Social Psychology Essay Example for Free

Social Psychology Essay War represents a complex phenomenon with can be conceptualized through multiple perspectives, including an historical, a sociological and a psychological point of view. This type of organized aggression is inherent to human nature, and can be observed since the dawn of humankind, characterizing both civilized and primitive societies. Wars and armed conflicts in general, radically disrupt the normal course of life and human behavior and may exert detrimental effects on physical and mental health and social and financial well-being (Piachaud, 2007). War deprives individuals and communities of major human and material resources and eventually leads to the breakdown of societal structires, giving rise to states of chaos and anarchy (Pedersen, 2002). Given that aggression constitutes a primal human instinct, wartime is a period where aggressive actions frequently reach extreme levels and are usually rationalized by some kind of ideological manifesto. During war, otherwise ordinary and sensible people may be engaged in various atrocities and display unnecessary or extreme cruelty in the name of several racial, religious, political social or other values and beliefs. In the last few decades, the breakdown of communism in Eastern European countries has led to a significant shift in the spheres of global domination and to major modifications in international relationships. As a result of these radical geopolitical changes, the world community has witnessed many bloodstained regional armed conflicts, including the wars in former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Sudan and Uganda. It is estimated that almost 30% of the world population is currently engaged in or experiencing the impact of some form of war. In recent years, the majority of political ideologies has gradually lost significant ground and has been substituted by national, racial and religious ideologies (Jost, 2006). These emerging ideological contructs have proven a useful tool in governments’ premeditated agendas to fanaticize people, rationalize war and violence and manipulate public opinion. However, despite these historical transitions, major financial interests and the struggle for power and profit remain the deeper causes of most armed conflicts worldwide. The civil war in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s was a regional conflict which rattled the Old Continent and lead to a series of major geopolitical changes. In the battlefields of former Yugoslavia, former neighbors and friends were turned intro enemies, a process which progressively set in motion the vicious circle of violence. That war was founded on people’s religious and national differences and was characterized by unprecedented atrocities. The Srebrenica massacre represents a hallmark of civil war wildness and according to the Institute for War and Peace, it probably constitutes the larger scale genocide in European ground since the World War II. In this event, a significant percent of the Srebrenica male population were brutally killed by Serbo-bosnian troops and the rest inhabitants, including women, children and elderly civilians, were forced to leave their homes. In a similar vein, during the first decade of the current century the international community has been witnessing the consequences of the civil conflict in Darfur between Sudanese of Arabic and of African origin. This war has been characterized by unspeakable ferociousness and multiple episodes of mass murdering and genocide have been officially reported. It is roughly estimated that the Darfur conflict has so far lead to the death of almost 400,000 people and the violent displacement of even more and despite the truce recently signed by both sides, hostilities have never actually ceased in the region. The armed conflicts in former Yugoslavia and Darfur, among people living in close contact, in some instances among friends and relatives, has shed valuable light to the mechanisms through which war dehumanizes and lets loose the most destructive instincts and tendencies residing in human beings. Modern research in the field of social psychology has systematically attempted to describe and eluminate normal and abnormal human behavior at times of war and societal turmoil. Most sociologists agree that war is triggered by the desire to dominate over other people. This desire is rooted in the perception of oncoming threats against autonomy and existence. People attack and wish to eliminate other people, when they perceive them as threats to their psychological, financial and physical existence and prosperity. In this respect, even attackers and torturers may feel that they justifiably defend themselves, their families and their most fundamental beliefs through their unspeakable actions (Summerfield, 1997) Social psychology suggests that war is a massive phenomenon of organized and rationalized aggression, which may provide alibi for people to commit the most atrocious crimes in the name of just cause. During war, violence becomes blind, victims are deprived of their human characteristics and qualities and these processes enhance the act of destruction and murder. It is much easier to torture and murder people when the victims are viewed as inferior, worthless or evil and dangerous. Leaders who wish to manipulate the public opinion into advocating for war are systematically engaged in demonizing propagandas. In addition, during war, murderers and torturers have the opportunity to hide their criminal behavior in the anonymity of the mob, under the confusion and total disruption of everyday living provoked by the war state. Commonly in wartime, social systems, including lego-judiciary procedures, are disrupted and chaos prevails (Summerfield, 1997). Under these circumstances, individuals who commit crimes in wartime are rarely held accountable, especially when they are in the winning party and their aggression is addressed towards the enemies. Research has consistently shown that the social context plays a significant role in the generation of massive violence and social influences may shape individual behaviors. War crimes and mass murders are not necessary the illogical actions of psychopathic personalities. These animosities are usually being committed by ordinary people who find themselves under extreme conditions. Any person is capable of exhibiting extreme and violent behaviors when facing threats to his/her survival and autonomy. In addition, individuals are vulnerable to the influence of the mob and can be easily carried away in actions and behaviors which violate any known moral and societal rule (Raafat et al, 2009). These vulnerabilities commonly serve as vehicle for the spreading of several racial and religious prejudices which ultimately lay the foundations of all kinds of racist ideologies. The presence of financial adversity and sociopolitical instability may further contribute to the strengthening of racist beliefs and subsequently a significant portion of society may eagerly support or even actively participate to inhumane actions of destruction including ethnic cleansing and genocide, abolishing any sense of morality and humanity. Experiencing or witnessing war atrocities, either as a victim or as a perpetrator, may have significant psychosocial negative consequences on individuals. Several investigations have shown that war victims may suffer from a variety of psychopathological symptoms, mainly post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Moreover, torture and extreme violence have emerged as significant predictors of psychological disturbance (Steel et al, 2009). Children appear extremely vulnerable to the detrimental effects of war either directly or indirectly exposed to combat related traumatic experiences (Peltonen et al, 2010). These negative sequelae may manifest themselves late and last for many years following the resolution of the conflict. Apart from the psychosocial impact on civilians, research has recently reveal that soldiers and war veterans who have witnessed or participated in tortures, rapes and mass murders, may also suffer from a variety of psychological difficulties including post-traumatic stress disorder, mood disorders, psychotic disorders and substance abuse (Gaylord, 2006). In addition, veterans frequently complain of vague somatic symptoms, poor general health and disturbed quality of life (Levy et al, In a recent study by Killgore et al (2008), veterans who have been exposed to significant human trauma and have killed during combat displayed, after deployment, major risk-taking behaviors including alcohol abuse, verbal and physical violence. War veterans and especially those engaged in extreme violence, may suffer from moral trauma which adversely affects all aspects of human living (Litz et al, 2009). Aggressive behaviors constitute a self-perpetuating phenomenon where being a victim of violent abuse may lead either to attitudes of further self-victimization or to patterns of abusing and aggressive behavior towards others. In wartime, the basic rules that normally govern the harmonious coexistence and cooperation of individuals within the social context are fundamentally challenged and people’s actions are guided by the instinct of self-preservation. In any case, the display of extreme violence by ordinary and otherwise sensible individuals during war may be the result of previous victimization and abuse or may represent a misguided attempt of self-defense against an actual or imaginary danger. The international community has increasingly exhibited a marked sensitivity towards victims of genocide and has repeatedly advocated the exemplary punishment of war criminals, starting from the Nuremberg Trial and reaching the more recent events in Srebrenica and Darfur. However, there is still a great amount of skepticism, given that its motivation may not always be entirely humanitarian, but also political and strategic, given that international forums and organizations occasionally display selective and carefully designed humanitarian concerns which conveniently fit certain governments’ tactical aims. It is common knowledge that the conviction of war criminals has never proven panacea in society’s attempts to control aggression and prevent armed conflicts and war-related crimes. In addition, taking official military actions to impose peace and protect civilians has always been an issue of much debate and major controversy in the context of political and ethical discussions (Deutscher, 2005). The resolution of these controversies possibly lies in the hands of unbiased scientific research in the field of humanitarian disciplines. Sociological and psychological research may provide useful insight in the causes, mediators and consequences of massive violent behaviors, which could guide the implementation of prevention strategies. Instead of designing holy crusades and seeking skape-goats to curse and condemn, governments and policy makers should also focus on the fact that a large part of the society has been exhibiting marked tolerance or even active participation in atrocities and extreme cruelty during war. This observed societal consent in massive destruction and aggression should alarm the public opinion and possibly constitutes a major humanitarian concern and a potential target for intervention. Although the concept of individual responsibility can not be entirely discarded as non-existent in periods of war and anarchy, there is a growing awareness that in grievous times different dynamics govern human behavior and these processes should be taken into consideration when implementing preventive measures. Individuals function in an entirely different way when they are part of a larger group and especially when this group operates according to the mentality of a mob. To eliminate evil, society should conceptualize violence as an inherent characteristic of living creatures in the struggle for physical and psychological survival and try to understand its origin and mediating factors, without blinders, prejudices or anathemas. Only when the mechanisms underlying organized violence and war cruelty are fully described, analyzed and comprehended, one can begin to hope that nations and people will eventually obtain immunity to the manipulations performed by tyrants and demagogues, and as a consequence the heavy toll of war on humanity may finally start to weaken. References Deutscher, M. (2005). The responsibility to protect. Med Confl Surviv, 21(1); 28-34. Gaylord, K. M. (2006). The psychosocial effects of combat: the frequently unseen injury. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am, 18(3); 349-57. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. Am Psychol, 61(7); 651-70. Levy, B. S. Sidel, V. W. (2009). Health effects of combat: a life-course perspective. Annu Rev Public Health, 30; 123-36. Litz, B. T. , Stein, N. , Delaney, E. , Lebowitz, L. , Nash, W. P. , Silva, C. Maguen, S. (2009). Moral injury and moral repair in war veterans: a preliminary model and intervention strategy. Clin Psychol Rev, 29(8); 695-706. Pedersen, D. Political violence, ethnic conflict, and contemporary wars: broad implications for health and social well-being. Soc Sci Med, 55(2); 175-90. Peltonen, K. Punamaki, R. L. (2010). Preventive interventions among children exposed to trauma of armed conflict: a literature review. Aggress Behav, ;36(2); 95-116. Piachaud, J. (2007). Mass violence and mental healthtraining implications. Int Rev Psychiatry, 19(3); 303-11. Raafat, R. M. , Chater, N. Frith, C. (2009). Herding in humans. Trends Cogn Sci, 13(10); 420-8. Steel, Z. , Chey, T. , Silove, D. , Marnane, C. , Bryant, R. A. van Ommeren, M. 2009). Association of torture and other potentially traumatic events with mental health outcomes among populations exposed to mass conflict and displacement: a