On Pearl Harbor Day: The Essential Causes of War

Lex Crane

I. Pearl Harbor Anniversary

Sixty-seven years ago today, the Japanese people, led by their powerful male prime minister, Tojo, attacked the US at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, and sank most of our Pacific fleet. Another powerful (though more benevolent) male, President Roosevelt, declared war on Japan. Japan was an ally of Germany, which was led by still another forceful male, Adolf Hitler. The result was the second world war of the 20^th century.

II. A Major Human Problem

Though I am aware that everyone doesn’t see it this way, I have come to the conclusion that humanity may well be headed for significantly serious trouble. While there are grounds for hope, unless we soon take creative action it’s possible we may destroy ourselves. I’m sure many of you here understand the problem, that you see the same evidence I see.

First, for example, we have tried repeatedly to put an end to warfare among us – and failed repeatedly. Second, we have developed weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, and nuclear), weapons so strikingly lethal that, in the event of another world war, we could severely cripple, if not end, human life on earth. Third, as a side effect of our intellectual, scientific, and technological genius, we have heavily polluted our environment – land, rivers, sea, and air. This has led in turn to a clearly evident warming of the planet. Fourth, the population of the world is increasing steadily, pushing the carrying capacity of the earth toward its limits.

If all the evidence now available has not convinced you of the validity of these assertions, I’m sure nothing I could add would change your mind. So I won’t be arguing the points here.

III. The Most Urgent Problem

I find shaving to be a contemplative experience. About a year ago, while shaving, a provocative question loomed up in my mind. It occurred to me that “Human beings are extremely creative at making weapons and war, but they are persistently inept at achieving lasting peace. Why is this,” I asked myself?

Many people see religion as the cause of most wars. This appeared to be the case between the 4^th and 17^th centuries when religion dominated Western thought. But even then, no religious war began until a powerful leader emerged to organize and focus the energies of the believers. However, religion was in no way a cause of World Wars I and II. The 21^st century terrorist attacks on the West by Muslim fundamentalists did not begin until a powerful leader, Osama bin Laden emerged to marshall believers into a fighting force. Which is to say, it is not religion that causes wars, rather, it is the highly aggressive leaders who take the initiative to lead believers into battle.

Since I am retired, I was able to devote a lot of time to finding answers to my initial question: why is it humans are remarkably creative at making war, yet lackluster at making peace? I had lots of time and worked diligently.

Early in the research process a surprising insight cropped up. I learned that as civilizations developed around the world, the number of wars increased markedly. This suggests that civilization may be the cause of war.

The consensus in science for most of the 20^th century was that humans were born as a kind of “blank slate,” and that our human nature was formed by the society in which we grew up. We learned to be human, that is, as we grew up among other humans. It followed from this that we did not contain in our nature any instincts we might have acquired from our evolutionary heritage.

To be sure, science also agreed with Darwin that humanity evolved out of earlier forms of life, most recently out of the primate species. However, the consensus was that we did not inherit human nature; rather, it was formed entirely by learning. Cultural anthropologists insisted that though we were in fact descendents of primates, we had entirely transcended any of their animal instincts. This remained the consensus until the 1970s when a few scientists began to develop a contrary view. They began doing research in cross-disciplinary fields like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology.

E O Wilson was a major figure in this new movement. Drawing on insights from several sciences, he began to work at understanding both animal and human social behavior, and noticed overlap between the two. Sociobiology was the new field he created to embrace his studies. I consulted Wilson’s book, On Human Nature, (among many others) as I looked for the answer to my initial question, and found it to be a rich source of insight into the human condition. Wilson came to a conclusion that many of his colleagues perceived as outrageous, namely, that both human nature and human social behavior were influenced by animal instincts we inherited.

Scientists working in evolutionary psychology came to similar conclusions. A scientist working at MIT and Harvard, Steven Pinker, published a book in 2002 with the striking title, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Pinker, in this prize-winning book, argued that much of our social and political policy in the 20^th century has been dominated by a view of human nature that is seriously flawed.

This argument over the nature of human nature has developed a pressing urgency. It’s not a mere academic matter. Warfare has continued unabated down to the present day. It has killed millions more people as our ingenious weapons became increasingly lethal. So lethal indeed that with our nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, should we again engage in full scale world war, we may well push ourselves into extinction, along with many other species.
IV. The Animal Residue in Human Nature

When some late 20^th century scientists made a close comparison between humans and primates, they realized that they were similar in many ways. Science learned, for example, that humans are a lot like chimpanzees. Both of us have arms, legs, teeth, ears, and hands. Of more interest still is the fact that not only are we alike in body parts and internal organs, but also in genes. As a matter of fact, over 98% of our genes are also present in chimps. The remaining 2% presumably account for our outstanding success as a species. We have risen to dominance of the entire earth.

Unfortunately, we also appear to contain in ourselves and in our culture the seeds of self-destruction. Our intellectual acumen, advanced knowledge, and technological development may do us in unless we can find a way to put a stop to the persisting warfare that prevails among humans.

Some of us, scientists, journalists, and lay people, have begun to suspect that the longstanding and widespread denial of the evolutionary heritage within us may be a significant factor influencing our inability to achieve a peaceful world. If we continue to be convinced there are no longer any animal instincts in us, we will continue to fall short of understanding the fullness of our nature, will be unable to control the self-destructive behavior driving us toward extinction.

Consider a few of the instincts we share with other primates. There is the territorial instinct, for example. Primates claim a territory as their own, and they are driven by instinct to defend it with their lives. We humans do the same thing, don’t we? Every nation lays claim to a specific territory, and its citizens will give up their lives in its defense.

In addition, both primates and humans in their social groupings form status hierarchies. In animals, we call this informally the “pecking order.” In a democracy, we don’t like to think of ourselves as having status distinctions, as we are all of us created equal. However, if we observe closely, say, a symphony orchestra (as scientists have), we will see clear evidence of sharp status distinctions. The conductor has top status, just above the soloist; and just under the conductor is the concertmaster, usually the lead violin. The strings as a whole are accorded higher status than the brass, and the strings (as well as the brass) are divided into first chair, second chair, and so on. Each symphony orchestra as a whole has a comparative rank: the New York Philharmonic, for example, has a higher rank than the Santa Barbara Symphony.

Scientists have observed people at work in various professions as well, and they learned that university faculties also have a number of status distinctions. Similarly with law offices. Physicians are divided by status distinctions as well. Those doing pure research have higher status than those in practice, and general practitioners rank below specialists. Some specialties rank higher than others. Every corporation has status distinctions, from the CEO on down to the clerical workers. The military is a prime example of rigid status distinctions. This pecking order pattern is one of the several instincts we acquired with our evolutionary heritage.

Then, in addition to the instinct for status distinctions, there is sex. Though we prefer not to think of it as an animal instinct, we do in fact share a noticeable sex drive with other primates, even though humanity has denied the existence in us of any animal instincts, until recently.

All of this is not to say there is no difference between primates and humans. The differences in fact are radical. Some humans, for example, are capable of a high level of consciousness, rationality, and creativity, and almost all are able to communicate in complex languages. Humans develop cultures in which knowledge, arts, and skills accumulate, and these are passed on to succeeding generations for further development. Humans are like other primates in some ways, but far different from them in others.

To return to the territorial instinct: it is not the sole cause of war, of course, nor is this true of the spread of civilizations around the world. However, both are supporting causes of the persistence of warfare among us. There are other contributing causes. There is the aggressive drive evident in both humans and animals. On one hand, some degree of aggression is necessary to survival; but at its worst it can be fiercely destructive. There is also the strong drive generated by the human invention of nationalism. People are motivated to fight and die in defense of their nation’s aims, territory, or identity.

However, in combination with the causes so far cited (and I will summarize them shortly), there is a key factor that brings them all into focus – namely, the Alpha Male and his counterpart, the Alpha Female. Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher are examples. As are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
III. The Role of Alpha Leaders

It is characteristic of alpha males that they are not only creative, but some of them have great potential for crippling their society. Robert Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe for 30 years, and has driven that nation into total ruin. He is a prime example of the destructive alpha male in action. You will no doubt think of other examples both in history and in the present.

What exactly are the typical characteristics of alpha males? They are ambitious, aggressive, highly competitive, confident, strong in their convictions, decisive, and relentless in their striving for leadership posts, for power and control. They are usually bright, difficult, and demanding of underlings. Characteristics like this are required if an individual is to win the leadership of a nation or a corporation.

Alpha females have in recent years begun to gain leadership positions in both business and government. They prove in practice to be at least as competent at leadership as their male counterparts, if not a little more so. They tend to be less belligerent, abrasive, authoritarian, and unscrupulous than the males, though they may have an equally strong drive to gain leadership and be equally demanding of those who serve under them.

Most of the world’s governments are led by alpha males, often with the support of a cadre of other alphas who assist and advise them. When alphas control the resources of a large industrial society with a plentiful supply of food and weapons, they may lead their citizens into a sustained war as a way of expanding their power and influence, or, as a means of defending it from the attacks of nations led by other alpha males.

Political, military, and industrial elites, organized by alpha males are a primary factor in the persistence of human warfare. They are the precipitating cause. It is they who, as it were, pull the trigger.
IV. Conclusion

Though war has a single, precipitating cause, the alpha male,
there are several contributing causes. Let me briefly summarize them.

1. The aggressive instinct evident in both animals and humans.
2. Civilization is an underlying cause.
3. The longstanding denial of the existence of animal instincts in human nature is a central cause.
4. Nationalism, an ideological expression of the territorial instinct, has been important in 20^th century wars.
5. Cadres of alpha males are the precipitating cause of war.
a. Incidentally, it is alphas who usually hold top power, and power tends to corrupt.

The destructive component in our nature that is driving us toward extinction is found in the combination of the aggressive instinct; the other animal instincts that came to us with our evolutionary heritage; and the centuries long denial that we contain any instincts.

Humanity has so far been unable to find a way to end the frequent outbreak of war because of its denial of the evolutionary heritage that influences both the nature of individuals as well as the structure of their societies. We must find a way to take advantage of the creativity of alpha males and females in top leadership positions, and, at the same time, of checking their possible toxic component.

I see one humane way of heading off the destructive dimension that appears in a substantial number of alphas, that is, by spreading far and wide the knowledge of their now known characteristics. If all citizens, legislators, judges, and the alphas themselves were made fully aware of the downside that may emerge in any nation’s leaders, action could be taken early on to stop them. That’s one possible solution.

I ask you in conclusion to familiarize yourselves with the concept of the alpha male especially and the alpha female as well. To do this see a book, The Alpha Male Syndrome, by Ludeman and Erlandson (Harvard Business School Press, 2006). Here is a key quote from the first chapter: “The purpose of this book is to help individuals and organizations harness the immense power of alpha males while minimizing their potential downside.”

We must alert ourselves and people all over the world, to be aware that every national or corporate leader may contain a toxic element, and when it appears, to take action to limit the damage they can do to a society or a corporation. Think about the problem, and spread the word if you are as convinced as I am. It matters profoundly. The survival of humanity may be at stake. Sources Consulted

Ardrey, Robert. The Territorial Imperative, New York: Atheneum, 1966.

Diamond, Jared. The Third Chimpanzee, New York: Harper Collins, 1992.

Dyer, Gwynne. War, New York: Crown Publishers, 1985.

Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions, New York: Crown Publishers, 1982.

Fogarty, Brian E. War, Peace, and the Social Order, Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.

Fromm, Erich. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston, 1973.

Fry, Douglas P. Beyond War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Hedges, Chris. War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, New York:

Random House, 2003.

Lorenz, Conrad. On Aggression, New York: Bantam, 1971.

Ludeman, Kate & Erlandson, Eddie. The Alpha Male Syndrome, Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 2006.

Palmer, Jack A & Palmer, Linda K. Evolutionary Psychology: The Ultimate Origins of Human Behavior, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2007.

Passingham, Richard. The Human Primate, Oxford: W H Freeman & Co, 2002.

Pinker, Steven. The Modern Denial of Human Nature, New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.

Quammen, David. The Reluctant Mr Darwin, New York: W W Norton, 2006.

Richardson, Robert C. Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology, Cambridge:

MIT Press, 2007.

Sapolsky, Robert M. The Trouble with Testosterone, New York: Touchstone, 1997.

Yamamoto, Kaoru. Too Clever for Our Own Good, Lanham MD: Univ Press

of America, 2007.

Wilson, E O. On Human Nature, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Workman, Lance & Reader, Will. Evolutionary Psychology: An Introduction, Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.