The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society - Essay Example

An Analysis of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Number] The Book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society”, is written by a military psychologist Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, who has assessed and has compiled many first-hand experience of killings by soldiers in wars. Thus, he has laid emphasis on the psychological factors involved in the process of killing and its long term impacts on soldiers and society. Moreover, he has shed light on the significance of human nature to evade killing his fellow beings; as his first instinctive act out of humanity. Although, he has suggested that the act of killing in war is not same as murders. Grossman has utilized Milgram’s experiment of obedience as his research base. According to Milgram’s findings, humans obey authority and inflict pain on the subject without the rational evidence, but only due to obligatory requirement. Thus, Freud’s intuitive theory of human nature contradicts with this dichotomy, which emphasis that undue submission and pressure by authority evokes rebelliousness in the subordinates (Grossman, p.142). The author also lays an emphasis on the dichotomy of human intrinsic defence mechanism; this enables individuals to either fight for their survival in a threatening environment or escape from it, which is either due to fear or strategic aversion of killing another human being (Ibid, p.143). Another unanticipated fact about killing in a war is that without a leader’s direction, soldiers often feel without a sense of direction. Hence, become incapable of determining their own action, which shows the abrupt nature of humans to require authority, set path for direction and specific guidelines to react or respond in certain situations (Ibid, p.145). Leaders possess or influence subordinates in both physiological and psychological manner. Their presence can persuade subordinates to act in the most violate manner and can also impede them from violation. The repute of a leader or authority, the nature of demand of killing from the authority and authenticity of leader’s command act as the sound and rational bases for a subordinate to follow the commandment of a leader without consolidating it with his own belief or values (ibid, p.145). In addition, the author has also signified the importance of posture and submission process along with killing or fleeing mechanism in the time of war or life threatening situation. The hostility of a being is detected through its basic nature, posture or level of fear. Thus, one can determine that a baboon and rooster do not tend to attack their same kind instantly, but they determine threatening outcome through their stand-still posture to warn the opponent. Therefore, humans have adapted and developed different strategies, which also include posture to undermine the opponent to give-up for the sake of his life. This also entails steadfastness, courage, confidence and sense of being empowered by specific factors in the combatant. Fight, flee and submission come later, when posture doesn’t bring any fruitful result for the opponents. Individuals tend to avoid killings and being killed in a war zone. Yet, groups are a form of bond and inspiration for combatants to fight and kill for a cause. According to research, these soldiers find more community and sense of companionship with their fellow soldiers instead of their own family (ibid, p.149). Unionism in attaining single aim and determined efforts enable these groups to accomplish success in killing and destruction. Hence, violence tends to show up as the code of conduct for all of them. This also indicates that warriors are often into violent acts due to gender superiority and peer pressure. Although, their gut feeling requires them to only survive and avoid harming others, but their association to groups persuade them and at times force them to kill for the sake of their mutual group goal (ibid, p.150). Base less or need less killings occur due to atavistic killing hysteria, where one tends to kill on due to the pressure of his group, without the need or desire to kill. Responsibility and sense of obligation for association enables one to react. Thus, according to research bystanders or witnesses, have rarely being involved in impeding or persuading any violent act. Therefore, their non-association leads them to stay aloof. Consequently, in a battlefield, association motivates one to continue insane and needless killings with a legal authorization (ibid, p.153). Anonymity and distance can also play vital role in massive killing process with slightest sense of accountability. Hence, physical distance keeps the attacker detached, less apprehensive about his killing and anonymity of the group under attack reduces his instinctive hesitation to kill (ibid, p.154). Yet, one cannot ignore the example of Audie Murphy an individual, who was motivated to kill individually in World War II on the bases of his association to the American military. Therefore, one’s own sense of belonging cannot be ignored as it also acts as motivating factor besides group influence to kill (ibid, p.155). Emotional and physical distance between the killer and the victim are barriers, which terminate their ethical, moral and sentimental approach. Thus, these combatants do not feel inclined towards social, cultural or regional convictions instead regard their victims as subjects or targets insignificant to life. However, if the killer accidently finds similarity in his opponent or is dominated by the sense of humanity, he would feel more linked to his opponent and would regret his needless killing for the sake of association later (ibid, p.157). Therefore, human’s foremost sense of denial to take another human’s life comes into full view with closeness and familiarity. Stockholm syndrome enables hostage takers to develop an emotional connection with the victim. Hence, these hostage takers become bounded to be associated to the victims, gained experience with them, recognized their dissimilar identity and aim, and finally terminated their association either through killing or releasing these victims (ibid, p.160). Therefore, religious, cultural and social similarities can enable a stoppage to mass killings or war by the groups. To eliminate instinctive human bond and to eradicate the sentiments of harming one’s own kind, the subjects or targets have often been portrayed as low form of life. Therefore, their physical distinctions have been signified as valid reasons to kill these most insignificant form of life (ibid, p.161). Moral distinction also legitimizes and justifies one’s action to kill. Hence, if the war or killing is due to religious cause, more enthusiasm is observed in the killer and he feels elated to be a part of noble cause. Thus, psychologically he has no sense of guilt or regret for taking the life of his own kind, instead he feels conceited to be the chosen one (ibid, p.164). In a war-field, if soldiers do not have technological and strategic advantage, they are compelled to lose their moral and would concentrate on survival rather than combating and killing. Hence, advance weapons and tactful strategies, provide them a mean to kill and boost their moral for being on an advantage (ibid, p.172). Thus, the physical distance, advanced security measures for personal sake, advanced weapon technology and strategic attacks enables the killer to be entitled for the success and would justify this killing as rational act. Moreover, it also provides motivation to the killer that he is under a secure region and victim is out in the range just for being killed (ibid, p.173). The most intriguing war fact is to kill the source of motivation of the opponent, this would automatically destabilize their moral and they would be left without the influence of direct authority. Hence, it would allow them to be individuals and would activate their self defence mechanism rather than being motivated to kill the other group for a mutual cause. Modern army training programs include B F. Skinner’s model of developing firing behaviour in soldiers. Hence, the immediate result of shot at the target enables the shooter to progress further in maximizing his target goal (ibid, p.178). With the aid of modern fighting tactics and developed technology the rate of killing increases and ratio of death decreases in a highly trained army (ibid, 179). Although, this target killing training can become destructive as it develops mental illness known as PTSD in the shooters. According to the author, only 2 % f the combatants kill without the reluctance of killing mechanism. However, the rest of the 98% always face either a moral or personal apprehension when faced with the dilemma of killing another human (ibid, p.181). Aggression is an evitable part of human nature. Hence, the genetic predisposition of aggression does not eliminate empathy and but aggression with lack of empathy can cause sociopathy (ibid,p.183).Therefore, low killing rates in past wars can be determined as a result of empathy where soldiers were in a state of denial to kill (ibid, p.185). Consequently, the killing process involves influence of the leader, association with a group, technology and strategic supremacy, legitimized act due to moral, religious or ethical reasons and finally an easy and forgettable act only with the absence of empathic feelings (ibid, p.187). The massacre at My Lai by American army seems impossible due to inhumane behaviour towards women and children, but evidence has been found that man tends to obey authority and accept undue influence in trying times. Hence, he is capable of inflicting pain onto innocent when he is commanded to do so (ibid, p.190). Yet, killing is also a diffusion of responsibility tagged with a soldier. Reference: Grossman, Dave. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. New York: Little, Brown and Co, 2009. Print. Read More