stands clear and relevant in the context of western civilisations leaning towards individually focused pleasure economies and specific operations such as America’s attempt to rebuild Iraq. For these reasons the classic essay ‘the moral equivalent of war’ remains a clear and relevant statement on the nature of the social animal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Altemeyer, B., (2003). Why Do Religious Fundamentalists Tend to be Prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, No. 1, 17–28
Greenwald, A., Pickrell, J., and Farnham, S., (2002). Implicit Partisanship: Taking Sides for no Reason. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, No. 2, 367–379
Hart, P., Swets, L., and Zeitlinger, A., (1993). Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1, No. 1, 62-63
Hogg, M., & Hains, S., (1998). Friendship and group identification: a new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology 28, 323–341
Hobsbawn, E., (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991. Penguin Books Australia Ltd., Victoria.
