Men make war to get attention. All killing is an expression of self-hate ~ Alice Walker
Like it or not we are related to one other. As homo sapiens, sharing a home we call Earth, it is hardly surprising that we should exhibit similar desires and voice almost identical needs. The patterns of our collective experience are remarkably similar. The factors that separate us are not so numerous, nor as implanted, as the numerous elements that unite and define us.
We are remarkably adaptive and resilient. Inventive too. Indeed, our resourcefulness seems to know no bounds. The inspirational art and music we compose, the extravagant structures we engineer, the fictions we conjure up, the science and philosophies that engage our intellect, and the intricate systems we design, mark us out as an exceptionally sentient, if not unique, life form.
So why do we find it so hard to get along? Why is it so difficult to reconcile our differences, particularly when these are often so petty in retrospect? Why are we fearful of each other when diversity is primarily responsible for generating the insights and breakthrough ideas we have used to develop how we think and what we do? Why is it that we devote so much energy fighting and defending ourselves from each other? What are we frightened of?
Is it truly the embodiment of an advanced civilization that we resort to slaughtering each other at the slightest provocation - particularly when we have such a diversity of linguistic and visual modes of expression, including sophisticated tools for visualization and analysis, we can apply to resolve almost any dispute? In theory it should be easy. So why do we find it so impossibly challenging?
Whenever I have posed this, or comparable questions, in the past I have invariably received bewildered looks. It is as though the question itself is either invalid, or that the answer is so obvious that I must be demented for asking it in the first place. From the responses I usually get I might conclude that aggression is an innate human quality - the impetuous exercise of unconcealed rage on a spectrum ranging from deference to defiance. In other words it is human nature - like breathing or sleeping, hard-wired into our very being and consequently true, about every human, all the time.
If that really is the case, we can forget about becoming less violent. It is commonly accepted that our nature is fixed and impossible to alter. This bundle of ways of thinking, feeling, and acting is the essence of who we are as human beings. It follows that should a proposition run counter to our nature it is bound to fail. But I wonder if that is true. The more I consider this issue, the more I conclude there must be something else going on.
We know that societies develop and change. Indeed, this is why torture and execution as a public spectacle is no longer acceptable. It is why slavery and human trafficking are illegal. A growing aversion to brutality means we have less tolerance for conflict today than we did a century ago. Increasingly war is regarded as immoral and barbaric. But is that type of impulse an accurate reflection of our personal preferences? We are told that individual temperament changes only slightly over an entire lifetime - unless we actually want it to, doing something to cause such a shift, or are caught up in events beyond our control that trigger deep change.
On the other hand, basic traits, a synthesis of our genetic heritage and the environment in which we grew up, are merely the starting points for our evolving identity. The impact from continually changing external conditions can alter any epigenetic predispositions we had at birth. Moreover, the brain's plasticity allows for its reconfiguration - both functionally and structurally. Taken together, this means that while society and its institutions invariably influence and condition individuals, each one of us can help shape the society of which we are a part. It turns out that human nature is a reciprocal condition and can mutate. So why would we not deliberately set about changing our relationships with each other in order to be more compassionate and empathic?
Perhaps we do have an innate antipathy to some things. We are constantly told that certain emotions - like greed, envy and selfishness - are hard-wired. But is that really the case? When I look in the mirror I do not see those things. Take selfishness for example. If it is in our nature to be selfish, how can we account for the many volunteers, carers, and rescue workers that give their time, and occasionally even their lives, helping those in distress? Given that these are unexceptional men and women we can only conclude they are either atypical of the majority or, more likely, that selfishness is actually not intrinsic to human nature.
A far more observable trait is that the things we learn to think, believe, say and do together often display innate group characteristics. Thus, it is a far more acceptable proposition that cultural norms, rather than human nature per se, are innate. Members of a music club differ from a rowing fraternity, for example. One university college will diverge from others on the same campus. The energy in a government agency is dissimilar to that in a high-technology startup. Their cultures are different - and observably so.
Sometimes these differences are subtle. At other times stark. But they invariably have two things in common. They are all shaped by particular sets of beliefs; and they all encourage distinctive impulses and behaviours - usually fitting the expectations and needs of members.
Now let us return to the question I posed at the beginning of this essay. Why is it so hard for us to get along? Are aggression and the impulse to compete intrinsic elements of what it means to be human? Or are they part of the shared cultural norm of a particular group? At the risk of offending half the population I am opting for the latter. The group I am fingering comprises roughly 49 per cent of humanity. It is the male population.
Obviously, there will always be exceptions. But, by and large, wars are devised, directed and fought by men, just as the world-system, that has generated so many benefits and problems alike, was designed by men for men. Men are the default in our society. Women are regarded as atypical. And because data, which is so fundamental to our world, fails to take gender into account, inequality and discrimination are baked into all our systems.
Before my male readers become apoplectic and leap to collective outrage, let me set this proposition in a more granular context. That of design. It matters little what aspect of public and private life we choose to examine. Research overwhelmingly shows that we live in a world where merit is a myth and the design bias is male.
From orchestral auditions and job promotion to urban transportation, algorithms, medicinal doses, medical diagnoses, fashion, disaster management, government policy, public toilets - even the language we use on a daily basis - the majority of objects, places, spaces, strategies and processes we use have been designed by men and are biased towards men, with scant regard paid to the needs of the female gender. The lives and experiences of men have been taken to represent humanity as a whole. Men are the default setting.
As Simone de Beauvoir said: Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth. [1]
How does all of this relate to the issue of aggression, and the exigent need to attenuate our primitive fascination with war? Is bellicosity, and the impulse to manufacture more destructive weaponry, primarily a cultural impulse to be found in the male population? If so how should we begin to design for a world in which aggression becomes unnecessary?
Over the centuries warfare has gradually lost all purpose. Today it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - even when all else has failed. War provides no benefits to society. It does not guarantee freedom, prosperity, or even future peace. Its only bequest is social dislocation, the loss of innocent life, and environmental destruction.
Most modern military leaders, with few exceptions, acknowledge there are no longer any clear advantages to be gained from aggression of this kind - not from regime change, and certainly not from invading and occupying new lands. Rape and pillage are considered crimes against humanity these days while the costs of war - including dispossession, humiliation, and trauma, simply generate resentment and further provocation.
Besides, the amount we spend on preparing for wars, fighting them, and then dealing with the devastation caused by war, could mitigate climate change, eliminate poverty, and provide free education and healthcare for every person on the planet many times over.
So how should we go about designing a world in which war is largely eliminated? If it is not in our nature to go to war, but only a default cultural mechanism within one sector of our society, then the way is clear for a leap of consciousness in how we evolve. The first step might be to elect many more women into positions of power, particularly into the military establishment and the various government ministers to whom they report.
In that respect it will be instructive to keep a close eye on pioneers like Jacinda Adern in New Zealand, Sanna Marin in Finland, Christine Lagarde and Ursula von der Leyen in the EU, Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan, and Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex in the US. Will their presence lead to more gender-neutral public policies? And, if so, will they counteract the inherent bias for aggression and war-mongering, which we conveniently call human nature as the justification for its endurance? Or will they, too, slowly succumb to the conventional wisdom - that aggression and war is just part of what it means to be human?
[1] Further examples of male bias and their effects can be found in Caroline Criado-Perez's recent book, Invisible Women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men, published by Random House, 2019