International Psychology and Peace.[3]

International Psychology and Peace.[3]

The history of the world would seem to indicate that international psychology is almost synonymous with international anarchy. For the last 30 or more years, as is well known, a general European War was expected, predicated, and feared. This was the abnormal psychological condition of diplomatic and military Europe until the present war caused its realization. The world appears always to have existed in a pathological condition of possible, probable, or actual war. The question is, "Shall the world continue to this old way of international anarchism and political pathology, or shall it make a supreme effort to shake off this monstrous incubus of war?"

It is peculiar circumstances that, while anarchism within a nation is generally detested, anarchism between nations has been palatable so long. Cannibalism existed for thousands of years, slavery also, yet both have been practically abandoned, and now there seems to be a chance to do away the last and greatest enemy of humanity—war. To stop an evil that has existed so long and whose roots reach back into the beginning of history will necessarily require colossal effort and great sacrifice. Such an effort has been successful only once in the history of the world. That was when the Westphalian peace treaty was signed, in 1648 after the Thirty Years' War.[4] This resulted in abolishing the most difficult kind of wars—religious wars. If the seventeenth century could accomplish this greater task, certainly the twentieth century should take courage and likewise put an end to political wars, the lesser task. It may not be possible to make war impossible, but this is no reason it should not be tried. It may be possible, however, to make war most improbable.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN HISTORY NECESSARY.

In the writing of history a common illusion is to exaggerate the future importance of contemporary events. Both sides in the French Revolution thought that the end of the world had come, as no doubt it had for some. Comparatively few men can get outside of their country and look at things as they are, but very few or none can separate themselves from their generation and look without prejudice into the future. The importance of every great event is usually exaggerated by those immediately interested. From the historical point of view, the degree of importance of current events can not be determined until some time afterwards when the sources are more accessible, and it is possible to consider them calmly, and from the point of view of strict truth, which is one of the main principles of scientific inquiry. History is continuous and not broken up by what the present generation may think to be a finality or cataclysm; there may be progress or retrogression, but neither is so great as they appear at the time of the events which cause enthusiasm and optimism in the victorious and despair and pessimism in the vanquished. These are temporary phenomena, being only links in the historical chain. The changes after this war back to normal conditions may be much greater and faster than in previous wars. In this connection it must be remembered that the humane spirit is now much more diffused in the world than in the past, which is indicated by the enormous extent of protests against the horrors of war.[5] These horrors are common to all wars and were relatively as frequent in the past, if not more so. It is true that the absolute number of outrages may have been much greater in the present war than in previous wars, but this is probably due mainly to the enormous number of individuals engaged in the war.

INTERDEPENDENCE OF NATIONS A DEMOGRAPHIC LAW.

The world has become so closely connected through modern means of communication that any war might result in a world war. The prevalent political tendencies are in the direction of combination and resultant consolidation. The question soon arises, Shall combination and regulation go beyond national limits? The old-fashioned ideas of national limits do not seem to be adapted to present conditions. Commercially such limits are impracticable and appear to be so in other ways.[6] The Constitution of the United States has 18 amendments. This demographic law of interdependence of nations necessarily results in combination, which eventually may lead to international solidarity.

Whether we will or no, this demographic law of interdependence of nations can not be escaped. Just as the States of the Union are now closer together than their counties were many years ago, through the enormous development of physical means of communication, so governments are now brought more closely in contact than were the States at the time of the formation of the Union. This demographic law of increasing interdependence when carefully examined appears to be almost as necessary as the law of gravity. It has been at work ever since history began and, though little noticed perhaps, it has been manifesting itself more and more as history advanced. The individual is subordinate to the community and must yield some of his sovereignty to it, the community in turn must yield to the county, the county to the State, the State to the Nation, and finally the Nation to the world. This last step is the one now pending in Europe, and eventually, if not presently, may result in international solidarity, which will practically put an end to political wars just as the Westphalian peace did with religious wars.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND DEMOGRAPHIC LAW OF INTERDEPENDENCE OF STATES.

The tendency toward this demographic law of interdependence of States is shown by the large number of international organizations such as congresses or conferences which are held from time to time in different countries of the world. From the Conference of Vienna (1815) to the present time there have been some two hundred or more international congresses, the majority of which had to do with regulation of economic and sociologic affairs. Thus manufacturers, merchants, and capitalists of different countries have met and made agreements to control and regulate production and distribution of merchandise.

There is also the Universal Postal Union, which is an illustration of international control or government. Objections are sometimes made against international government, which were made years ago against the International Postal Union. It now has a constitution obeyed by all nations. Refusal to obey would deprive a country of the benefits of the union. As a matter of fact, no country has done this.

POWER OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

If there were an international organization for war as well as for postage, and one or two nations should refuse to obey the decisions of a majority, or three-fourths of the organization, each of these recalcitrant nations could be boycotted economically and in many other ways by the remaining member nations. It is very doubtful if any nation would take such chances.

Any international organization helps toward peace by making action less precipitate, for if it were known in advance that a conference were to take place, this would tend to make nations less disposed to go to war. In fact, all international conferences, like the International Congress of Criminal Anthropology, tend to intellectual, moral, and sociological solidarity between nations, in accordance with our demographic law of interdependence. (See Equation of law later on.) This International Congress of Criminal Anthropology, for instance, consists of some four hundred university specialists in anthropology, medicine, psychology, and sociology, who come from almost all countries of the world.

In the eighteenth century international relations consisted of diplomatic conversations and were regulated by an occasional treaty, but, owing to the very inadequate means of communication, few international relations were required. In the nineteenth century the change in international conditions was very great. When international organizations represent some actual phase of life, whether educational, commercial or scientific, they really regulate their relations between nations and are often organs of international government. In short, international conferences and congresses act like legislatures between nations.

If conferences had been in vogue and one had been held concerning the dispute between Austria and Serbia, very probably there would not have been any war, because, if for no other reason, the diplomats would have seen that it might lead to a general war in Europe, and as no nation cared to take that responsibility the diplomatic procedure would doubtless have been modified. Thus the conference over the Morocco question killed it as a cause of war.

This and other practical examples of government between nations show that the great success, convenience, and benefit to all nations encourage the further development of international organizations. The difficulties and dangers predicted have not come to pass. International administration has come in the cases of railroads, ships, and automobiles. An elaborate international government has come (through treaties) in public health and epidemics, and international notification of the presence of disease has been made obligatory.

SOVEREIGNTY CHANGES ACCORDING TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC LAW OF INTERDEPENDENCE OF NATIONS.

The old idea of the independence of the State, mingled with that of sovereignty, prestige, and honor, and exaggerated by false patriotism, although limited more and more by conditions of civilization, is one of the main obstacles to the development of international organization and government.

The habit of holding conferences or congresses would get the people to expect international government and insist on it, and any country would hesitate long before refusing to agree to a conference.

The idea that sovereignty is destroyed because a nation is not absolutely independent belongs to the old régime, when many modern means of communication did not exist. In those days of comparative isolation there was reason for much independence, but now countries are so closely connected, as we have seen, that their independence and sovereignty are necessarily limited, while their interdependence has increased to such an extent that what benefits or injures one benefits or injures the other. Thus it is to the advantage of each State to give up some of its sovereignty, just as it is for the individual to give up some of his freedom to the community for privileges much greater than the loss of his so-called independence. It is well known how the States of our Union have gradually yielded more and more of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. Thus sovereignty decreases according to our law of the interdependence of States.

CAUSE OF WAR NOT NECESSARILY ECONOMIC.

It is frequently asserted that after all the main cause of most wars is rivalry in trade and commercial friction; in short, it is economic. But it is a curious fact that commerce and industry are the most insistent on international rules or law to reduce all friction to a minimum, for peaceful trading is a general benefit to all concerned.

It might be stated in this connection that in historical and political as well as physical science there is no one cause of anything, but a chain of causes; for the more we study the world, the closer we find it related; nothing is nor can be really alone. When we single out a cause we mean the predominant one, and which is the strongest link in the chain of causes becomes a matter of opinion, owing to our limited knowledge of international psychology.

Commercial systems of the world have brought nations closer together, but political relations have remained much the same; that is, the advances in diplomacy have been very few in comparison with the growth of economic relations which makes for peace rather than war.

NO INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT; NO LASTING PEACE.

That the lack of international government means international anarchy may be illustrated by some recent events. Owing to the struggle of Serbia for expansion, Austria feared the seizure of its own territory and loss of some of its population, and so refused to accept mediation, because the Hapsburg monarchy being reported declining, she must counteract this impression by showing vigorous action. The success of Austria would be regarded by Russia as a threat to herself, but a defeat of Austria by Russia would be a defeat for Germany, and a German defeat for Russia and France would be regarded as a defeat for England. Thus the lack of any international government or organization made cooperation for peace almost, if not quite, impossible. England might have said to herself, among other reasons, "If I stay out of the war, Germany may overrun France and Belgium, resulting in a union of the French and German Navies, but we are an island, and it would not do to risk the danger of such a combination."

Frontier questions have perhaps been the main cause of more wars in history than anything else. But in the course of events such questions have come to be settled without resort to force, which is a change from national to international government.

NATIONALISM MAY CONFLICT WITH THE PEOPLES' INTEREST.

Another nationalistic anachronism is the geographical standard in governmental matters. But intercommunications are so many and so close that geographical relations have few reasons to be considered. Individual and racial interests are less geographical and more sociological. But governmental matters have not developed near so fast as sociological conditions.

Nationalism more often represents the interests of the few rather than the many. Unfortunately it is easy to bolster up a narrow and selfish nationalism by appeal to the patriotism of the masses who fail to understand the conditions and support the interests of a few against their own vital interests. While anarchy between nations (nationalism) makes future wars probable, anarchy within nations can be easily stopped by doing justice to the masses.

WAR WORST METHOD OF SETTLING DIFFICULTIES.

An egotistical, selfish, and narrow nationalism, the basis of international anarchy, has been demonstrated a partial, if not complete, failure by the condition in which Europe is to-day. War, though only one of many methods for settling difficulties between nations, has, nevertheless, been the main one. There is a strong desire among the people to substitute some other method.

Generally a nation has two things to consider—one is what it wants; the other whether it can enforce its wants. This is the usual nationalistic dilemma, but our demographic law of the interdependence of nations assumes that each country will respect the other countries and be willing to consider their wishes at least in vital matters.

Where the differences between two nations have threatened the peace of Europe it has been felt that such a matter was more than a national question; in fact, passed over into the international realm, and so conferences have been called which to a certain extent recognized the principle of interdependence and have enforced its decisions by blockade if not by more warlike means. If a nation adopt the methods of force, it is appealing to international anarchy, which causes nations to break international law much more readily than otherwise. In fact, military necessity knows no law.

It may seem odd that conferences are so often called for war instead of for peace. But it is necessity that often rules; the wheel in the machine is not examined until it is out of order, human beings were never studied scientifically until they became lunatics or criminals. So peace seems to have been little thought of until danger of war appeared. Peace is like good health, we do not know its value until we lose it.

SECRET DIPLOMACY INSIDIOUS.

All treaties between nations should be published in order to make the diplomacy of intrigue and deception impossible or at least most difficult to carry into effect. Secret diplomacy enables those who want war to bring something to light suddenly and cause excitement and fear among the people and thus drive them into war before they understand what they are doing. The psychology of fear shows its power in producing apprehension by catch phrases, such as "the crisis is acute," or "there is panic on the stock exchange," or "negotiations may come to an end," or "an ultimatum has been sent." Patriotic as well as fear inspiring phrases are published broadcast leading the people into war, but they must always be made to believe that it is in defense of their country, whether it is or not.

But open diplomacy and international conferences prevent insidious methods of producing excitement; they also give the people time to think and avoid precipitate action; also facts are brought to light that otherwise might have been concealed by those desiring war.

COMPETITIVE ARMAMENTS LEAD TO WAR.

Competitive armaments, for which the masses are compelled to pay and by which they are killed, hasten the probability of future wars. Great armaments lead to competitive armament, which experience shows to be no guaranty of peace, for it makes a nation feel so well prepared for war that when a dispute arises, and it is thought a few days' delay may give the enemy an advantage that might never be regained, the enemy must be attacked at once. Thus Austria refused to extend time to Serbia nor would she take part in a conference of ambassadors nor respond to the Serbian note to refer the dispute to The Hague. So Germany refused a similar proposal to the Czar on July 29 and allowed Russia but 12 hours to answer the ultimatum. Russia had begun to mobilize and Germany's fear, if the proposal for pacific settlement were accepted, Russia would get the start and gain a military advantage probably caused Germany to strike at once. Thus such preparedness actually prevented any chance for even discussion of a peaceful settlement. Also the knowledge that Russia's Army and Navy were to be increased and strategic railroads built and that France was about to reintroduce three years' military service may have caused Germany to think it imprudent to delay an inevitable war any longer.

PERMANENT PEACE HINDERED BY SPIRIT OF HATE.

There can be no permanent peace so long as the idea of crushing this or that nation prevails. The question is not national, but international. The nationalistic spirit of hate may be temporarily useful in stirring up a country to fight better, but it does not tend toward a lasting peace. In the study of war we should seek the causes, be impersonal, and neither condone nor accuse. The scientific investigation of war comes under the head of criminal anthropology, one of the purposes of which is by knowledge gained to lessen or stop war permanently rather than discuss the ethics of war involving the spirit of hate and vengeance.

NO PERMANENT PEACE WITH NATIONALISM ALONE.

The existing conditions between nations are somewhat like as if a State had rules and laws as to what to do when murder and riot occur, but no laws to prevent murder and riot, or, if there were laws, no power to execute them.

From the theoretical point of view these irrational and abnormal conditions are evident, and yet they have been considered normal conditions for ages. This is indicated by the remark of a diplomat, who said: "Things are getting back to a wholesome state again, every nation for itself and God for us all." As long as such an extreme and pathological form of nationalism exists no permanent peace is probable, if not impossible. Nationalism has had a long trial with comparative freedom, and one of its grand finales is the present European war.

A FEW SUGGESTIONS FOR PERMANENT PEACE.

It would go far beyond the purpose of this article to discuss the many methods proposed for establishing permanent peace, yet one may be allowed merely to note a few points. There might be established an international high court to decide judicial issues between independent sovereign nations and an international council to secure international legislation and to settle nonjudicial issues. Also, an international secretariat should be established. Some fundamental principles of such international control might be to disclaim all desire or intention of aggression, to pursue no claim against any other independent state; not to send any ultimatum or threat of military or naval operations or do any act of aggression, and never to declare war or order any general mobilization or violate the territory or attack the ships of another state, except in way of repelling an attack actually made; not to do any of these until the matter in dispute has been submitted to the international high court or to the international council, and not until a year after the date of such submission.

PROHIBITIONS FOR RECALCITRANT STATES.

In order to enforce the decrees of the international high court against any recalcitrant State an embargo on her ships and forbidding her landing at any capital might be initiated. Also there might be instituted prohibition of postal and telegraph communication, of payment of debts due to citizens, prohibition of all imports and exports and of all passenger traffic; to level special duties on goods to such State and blockade her ports. In short, an effort should be made to enforce complete nonintercourse with any recalcitrant State.

Should a State proceed to use force to go to war rather than obey the decree of the international high court all the other constituent States should make common cause against such State and enforce the order of the international high court.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOMENT FOR PREVENTING WAR IS SOON AFTER WAR.

If an absolute agreement among leading nations of the world never to resort to war could be obtained at the outset all other questions could be settled more justly and with fewer difficulties, for the consciousness that the supreme question was out of the way would relieve the psychological tension and afford opportunity for a more calm and careful consideration and adjudication of all other matters in dispute. It would be like the consciousness of the lawyer, when having lost his case in all other courts is content to let the United States Supreme Court settle it forever. This is due to the psychological power of the radiation of justice from the top downward.

Such an absolute and final agreement never to resort to war can be best accomplished right after the war, when all are sick of war and the very thought of it causes the suffering, wounded, and bleeding people to turn their heads significantly away with a profound instinctive feeling, crying out that anything is better than to go back to the old régime. In such a state of mind mutual concessions are much easier to make than later on.

The psychological moment to prevent such suffering of the masses from ever occurring again is soon after the war. It is a sad comment that the number and untold suffering of millions of human beings seem to have been required for the nationalistic spirit of Europe to be willing to follow international humanitarian ideas toward establishing permanent peace in the world.

THE HAGUE RULES ONLY SUGGESTIONS.

The diplomats who wrote the rules at The Hague Convention knew well that they might be more or less disregarded; they were only suggestions. As war assumes the right to kill human beings, what rights, then, have the victims left over that are worth mentioning? As to what way they are killed there is little use of considering, probably the quicker the better, for there is less suffering. If prisoners must starve, it is a mercy to shoot them. To regulate murder of human beings is more or less humbug. The thing to do is to try to abolish international anarchy and slaughter forever, and to accomplish this the egotism, selfishness, and narrowness of nations must be so modified that they are willing to make the necessary sacrifice.

If the reader believes the general ideas set forth in this study, let him or her aid the writer in a practical way and send a contribution to help circulate these ideas, not only in English and other languages but in other countries as well as the United States.

The address of the author is: The Congressional, 100 East Capitol Street, Washington, D. C.

EQUATION OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC LAW OF INTERDEPENDENCE OF NATIONS.

As already noted, our demographic law of the interdependence of nations is, that increase in the means of communication between States causes increase of their interdependence but decrease in their sovereignty. Just as a physical body consists of molecules of various kinds, so the State may be regarded as a psychological entity with citizens of various characteristics, and just as the density of a body is equal to its mass divided by its volume, so the density of citizenship is equal to the population divided by the land area.

If, therefore, we consider the States' adult population, as its mass (m) and the resultant aggregate increase of its means of communication as its velocity (v), and (t) as the time, then the psychological force (F) or interdependence of the State can be expressed by the familiar equation in physics F=mv/t; that is to say, the interdependence of a State is equal to its adult population (mass) multiplied by the resultant aggregate increase of its means of communication (velocity) and the product divided by the time (t).

The poundal unit of physical force is such a force as will move 1 pound (mass unit) at a velocity of 1 foot per second in one second of time.

Now, assuming the unit of citizenship of a State to be one citizen and the unit of the resultant aggregate increase of means of communication per annum in one year of time to be K, then

The statal unit of psychological force is such a force as will give one citizen (mass unit) one K unit (for convenience the K unit of annual aggregate increase of means of communication can be expressed in per cents. Taking some of the principal means of communication, and working out their annual average per cents of increase, we have for the United States during the census periods (1900-1910); annual average increase of passengers on railroads, 7 per cent; on street and electric railways, 3 per cent (1907-1912); of telegraph messages sent, 6 per cent; of telephone stations, 10 per cent. Combining these, the per cent of annual average aggregate increase will be 6.5 per cent, as value of K, assuming the percentages are equally weighted) of resultant aggregate increase of means of communication per annum in one year of time.

As yet there is no exact way to measure the sovereignty and means of communication of the State, but the psychological side of this physical equation may suggest a working hypothesis for our demographic law of the interdependence of States which may some time be useful in the realm of international psychology.

To measure the aggregate influence upon citizens of the many means of communication in a State (also, for illustration merely, let us take one of the principal means of communication, as steam railroads, and we find that the annual average increase in passenger-train-car miles for one citizen of the United States, from 1908 to 1914, to be 4.45, which is the value of K for steam railroads alone for period mentioned. In a later article the author will consider in detail the practical application of the equation) as steam, street and electric railways, telegraph and telephones, will require exact detailed knowledge of the mental, moral, and physical power of the individual citizen, the unit of the social organism. Such measurements might be made when psychology and sociology become sciences in the rigid sense. The underlying hypothesis in this equation is that both the psychological and physical mechanism of the world are under one fundamental law.[7]