With violent conflict raging around the globe, a look at the renowned psychoanalyst’s thoughts seems warranted. Although decidedly dated in some respects, his letter gives insights we can still use today.
Ferdinand Schmutzer, Public Domain
In June 2024, the Global Peace Index (GPI) released their 18th annual report, published by the Institute for Economics and Peace, recording 56 active conflicts – the highest tally since the end of World War II. The past year alone has seen the loss of 162,000 lives due to these hostilities, marking the most significant death toll in three decades. The economic ramifications of this violence are staggering, with its global impact soaring to $19.2 trillion (representing 13.5% of the world’s GDP). Researchers assert that we stand at a critical juncture, with the risk of further escalation looming ominously. In an era where humanity has achieved the remarkable feat of lunar exploration, we must ask ourselves: why do we still struggle to coexist peacefully on our own planet?
In 1931, the Institute of Intellectual Cooperation reached out to various leading thinkers, inviting them to engage in correspondence on topics representing the common interest of the League of Nations. One of those approached was Albert Einstein. Recognizing the profound nature of the question “Why war?”, he proposed that Sigmund Freud take part in this intellectual exchange. As we navigate the complexities of modern conflict, it is well worth examining how Freud’s perspective, informed by psychoanalysis, might still speak to the underlying motivations for warfare, and the human condition itself.
Examining Freud’s letter, it becomes evident that he was a product of his era. Born in 1856, he remained mentally tethered to the 19th century. His assertion that it “is a general principle … that conflicts of interest between men are settled by use of violence” hints at his retrospective gaze into the earliest chapters of human history, while simultaneously addressing the nature of humanity itself. However, it is crucial to recognize that Freud’s perspective is steeped in the social realities of his time, which he seemingly accepted as the natural order of things.
Notably, his use of the term “men” in this context suggests a lack of awareness regarding the gendered implications of his words; to him, such distinctions appeared inherent rather than variable and constructed. This oversight is particularly striking when one considers the intricate connections between war, masculinity, and patriarchy, which Freud’s analysis inadvertently underscores.
Yet the social transformations that have occurred since Freud recorded his thoughts show that gender is, in fact, a cultural construct rather than a biological inevitability. Furthermore, Freud’s notion of a death instinct – an inherent drive towards self-destruction or the destruction of others – now seems profoundly absurd. In contemporary discourse, individuals exhibiting such desires are typically regarded as suffering from mental illness.
Meanwhile, one cannot help but acknowledge the duality of Freud’s insights. While some of Freud’s musings might elicit a wry smile in contemporary conversations, they also point to foundational concepts which resonate profoundly in our current sociopolitical landscape. Two points in his reasoning emerge that merit our attention.
Firstly, Freud argues that to achieve a peaceful world, “violence might be overcome by the transference of power to a larger unity”, emphasizing the necessity of a cohesive community that must be “maintained permanently”. This assertion highlights the importance of collective governance and shared responsibility in mitigating conflict.
Secondly, Freud concludes his letter with the observation: “Whatever fosters the growth of civilization works at the same time against war”. This statement invites careful consideration, especially in the knowledge that the German editions of the letter often replace “civilization” with “Kultur”. This linguistic nuance conveys the pivotal role played by artists as cultural custodians in the quest for a peaceful world.
Overall, Freud’s inherent pessimism about the possibility of a peaceful world might seem justified in light of the circumstances and situations we face at present. The probability that existing conflicts could escalate to the point of rendering humanity extinct remains alarmingly high. However, there are reasons for hope: the causes of warfare are better understood now than they were a century ago, particularly the intricate relationship between war, masculinity, and patriarchy.
Furthermore, the majority of the intellectual elite nowadays embraces a non-chauvinistic and global worldview, making other figures among the political and economic elite seem like leftover dinosaurs from a bygone era of human history. It is also indisputable that Freud’s assertion about humanity’s profound drive to live holds true today. In this context, one can at least hope that – in the long term, taking the view humanity will survive – new ideals will grow on the wasteland that remains: a global culture of peace.