The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence

murderous attacks, the Mundurucú share of the forest yield was correspondingly increased.”⁸ Thus, aggression gave the Mundurucú a “Darwinian edge.” Of course, they were not aware of this, the reasons for aggression being richly overlaid by culture, customs, and religion, including the view of non-Mundurucú tribes as “victims by definition.”^a

Other thinkers have also proposed that human beings are aggressive by nature, often because they were deeply affected by the carnage of war. In the case of Freud, the First World War prompted such reflections. Similar thinking has been based on observations of animals, for example, by the ethologist Lorenz, based on aggression in fish.

Human beings certainly have the potential for both altruism and aggression. Possibly we even have a genetic tendency toward aggression when we are threatened, and a tendency to act altruistically toward those who are genetically close to us. But such tendencies are strongly affected by experience and learning, even in animals. For example, when monkeys can obtain food by pressing a lever that also results in shock to another monkey, some will stop pushing the lever and sacrifice the food; they are more likely to do this if they have previously shared a cage with the other animal.¹¹

In my view, there are genetic predispositions toward altruism and aggression, and specific genetic building blocks such as the infants’ attachment to caretakers and fear of strangers. These are shaped by socialization and culture into actual dispositions toward kindness and cruelty through exposure to different experiences, such as warmth and intimacy versus rejection or hostility.¹²

In Wilson’s analysis Mundurucú culture expresses and serves genetic dispositions evoked by threat to survival. In my view, varied adaptations to life circumstances are possible, but once a culture evolves aggressive characteristics, aggression can become a way of life. Cultures can also evolve nonaggressive modes of adaptation, both internally and in relation to other societies (for example, the Semai of Malaysia).¹³ This requires a feeling of security, peaceful modes of conflict resolution, or well-regulated social behavior that minimizes conflict, or a combination of these.

We should not expect nonaggressive cultures or individuals to remain so under all conditions. Substantial change in the environment requires new adaptations. At times external conditions put people into the midst of violence. Sometimes persistent nonaggression becomes suicidal.

The peaceful Semai of Malaysia, supposedly ignorant of war and the tasks of soldiers, were lured by promises of rewards into British army units that were fighting communists in the early fifties. When some of their kinsmen were killed, the Semais became fierce. They had strong social controls, but not the personal capacity to modulate and regulate aggressive feelings and behavior. In the midst of violence, they responded with unrestrained violence. On their return home they reverted to their peaceful ways.¹⁴

Aggression as a cultural ideal. Some cultures (and individuals) idealize aggression. American television programs and films attest to some idealization. So does the power of organizations such as the National Rifle Association. The Nazis idealized violence. The Bolsheviks considered aggression valuable and necessary. Dzerzhinski, the first head of the Soviet secret police, the Cheka, proclaimed: “We stand for organized terror... terror being absolutely indispensable in current revolutionary conditions.”¹⁵

Past history of use of aggression to deal with conflict. Like individuals, cultures carry blueprints for dealing with problems. Repeated use of aggression to deal with conflict makes it acceptable. Aggressive plans and strategies are developed, the aggressor becomes competent in the use of aggression, and renewed aggression is more likely. Thus, a history of aggression makes it more “available.”¹⁶

Cultural self-concept, self-esteem, and world view

As I have pointed out, low self-esteem and a violent and chaotic family background are associated with violent crime.¹⁷ Some violent criminals see threat everywhere and proceed to “defend” themselves or their self-image. Others establish masculinity and strength by seeking physical confrontation and victory.¹⁸

Self-concept and self-esteem are also important at the societal level in determining the response to frustration and threat. Societal and individual self-concepts need not be the same. Low self-esteem may even intensify the need to compensate by seeing one’s group in a positive light. Individuals who vary in self-esteem may share a belief in the superiority of their culture, nation, society, or way of life. Most societies are inclined to such ethnocentrism.¹⁹ National self-concept is a complex matter, however.

In times of danger, confidence in existing institutions gives hope and promotes constructive action. Moreover, a positive group identification can help people deal with personal difficulties, especially threats to individual self-esteem.

On the other hand, idealization of one’s group may heighten frustration in difficult times. In groups as in individuals, very high self-evaluation often masks self-doubt. Persistent life difficulties may contradict the high self-evaluation and bring self-doubt to the surface. Even if there is no underlying self-doubt, a very high self-evaluation may be associated with limited concern for others. Among individuals, a moderately positive self-concept is most strongly associated with sensitivity and responsiveness to other people.²⁰

It is not customary to classify nations in terms of self-concept and self-esteem. Nonetheless, parallels to the influence of individual self-concept certainly exist. The components and sources of individual self-esteem are highly complex; those of group or national self-esteem are perhaps even more so.

A familiar aspect of national self-concept is a feeling of deprivation, combined with the belief that one’s country deserves more. Often this includes a belief, realistic or paranoid, that other countries or internal enemies are preventing the group from getting its due in material possessions, prestige, or honor. Germany went to war in 1914 to gain the power and advantages that it deserved but others would not yield to it.²¹ Later Hitler claimed Germany had the right to more living space (Lebensraum). Argentinians too saw their nation as deprived, its potential for wealth, power, and influence unfulfilled.

Both an inflated and a weak self-esteem can enhance threat. When positive self-esteem is strongly tied to power, success, or prestige, difficult life conditions will be especially threatening.

Individual and group world views are beliefs about the way the world works – about the nature of human beings, institutions, and societies. Are