The wars were fought partly for disputed territories, but mutual devaluation and mistrust were central causes. Devaluation led to miscalculations. In 1971, belief in their inherent superiority led the Pakistanis to initiate war, despite their great numerical inferiority. They suffered a decisive defeat. According to John Stoessinger, even the Pakistani leader’s, Yahya Kahn’s, traditional views on the sexes influenced his decision to attack: he was unable to believe that a nation led by a woman (Indira Gandhi) could defeat him.5
Conflicts will arise, and real conflict will be magnified, as we respond not to the issues at hand or the people on the other side, but to the stereotypes and negative images that we hold. An ideology of antagonism may evolve out of differences in values, beliefs, and ways of life, devaluation, and a past history of antagonism. It encodes the negative evaluation and identifies the other as a threat to the well-being, security, and even survival of one’s group. It may lead to a belief that superiority is required for security and a wish to diminish, subdue, and in extreme cases exterminate this enemy.
An ideology of antagonism is an “other-conception” in some ways comparable to a self-conception. The group’s own past actions will contribute to the formation of its ideology of antagonism. For example, U.S. participation in an international force attempting to overthrow the young Russian communist state in 1919 probably helped to shape the ideology of antagonism toward the Soviet Union.
Another source of an ideology of antagonism is better-world thinking. For example, Marxist-Leninist ideology devalued the beliefs, values, lifestyles, and social and ecomonic arrangements of capitalist countries. Its view that workers were repressed and exploited in them could incite moral indignation. To create a better world, capitalism was to be eliminated. Moreover, it was a hostile force that required constant vigilance and self-defense. Intense anticommunism qualifies as a parallel better-world ideology.
An ideology of antagonism provides a powerful tool in explaining the other’s actions, guiding one’s own actions, and justifying aggressive acts. It makes it difficult to realistically evaluate the other’s actions and intentions and to draw proper distinctions; for example, to follow a policy that aims to lighten the repressive nature of the Soviet system, while at the same time acts on the shared goal of diminishing the threat of nuclear war. It also further reduces a nation’s normally weak inclination to see itself as other nations see it; for example, to consider how the Soviet Union might have perceived repeated U.S. buildup of arms.
Societal self-concept and national goals
A society’s self-concept of superiority or of self-doubt or their combination is important in giving rise to war-generating motives. A societal self-concept often designates the territories that are part of a nation and may include some that the nation has not possessed for centuries. The Jews have prayed for two thousand years for their return to Jerusalem. Hungary joined Germany in World War II partly in the hope of regaining territories lost in World War I. The Palestinians see themselves as a people defined by the land of which they were dispossessed. The Falklands war was fought, as were many others, for land of extremely limited value that Argentina regards as part of its territory.
One focus of the nation’s account of its history may be the wounds others inflicted by taking and holding lost territory. A nation’s identity, like the identities of individuals, is often defined by past hurt, pain, or injury. According to Isaiah Berlin, the “infliction of a wound on the collective feelings of society, or at least on its spiritual leaders, may be a necessary condition for the birth of nationalism.”6 These conditions tend to create both a shaky self-esteem and nationalism, which is the desire to protect and enhance the nation economically and to maintain or increase its power, prestige, and purity.
A national self-concept often includes a view of the “right” relationship to other nations. The self-concept of the United States seems to include the right to dominate Central America. Policies that maintained the arms race may have been partly due on the American side to a national self-concept of superiority over the Russians, which made parity in arms unacceptable. (Obviously, in this dangerous nuclear age, superiority of arms also diminishes fear.) Leaders and citizens often refer to the United States as the “best country in the world.” This is in part an exaggeration of a universal tendency toward ethnocentrism, in part a reflection of real accomplishments, and in part an outgrowth of the U.S. role as a superpower and defender of the free world from communism. Whatever its source, for the United States as well as other nations, a balanced view of the self would serve as a better guide in relations with others.
Nationalism, belonging, and the self-concept
Nations have a tremendous capacity to enlist the loyalty and self-sacrifice of their citizens, especially in conflicts with other nations. Belonging to groups is of profound significance for human beings. It fulfills deep needs and provides satisfactions inherent in connection. It provides a feeling of security. It is essential in defining the self: as a member of a family, a profession, a religious group, voluntary associations, a nation. Individual identity is defined and the self gains value and significance through identification with groups and the connection to others that membership provides. Group support – whether it is a group of fellow concentration camp victims or companions working for a shared cause – contributes to survival even under the worst conditions.7 It can make life hopeful and satisfying.
The importance of the group arises partly from a genetic proclivity, a sociotropic inclination, and partly from the experience of the child while growing up in a group unit.8 As
