Reflections on War and Death, Sigmund Freud

Image via WikipediaMany years ago, when I was studying critical theory at Concordia University in Montreal, I was exposed to a taste of Freudian psychoanalytical theory. It was just a taste. But, at the time, I had some extra time and had found a cheap copy of his book, Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. In essence, it's an introductory course given at a university, or a recording of those lectures given by Freud. It was quite brilliant and really exposed me to a lot of ideas. I really enjoyed reading that book. Freud has a pretty bad reputation because of the feminists who disliked him for some of his theories concerning women. However, in terms of the body of his work, these hateful opinions of Freud seem simply to blind people against him for his very real contributions to the canon of academic study. That said, I found his essay, "Reflections on War and Death" to be too tempting to pass up. It can be found freely at Gutenberg.org. They are actually two essays. They are only loosely related since war and death often go hand-in-hand.


Part I - The Disappointments of War


The setting in which this essay was written was post WWI Germany. My initial impression of this essay is that Freud is trying to come to grips with the reasons why this war took place at all. How does one rationalize the wanton destruction that happens at the hands of civilized nations, the resulting destruction of national treasures, wonderful monuments to construction and civilizations past brought down to rubble, on a scale unprecedented in history. Of course, he could not know how this would be repeated at a greater magnitude half a generation later.


He is surprisingly candid and unattached to any sense of patriotism in his analysis. Initially he brings up the concept of how the great white race which had elevated itself above the primitive huts found in the primitive cultures in what was then recently discovered civilizations. This belief in one's own culture has been clearly shown to be false by the fact that these same civilizations are able to descend into the very same warring primitivism which the barbarian or savage nation exercises. What's more, while men of the white race had made for itself rules of engagement concerning the practices of war, only to forget them in the heat of battle. 

One idea which he puts forth is something I have been thinking for awhile, in relation to current and recent American foreign affairs. Freud mentions that governments do not seek to eradicate the poor treatment of foreign peoples and nations, but rather seeks to monopolize them. "the state forbids (the citizen) to do wrong not because it wishes to do away with wrongdoing but because it wishes to monopolize it, like salt and tobacco." So, in essence, it is wrong to kill a neighbour over a good such as alcohol. However, America has no problem in conquering Iraq to get at its oil. While members of the UN will unify themselves in their opposition to the use of chemical weapons in the hands of certain weaker nations, it will say nothing at all when the US uses chemicals such as Agent Orange in its efforts against Vietnam.

After exploring the behaviour of civilized governments and showing that there is very little difference between them and the primitive nations which they seek to place on a lower rung of moral code.

He points out that while children are unnecessarily cruel, it takes many years to become as sadistic as an adult is. The civilized man, despite the facade that he has learned to wear, always contains the  repressed primitive savage that he is only too happy to let loose at the earliest excuse.

There is the theory that education may help grow a man's sense of good. A man who has an education, is more likely to feel empathy, become understanding of others, and accepting. However, this may just be due to the fact that the individual who does good now knows what act to perform in order for him to be seen as good. But, inwardly, he may in fact be no different than he would have been regardless of the existence of the privilege of education or not. He stresses that no matter how hard our understanding of what we ought to be, that uncivilized, irrational, sadistic self which is mostly repressed, will always be there, ready to spring out of the box and take over us.

In the conclusion of Part I, Freud writes, "It is indeed a mystery why the individual members of nations should disdain, hate, and abhor each other at all, even in times of peace. I do not know why it is. It seems as if all the moral achievements of the individual were obliterated in the case of a large number of people, not to mention millions, until only the most primitive, oldest, and most brutal psychic inhibitions remained."
Image via Wikipedia
I think if Freud had had the chance to read 1984, he might have come to understand how it is that civilized people are enabled to hate according to the whims of the masters of the government(s). One simply uses history and creates monsters and demons out of the past. In this way, the government can teach its citizens fear, anger, and hatred. Then, whenever the government has a target that it wants popular support against, it simply taps into this hatred. These days, what Orwell called "Hate Week" we call "Remembrance Day." That is to say, we are taught to hate and fear Nazis and Adolph Hitler. Once this hatred and fear is properly installed, it may be used however the government wants to use it.


I also think that Freud might have a valid point about having the two sides of humanity within us. That is, the beast and the civilized man. While in our own society, we must play the civilized man in most situations. However, when a villain is identified, today's worst being the child molester, it is easy to see the beast awaken and thirst for blood. Or when there is a nation that tries to stake a claim on either its own resource or competes for another's, the government uses that beast to fight its wars. From a personal observation, I can certainly admit to having dreams and fantasies which are vile and base. 


I often wonder what it is, precisely, that inhibits my sinister side. What is it that inhibits me from murder or violence or rape? Is it a fear of retribution from police, or from some deity on the other side? It is a most perplexing question since I'm an atheist. Is it possible that the ethics I learned while a Christian, or the ethics I learned having lived in a Christian culture? Is there some part of me unwilling to let go of the idea that a bad person pays for his evils? Or is there some part of me that just prefers the self that does not do these things to the self that does? It is a question that I suspect will never be answered. But what if I had the opportunity to fulfill my darkest fantasies without risk? What if I had been raised in a different culture?

Part II - Our Attitude Towards Death

Death is the hell of a spectre which hangs over all of us. It does not matter whether you are rich or poor, live healthily or recklessly, inevitably our lives are brought to an end. I often think that the reason we invented religion was to help us deal with that inevitable theft of life.

Freud wrote that the primitive man was unaware that death was stalking him, or, "Our unconscious therefore does not believe in its own death; it acts as though it were immortal." Modern men, so very many of them, however, seem to be as unaware as the former. That is to say, many of us believe that despite the fact that we know that our physical bodies will inevitably be shed, we also believe that there is some deity or an assistant or enabler for a deity who will release us and welcome us to a paradise. Yet, those who believe in a divine deity are as often jealous of guarding the longevity of their own lifespans as anyone. If one truly believes in eternal paradise, how can one truly regret the end of ones life, let alone fear it?

Freud's conclusion does tie the two essays together, war and death: It is easy to see how war enters into this disunity. War strips off the later deposits of civilization and allows the primitive man in us to reappear. It forces us again to be heroes who cannot believe in their own death, it stamps all strangers as enemies whose death we ought to cause or wish; it counsels us to rise above the death of those whom we love. However, as I mentioned before, when it comes to justice, whether it's revenge against those who do harm to others, or those who appear different than us (even though they may be neighbours), or even those who compete with us, or simply a pretty girl who refuses our affection or lust, that facade of savagery falls away so very swiftly. This is especially true when we have no fear of repercussion. It just seems that, in war, the savage is idolized and turned into a hero as he makes victims out of those whom the state wishes destroyed.

These essays were an interesting read. I did not find any compelling new argument or observation. However, it did give me food for thought. Perhaps that is a good enough reason to read it.