This essay is a preview of a new book Human Aggression and War which will be released in 2024.
In 1933 Freud wrote a letter to Einstein later titled “Why War?”, saying he was pessimistic that psychoanalysis could help stop the human propensity towards collective violence. Recently, this letter has been on my mind. I have been struck by the pessimism and polarization that characterize discussions about the violent conflicts around the world. This has been especially evident in discussions around the Hamas attack on Israel and the Israeli response to the attack. There has been little depth to these discussions. Can a person be simultaneously appalled by the Hamas attack and horrified at the bombing of Palestinian civilians? Can we be critical of the Israeli government without being antisemitic? Can we disapprove of Hamas while also feeling the plight of the Palestinian people? The discussions boil down to being either for or against one side or the other with little nuance. There has been little discussion about the underlying psychodynamics of violent conflict, even in psychoanalytic online forums, where the same “all or nothing” discourse can be found.
Unfortunately, humans are quite skilled at extending violence and aggression beyond individual acts to collective efforts. In contrast to the prevailing level of discussion regarding current violent conflicts, psychoanalytic insight can give us a deeper understanding of both small and large group violence. In general, we humans have more similarities than differences, despite external appearances. Psychologically, we all go through the same stages of development, including the emergence of important mental structures like the ego and superego. Neuropsychoanalysis now maps these mental structures to corresponding structures in the brain. The cortex helps us navigate the external world rationally, similar to the ego. The limbic system deals with both negative and positive emotions, motivating us to seek pleasure and avoid negative emotions like fear. This system is also related to superego functions. There are other affective systems in the brain that serve different functions and are connected to structures like the amygdala and hypothalamus that signal emotions and bodily needs. These affective systems in the brain are related to attachments, sexual gratification, and fight-or-flight responses. All of these affective systems involve us moving towards what is pleasurable and avoiding what is unpleasant or dangerous in specific situations, which Freud generally described as our pleasure-seeking and aggressive drives.
Aggression and violence among individuals both arise from a decrease in inhibition and regulation by the brain structures that govern ego and superego functions. It is interesting to note that even normally functioning individuals can experience reduced inhibition, emotional dysregulation, and superego impairment when they become part of certain groups. Said otherwise, being a member of a particular group may cause normal psychological structures to become dysregulated, leading to a decrease in moral inhibitions and an increase in violent tendencies. It is possible that certain group dynamics, such as those seen in Hamas, ISIS, or the Taliban, which have been known to target and harm innocent people and children, can induce individuals within the group to exhibit brain functioning similar to that of someone with orbitofrontal damage or psychopathy. Interactions within the group, as well as interactions between the group and outsiders, can increase expression of aggressive impulses among group members. This aggression often manifests along with primitive collective defense mechanisms, such as splitting and projective identification, which are similar to the defense mechanisms used by individuals with borderline or narcissistic personality traits. As individuals, the psychological patterns we develop during childhood enable us to lead fulfilling lives. When we come together in groups, however, especially larger ones, our behavior can regress to a more primitive and pathological state, prioritizing the needs of the group over individual mental functioning. As Seth Allcorn (2022) suggests, we tend to think in absolutes when we are part of a collective. We categorize the world into binaries, such as “us” and “them,” and use projection to determine what is good and bad. The combination of primitive collective defense mechanisms, the dynamics of large groups, identification with the group, and other factors contribute to the emergence of collective aggressive behaviors, leading to phenomena like war and genocide.
One thing to consider is projective identification, which is connected to projection but involves placing aspects of ourselves that we cannot accept or tolerate into others who then experience these aspects. The person projecting (projector) is unconsciously attempting to make the other person feel or behave in ways that they themselves cannot tolerate. This is also an attempt to have control over the other person, which stops them from attacking the projector. People with more severe psychopathology will tend to project more aggressive and hostile feelings, distorting the other person in a way that is influenced by the projector’s own past experiences. Projective identification can also be driven by an unconscious feeling of intense shame. If the other person can be made to feel shame, it reduces the projector’s own feelings of shame. Projective identification subtly encourages the other person to act out. The result is a repetition of a pattern where the projector unconsciously sets up a recreation of an experience that can be deeply distressing. This is an unconscious attempt to replay the experience in the hope that this time the projector will gain control over the resulting trauma. Projective identification typically involves repeating disturbing, hostile, and destructive events. This can be seen as the underlying mechanism behind Freud’s concept of how the death drive manifests in repetition compulsions. Because of the use of splitting, the person projecting will only remember that the other person appeared to be, or actually was, aggressive towards them. The projector will not remember or acknowledge that they had any part in causing the other person’s aggression.
In violent large-group conflicts these dynamics play out collectively. Franco Fornari’s book “The Psychoanalysis of War” (1975) introduces the idea that war serves as a defense mechanism against internal fears and anxieties that often arise from grief and pain caused by loss. People and societies deal with this anxiety by projecting their internal fears and anxieties onto an external enemy that they can confront. On the other hand, the absence of war can lead to a reaction against mourning that is paranoid, resulting in difficulty processing and mourning feelings of depression and persecution. However, this only fuels the paranoid process, and the unresolved mourning is again projected out to a group, which is then seen as the enemy. This projection brings together members of a society in a common cause, defending against this externalized “enemy” and allowing them to avoid the pain of mourning by focusing on the conflict. In this context, war becomes a way of acting out unresolved psychological issues on a large scale, avoiding the painful process of mourning by engaging in collective violence.
Suppressing a war from occurring externally, as in a pax Romana, only postpones the conflict because the underlying unconscious urge to go to war remains unresolved. This dynamic can be seen in many conflicts among previously colonized peoples, such as the conflicts between Serbs and Croats, India and Pakistan, and Israel and Palestine. According to Fornari’s theory, citizens unconsciously experience the state as a maternal figure. Unable to cope with their grief and loss, the citizens seek comfort and security from the state. The state then channels these collective feelings into war, viewing it as a protective and sacrificial act to preserve the safety and continuity of the nation, thus avoiding the psychological work of mourning by transforming it into a socially and ideologically sanctioned form of aggression.
Richard Koenigsberg, in his book “Nations Have the Right to Kill” (2009) and other works, has highlighted the sacrificial elements of warfare. He posits that nations, as abstract entities, are sustained through the literal sacrifice of soldiers’ lives. In this sense, war becomes a ritualistic act where soldiers are sacrificial victims, upholding the existence of the nation. When someone is willing to sacrifice their life for a belief, the strength of that belief makes it real and valid. The inclination to die and kill in war, genocide, revolution, and terrorism stems from a deep attachment to an ideology seen as absolute. The sight of deceased and mutilated bodies on the battlefield serves as evidence for the legitimacy of this ideology, reinforcing the notion that the ultimate sacrifice gives purpose to an ideological cause.
In large groups people can collectively experience a state superego as their ego ideal. The state superego can then be projected onto a leader who shapes the laws and morals of the society. During times of conflict, however, these shared values may be pushed aside. People may turn to their leader to alleviate their fears and anxieties, which are then projected onto an outside group. This can lead to a split between the “good” internal group and the “bad” external group. The leader, as state superego, can disregard moral boundaries and use the power of the state to eliminate the perceived threat from the outside group. This collective psychological process can be seen in war, where both sides have this sort of collective psychology. Genocide can be seen as an extreme one-sided manifestation of these group dynamics that promotes a view of the victim group as a threat as well as dehumanizing them.
These are just some of the psychoanalytic ideas underlying conflicts such as the war in Gaza. Many of us have heard not only from Israeli friends who had loved ones killed or kidnapped in the initial Hamas attack, but also from Palestinians who have lost close family in the bombing of Gaza by the Israelis. The reality is that these sorts of tragedies remain commonplace in the modern world. This demonstrates human beings’ lack of insight about our own psychology even as we create ever more advanced technology.
I share Freud’s pessimism about the ability of psychoanalysis to stop collective human aggression. However, this is tempered by the fact that psychoanalysis has evolved since Freud’s time, especially with regard to understanding severe psychopathology and group dynamics. This gives me some hope. At the very least we can help move the discussion about war and violent conflicts to a deeper level and rise above simplistic “us” versus “them” polarization.
References:
Allcorn, S. (2022). Binaries: Psychodynamic insights in a world view split apart. The Journal of Psychohistory, 50(1), 2–15.
Fornari, F. (1975). The Psychoanalysis of War (A. Pfeifer, Trans.; 1st English Edition). Indiana University Press.
Freud, S. (1933). Why War? In Standard Edition (Vol. 22, pp. 197–215). Hogarth.
Koenigsberg, R. (2009). Nations Have the Right to Kill: Hitler, the Holocaust, and War. Library of Social Science.
Solms, M. (2013). The Conscious Id. Neuropsychoanalysis, 15(1), 5–19
