Belonging to a group has a destructive potential if the members stop questioning its beliefs, values, ideals, policies, and actions. But not belonging results in physical and emotional vulnerability. Most people cannot stand emotionally alone and be effective, well-functioning human beings.
It is possible, however, to have a strong bond to the group without giving up individual identity. If the integrity of the self is maintained, discrepancy between one’s own values and those of the group can be noticed and faced. Independent judgment and deviation from the group become possible. This is easier in groups that do not severely punish nonconformity. Moreover, people who are connected to varied, smaller communities and have varied group identities can shift perspective more and free themselves more of their embeddedness in a particular group. Critical loyalty – deviation from current group beliefs and practices in the service of the ultimate integrity and well-being of the group and in the service of human welfare – becomes easier.
The relationship to the other, to outsiders, is partly a function of the self-concept. If groups do not have valid ways of defining themselves on the basis of their past history, tradition, values, and customs, they will have to define their identity by contrast to outside groups. Psychoanalytic thinking suggests that groups, like individuals, project unacceptable aspects of themselves onto others. Pinderhughes posits an urge to join or come together in groups and an urge to differentiate from the self and repudiate. Those who are repudiated become “bad"; they possess the rejected and renounced parts of the self, which remains pure and “good.”10
The tendency to maintain a view of the good self (group, nation) by making others bad should be strongest in groups whose self-image is least accurate. The more a group has succeeded in encoding most aspects of its experience into its self-concept, and the more this self-concept is realistic and moderately positive, the less likely that it will give rise to nationalism as an important goal. There will be less need to protect and enhance the nation by “purifying” it or by enlarging its territory or power.
National self-examination is important, but difficult.b It is even more difficult for nations than for individuals to see and accept imperfections in themselves, to discover their denied and unacknowledged parts, as well as to see others without distortion and become aware of their own impact on others. Members of the community of nations have an obligation to be active bystanders who act as mirrors in which other nations can see themselves. The words and acts of friendly nations are more likely to be accepted, but showing critical loyalty to friends requires both courage and tact.
National security and related ideologies
An ideology of national security is another important source of national policy. In the Southern Cone of South America, ideologies of national security led to the widespread murder of supposed internal enemies. The ideology depicted subversion aimed against a country’s government, economic order, way of life, religion, and values. Internal enemies were supposedly supported by communist nations. Drastic policies were justified as necessary for national security, even survival.
Richard Barnet has proposed that the ideology of the national security state also characterizes the United States. The search for national security has become pervasive in this “Century of Total War.” That peace depends on preparation for war was thought to be a lesson of the Hitler era and of the appearance of Soviet totalitarianism on the march after World War II.11 A permanent arms race is justified by the image of the Enemy.c In Barnet’s view, the ideology of the national security state “distorts the meaning of security by defining it primarily in military terms.”12 Such an ideology is built on specific ideologies of antagonism, or a view of the world and of other nations as hostile. It exists in the Soviet Union as well, which has been devastated by many enemies in its history, with about twenty million people killed during World War II.
When national security becomes an ideology, nations stop testing the reality of danger. Attempts to gain security by nonmilitary means are relinquished. A conflict mode of relating to “antagonists” becomes nearly inevitable. Within the nation the flow of information is limited and there is less open discussion of facts and policies.
World views that contribute to war
Many have believed that war is glorious both in itself and in its consequences. We continue to glorify past wars: the companionship, the bravery, the worthy cause, the honor it brings the nation. Great military leaders, like Alexander, are celebrated, even if conquest was their only purpose. Napoleon is a French national hero, in spite of the destruction he wrought. To create loyalty to the group and to communicate its values and ideals, most nations extol their military triumphs in their schools.13
William James eloquently described the good qualities brought forth by military service and war: persistence, strength, bravery, spirit of adventure, devotion to community, and discipline in the service of a just cause. Without war these admirable human qualities might be lost. Human beings would know only drudgery, boredom, weakness, and uninventive participation in unappealing labor. James believed that special effort was required to preserve the good qualities brought to life by military service and war.
