PAGE 5
N O R T H C O A S T T IM E S E A G L E 2 5 T H A N N IV E R S A R Y IS S U E , J U L Y /A U G U S T 2 0 0 4
Evil is so complete that not only similar qualities but also similar
actions on the contrary side are seen as fundamentally different.
For example, the World War 2 bombings of Rotterdam by the
Germans and Hamburg by the Allies were seen as two different
kinds of behavior. We bomb civilian centers for the good of
mankind. They do so because they are evil. In a mythic reality,
the enemy can only be stopped by force. Our defenses are
never adequate; we always need a larger military, more atomic
bombs, and so on, without end. Because the enemy has no
regard for truth, words can no longer be relied on and real
discussion stops. In regard to our own leaders, a “Teflon factor"
appears; we quickly forget their mistakes and believe anything
they say.
Ever since the philosopher Friedrich Schelling first
described the mythic orientation in the early 19th century, many
have noted that the shift to mythic consciousness is natural and
easy for humans. More recently, social scientists from Ernst
Cassirer to Erik Erikson have noted that it takes energy not to
shift to this perspective. In times of stress and uncertainty the
pulls become particularly strong. If enough people begin thinking
mythically, a society can “tip," making it extremely unpopular or
even dangerous to express the sensory mode of perception.
One fascinating dimension of mythic reality is that it
usually applies to only two general areas: human behavior and
interaction, and the great forces of the cosmos. It is not applied
to the tools and routines of everyday life. We are perfectly clear
about how these modes of reality relate, and about when and
where to use each. We may be on a great crusade to make the
world safe for democracy, but we drive on the correct side of
the street to get there. “All my means are sane, my object and
motives are mad,” said Captain Ahab of his mythic quest for
Moby Dick.
In order for a war to retain its mythic aspects, many
of the facts of how war is really waged must be concealed.
Any information that lessens war’s psychological satisfaction is
generally rejected. Since the birth of modem war correspond
ence and the telegraph in the mid 19th century, the public has
shown a great desire for news about war — as long as it makes
the conflict seem heroic. Mythic wars have proven to be the
greatest way ever discovered to sell newspapers. Wars like
Vietnam, which came to be viewed through the sensory mode
of perception, are a different story. As the terrible jungle fighting
went on and on in Vietnam, even those who had first seen it in
mythic terms were disillusioned in the face of so much visual
evidence to the contrary, via photos and television. After the
conflict ended, war in general became unacceptable to many
Americans.
There was one way in which the Persian Gulf War in
1991 was a complete success: It once again made war widely
acceptable in this country. The media as a whole was magnifi
cently managed by the military, showing how well they had
learned the lessons of the Vietnam fiasco, at least in terms of
the press. The war had a mythic goal — a “New World Order"
in which the forces of aggression would be stopped by a civilized
“coalition“ led by the United States. Brave allies were on the
scene and the media carefully avoided criticizing them. Murder,
rape, and other domestic issues largely disappeared from the
television news as all our problems became one problem. By
the time the bombing got underway, the war was a fully mythic
one.
The Persian Gulf War was, in fact, the cleanest, most
bloodless, most idealized picture of war in a century and a half.
The military had finally solved the dilemma of how to present
war to a civilian population. The United States had clearly
entered a new era. Whether this was a conscious goal of the
government remains unknown, but its effect today is clear.
Indeed, before we can understand the psychology of war
we have to explore the role government plays in perpetuating it.
As history shows, governments are remarkably inept at prevent
ing wars, even when it is clearly against their interests to fight
them. This fact is especially striking in light of how efficient they
can become once a war begins. War seems to be a “natural"
way of behaving for governments; indeed, our governmental
forms today are descended from earlier governments that saw
war as their central function. In the ancient world, war was an
accepted way to solve problems. (It wasn’t until the 17th century
Bikos & Beyond
1089 MARINE DR.
ASTORIA, OREGON
storia Real Estate
Thinking o f moving to the coast?
Come in and check out the local market!
WWl,s(on<.re»/esfate. net
503-325-3304
Peter and Janet Weidman
2935 Marine Drive, Suite C
Astoria, O R 97103
A M A gallery
ASTORIA VUSUAL ARTS
1 6 0 1 0 th ST., ASTORIA
I T ili ü BroaffiXWcwn
FR O M ‘THEY STILL DRAW PICTURES: CHILDREN'S ART IN WARTIME FROM THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR TO KOSOVO'
that peace began to be discussed as a natural and permanent
state.) In theory, a constant, deeply concealed pressure toward
war may be exerted by the structure of our governments, a
structure “designed” partly for this purpose.
As a holdover from the violent past, every government
today has officials in charge of “war” or “defense" at its highest
level. Nowhere, to my knowledge, is there an official at similar
levels in charge of “peace." The U.S. Constitution is perfectly
clear as to which organ of the government has “the power to
declare war." Nowhere does it state which organ has the power
to declare peace or strive to maintain it. That perhaps explains
why our government has developed the idea of an active peace
program to only a minuscule degree compared to war programs.
Any serious effort to protect ourselves against war must
concentrate on two areas: why war is so attractive to humans,
and why governments so often act against their interests in
moving away from peace.Our first step is to increase our aware
ness of the fact that war is a tempting way to solve certain
human problems. We then must begin to teach our young how
to achieve these benefits without resorting to armed conflict.
This process can’t begin until we acknowledge how
easily we shift from sensory reality to mythic reality, especially
IN DUBIOUS BATTLE
There are startling differences in the ways we
perceive reality during wartime compared to peacetime.
when international tensions escalate. The point is not to prevent
such shifts; all the scientific evidence indicates that they are
essential to psychological health. If we encourage the use of
alternate realities — as often achieved during meditation, play,
listening to or playing music, and so forth — we increase the
ability of human beings to reach new potentials. We are also
more likely to become familiar with alternate modes of perceiv
ing reality and know what they portend.
The ultimate goal is to be able to consciously choose
between war and peace, uncontaminated by mythic thinking.
The ambitions of a Hitler, a Pol Pot, or a Saddam Hussein may
be so bad for the rest of us that declaring war against them is
a reasonable and logical decision. But no war will accomplish
mythical goals. It will not make the world safe for democracy,
nor establish a thousand-year Reich, nor organize a new world
order, nor establish the perfect society, nor end war, nor do any
thing else except solve a particular problem, at a high cost and
with unexpected results. And there will be unexpected results.
War has been so common in history that many have
assumed it to be part of “human nature" or “inevitable to the
socialization process." All such theories are comforting in that
they lessen our guilt by assuming there is nothing we can do.
But in fact other social patterns just as widespread as war, and
deemed just as intractable, have been abandoned. We have
only given up slavery in the last 150 years. Under the threat of
extinction, and using our new knowledge of the social sciences,
we must get rid of war.
The time is now. Every war since 1945 increases the
chance that someone will again use the atomic bomb, destroy
ing our civilization and perhaps the species. The day the first
bomb was dropped was, in Buckminster Fuller's words, “The day
that humanity started taking its final exam." We had better pass.
P E A C E T IM E
1 .Good and Evil have many shades of gray. Many
groups with different ideas and opinions are legitimate.
2. Now is pretty much like other times.
3. The great forces of nature, such as God or human
evolution, are not often evoked in our disputes.
4. When this present period is over, things will go on
much as they have in the past.
5. There are many problems to be solved and their
relative importance varies from day to day. Life is complex.
6. All people act from pretty much the same motives.
7. Problems start on different levels — economic,
political or personal — and must be dealt with on those levels.
8. We are concerned with what causes the problems
we are trying to solve.
9. We can talk to those who disagree with us.
10. All people are fundamentally the same.
Lawrence LeShan is a research psychologist, educator
and author of more than a dozen books, including The Dilemma
o f Psychology and How To Meditate. This article is adapted from
his book, The Psychology o f War: Comprehending its Mystique
& Its Madness (Helios Press, 2002).
W A R T IM E
1. Good and Evil are reduced to Us and Them. There are
no innocent bystanders; there are only those for or those against
us. Crucial issues are divided into black and white, and opinions
about them are either right or wrong.
2. Now is different from all other times.Everything hangs
in the balance; whoever wins now wins forever. It is the time of
the final battle between good and evil.
3. “God is on Our Side,” “History will absolve us," and
other such slogans indicate our belief that the great cosmic
forces are with us.
4. Everything will be vastly different after the war.
Things will be better if we win and terribly worse if we lose.
Winning or losing will change the meaning of the past and the
shape of the future.
5. There is only one major problem to be solved. All
others are secondary. Life has one major focus.
6. They act from a wish for power. We act from self-
defense, benevolence, and reasons of common decency and
morality.
7. The real problem started with an act of will by the
enemy and can only be solved by breaking his will or by making
him helpless to act on it.
8. We are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.
9. Since the enemy is evil, he naturally lies. Communi
cation is not possible Only force can settle the issue. We tell the
truth (news, education). 77?ey lie (propaganda).
10. The same actions are “good" when we do them and
“evil" when the enemy does them. There is doubt that “we" and
“they" really belong to the same species.
BACK ON THE BLOCK 2 DOORS DOWN
-LAW RENCE LeSHAN
a
Cannon Beach, O regon
p a s ta n a
“The b»»t Italian reitaurant between San Francltco 4 Seattle."
-JONATHAN NICHOLS. THE OREGONIAN
“The best Italian m ta u ra n t In Astoria. everf"
-EICHAKD FENCSAK. THE DAILY ASTOKIAN
1149 COM MERCIAL ASTORIA
(503) 325-9001