Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION: Dr. Jacob Arlow stated that Dr. Wangh had performed a service in pointing out that historians have neglected psychoanalytic insights. Though agreeing that each generation is profoundly influenced by war, he noted that whether an event is traumatic depends not only on the nature of the event but also on the vicissitudes of development of each individual. Human experience is too varied to assume a common traumatic experience for a whole generation. Furthermore, the experience of a community is more than the aggregate of the reactions of its individuals. Dr. Arlow postulated the role of mythopoesis in the education of a population for war. Historical events are revised and elaborated by a nation according to its particular needs—playing a role similar to that of a shared unconscious fantasy.

Dr. Samuel Atkin questioned the usefulness of approaching social and political phenomena solely in terms of individual psychology. The behavioral phenomena of war should first be defined by social psychologists, historians, and political scientists and then studied by individual psychologists. Following Freud and Aron, he posited that in domestic strife the aggression of the individual and of political groups is opposed by the authority of the state; in international affairs, on the other hand, nations do not recognize one center of authority. They 'accept the plurality of centers of armed force' and of 'autonomous centers of decision … with the implicit risk of war' (Aron).

Dr. Henry Lowenfeld stated that Dr. Wangh's thesis of specific traumatic experiences as a cause of war cannot be proved or disproved by analytic methods. Only collaborative study with a historian could substantiate such a proposition. Although it is convincing from the analytic standpoint that the impact of traumatic events increases a propensity for violence, it is an incomplete explanation. It fails to explain, for example, the difference in behavior of the Germans and the English subseq