A Psychological Analysis of the Causes of War1

Many different theories of the origin of war have been suggested. Quite possibly they may all be true. Each of them may help to explain some wars; some of them may help to explain all wars.

We can divide these theories into two main types: those which deal with what medical science would call precipitating causes and those which deal with predisposing or constitutional causes. Take, for instance, the analogy of a cold. Here exposure to infection, or to the weather, are precipitating causes. But these alone would not be enough to produce a cold without some constitutional disposition - a weak chest, enlarged tonsils, or whatever it may be.

So it is, I believe, with the social disease of war. Many things, sometimes quite opposite things, may be precipitating causes: such as political assassinations, or having an army so big that it annoys your neighbours or so small that they are tempted to ignore you. These may be compared with going out in the rain or forgetting an overcoat. There remains, however, the constitutional disposition. People who dislike pacifism often say that it is human nature to fight and that human nature can't be changed. How far is this true?

The psycho-analytical school of psychology, founded by Freud, has recently made some important discoveries about the destructive impulses in man. And Dr Edward Glover, in particular, has applied them to a study of the causes of war. That man in a state of nature is an aggressive animal was always fairly obvious. It was also clear that the civilized man could return to savagery much too easily for his own or other people's safety. But what was not known was that the destructive impulses, which break out in war, are always present in our unconscious minds. We know nothing about them because they are repressed [or split-off]; but they are there and ready to break out.

If this is admitted, we begin to understand one of the reasons why wars so often happen, even when everyone seems to be trying to