Can There Ever Be Peace on Earth?

An Exploration of Group Behavior, Human Nature, and the Power of Purpose

Photo by Christian Wiediger on Unsplash

In Robert Greene’s book, The Laws of Human Nature, he says:

Human nature is stronger than any individual, than any institution or technological intervention. It ends up shaping what we create to reflect itself and its primitive roots. It moves us around like pawns. Ignore the laws at your peril.

As someone who studies human behavior and social systems, including the smallest social system, the family, I jumped on Greene’s book as soon as I learned about it. Since then, it has been a vital reference. The book is not light reading, but it is absolutely enligthening.

Take, for instance, the chilling chapter on The Law of Conformity, entitled “Resist the Downward Pull of the Group”. The chapter begins with an exploration of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) under Mao Zedong. It is a terrifying account of the ripple effect of paranoid leaders and the impact of propaganda, unchecked group think, and extreme tribalism on a society. By the time the revolution ended, *millions of people were dead, millions injured, hundreds of thousands were imprisoned, and a police state reigned. This was on top of the loss of life directly related to Mao’s Great Leap Forward policies.

Greene goes on to discuss the “social force” of group dynamics and group psychology and we are invited to think about our own ability to be spurred on (or not) by the group. We know Mao could not have acted alone in his quest for control. His desire to obliterate some citizens in order to create a new society for other citizens required him to capture people’s minds by tapping into their instinct for survival. This got turned on by promising belonging and naming an enemy to conquer.

Mao used psychological tactics to create an us versus them society.

A kill or be killed environment.

He gave citizens a reason and permission to act on their instincts to survive by promising a better future without ranking systems and elites. He justified terror and bloodshed on a massive scale in order to start anew and “free” China from traditional, conservative values and the “bourgeois”, i.e. middle class.

Propaganda posters created by various Chinese agencies, 1968-1989.

While the Communist Chinese rulers eventually conceeded (after Mao’s death) that his campaign was a catastrophe that “thrust China into 10 years of turmoil, bloodshed, hunger and stagnation”, the damage had been done. Thanks, in part, to rampant complicity and group-think. What was eye-opening for me was how the youth played a major role in the Cultural Revolution that included murdering peers, professors, and violently taking over institutions. As I see it, their desire to belong and their need for purpose was exploited. Mao wanted to rid society of those who stood in the way of his vision “…so the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted on it.” (Greene, pg. 402).

Sadly, Mao has plenty of company. Here are a few other leaders you may have heard of who promised a better future by rooting out the “enemy” and signing off on death, destruction, and chaos along the way.

• Pol Pot. A Cambodian communist leader in the 70’s who, like Mao, desired a classless society and engaged in social engineering that included killing nearly 20% of the Cambodian population. Intellectuals and the middle class were targeted as well as 500,000 Cham Muslims. It was an ethnic cleansing and genocide in the name of progress. Not surprising, Pol Pot was inspired by Mao and funded, in part, by China’s Communist Party.

• Adolf Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945, held deeply extremist and divisive beliefs about an “Aryan race” which he saw as a justification for the persecution and extermination of other racial and ethnic groups, particularly Jews. Hitler's goal for German society was to create a racially pure and totalitarian state, where all aspects of life were controlled by the government putting him squarely in the category of fascist. He sought to achieve this through the aggressive expansion of German territory, strict control over the media, education, and culture, and the elimination of perceived enemies. His policies and actions during World War II, including the Holocaust, resulted in the suffering and death of millions.

• Idi Amin ruled Uganda from 1971 to 1979. His time in power was marked by brutal repression and human rights abuses. He established a regime of violence and authoritarianism which included ethnically cleansing Uganda of Asian and Ugandan Indian communities. Estimates put the death toll on his watch upwards of half a million.

• Vladamir Lenin, a Russian revolutionary who overthrew his government in 1917 and created the first Communist State. His policies, combined with his successor’s, Joseph Stalin, led to extreme poverty and famine, isolation, police states, harsh treatment of citizens, and millions upon millions of deaths.

And this list barely scratches the surface. As far back as we can go there are records and indications of persistent war and fighting between and amongst indigenous cultures. The very land we each call home, wherever we are on the globe, is likely stained by the blood of a former group that fought for a cause, a place on the map, or resources, justified or not. We just happen to be the random beneficiaries for this brief moment in cosmic time. We didn’t ask to be, we just are.

Currently, according to the Global Conflict Tracker, there are 26 conflicts and wars across the world creating instability, displacement, and death in a region. You may not know about them because they are not being discussed on social media or your preferred news source. Why? I can’t say with any certainty, but it absolutely makes me curious. Are we being manipulated right now? What are the bigger implications of turning our collective attention to one conflict? What is being missed? Why are our feeds not filled with stories of people from Venezuela or Myanmar or the Congo?

We know that war, division, and fanaticism are not new. We also know that our desire for peace or our willingness to march for it and demand it are not new, either. What is new, is that certain conflicts and wars are live-streamed onto our phones. We can actually watch brutality from cameras strapped to combatants bodies. Some groups use social media platforms to disperse the most extreme malevolence including beheadings of journalists. I wish it weren’t true, but it is.

This insanity psychologically grips us and traumatizes us. We are pulled into these conflicts and war zones thousands of miles away. Our bodies never physically there, but our minds are 100% captured. And if we aren’t careful, numbed by it all.

For many of us, we are heartbroken and grief-striken. Anger arises. We desire to do something, anything, to make the insanity stop. The brutality is overwhelming, atrocious, and inconceivable to our caring and compassionate hearts. We aren’t meant to metabolize all of this chaos. We wonder How? and Why? and we start looking for perpetrators and an enemy to conquer. We group up to mount a response that we hope will make a difference because sitting by and not doing anything feels unbearable and insane, too. Maybe we’re able to make a difference. Maybe we feel like we made some progress and slowed or diverted the runaway train so we decide to rest.

Then, the next cycle of conflict begins.

Why do we keep getting here?

I am not an expert in geopolitical issues nor am I a religious scholar. However, I have been fascinated by human behavior since I was a child and have been studying human systems for a long time. What I have come to understand is that there are patterns and structures within a healthy social system, from the family unit to a country, that depend on base agreements. Think of these base agreements as behavioral boundaries and without them, there’s a high probability for chaos and disorder and harm.

Agreements can be rooted in religious and philosophical beliefs about human nature coupled with hard-won experience and wisdom passed down from generation to generation. Many of these agreements are turned into laws and are enforced by fines or imprisonment if broken. In families, when these agreements are broken it can lead to divorce, estrangement, and disconnection. When thinking about territories and countries, these agreements, if broken, can and do lead to unrest and war—civil, regional, or international.

Advances in our understanding of human development and psychology has inspired cultural shifts, updates to laws, interventions, and truly beautiful and conscious engagements with our fellow humans, all things considered.

What hasn’t changed is our instinct to survive.

What hasn’t changed is our need to belong.

What hasn’t changed is our need for purpose and meaning.

What hasn’t changed is our desire for safety.

And what hasn’t changed is a leader’s ability (whether of a country or of an activist group) to capitalize on them. It’s why, since the beginning of time, the enemy has been invoked as a way to garner support and push forward ideas and agendas. The enemy has been another group of citizens, (even citizens within the same religion), another country, another religion, a virus, a company, a social class, a voting block, or in the case of the Cambodian leader, Pol Pot, people who wear glasses.

If we aren’t aware of this operating system or conscious of our own ability to be emotionally manipulated and recruited for a cause against the enemy, we might end up behaving in ways with the group that we would never do alone.

As a safeguard, Greene says:

“Never relinquish your ability to doubt, reflect, and consider other options—your rationality as an individual is your only protection against the madness that can overcome a group.”

-The Laws of Human Nature, Robert Greene

However, what if you do maintain your individuality, reason, and doubt and act in response to “the madness that can overcome a group” and you are ridiculed, shamed, or maligned for your actions? What if seemingly intelligent, thoughtful people witness the same madness of a group and come away with completely different responses to those acts?

Thomas Sowell’s framework of human behavior, which he outlines in his 1987 book, A Conflit of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles provides a deeper understanding as to why such a conundrum exists. In his book, he proposes that our responses to political struggles are influenced by our core assumptions about human potential which falls on a spectrum from a “constrained vision” to an “unconstrained vision”. (If you enjoy animation summaries of books, this one does a great job.)

What both visions agree on is that humans are inherently fallible and selfish and they need help to improve. Both visions desire to create the best outcome for society and both visions, in the extreme, can lead to fascism. Where they differ follows.

Constrained versus Unconstrained

Those in the “constrained vision” camp believe humans will continue to be self-serving and suffer. We can try to change people, but we are fighting against an unflinching reality. Furthermore, people will continue to desire things even when their base necessities are covered. This inherent desire for more requires social processes, such as sensible laws and religious or moral codes to limit the pain we cause each other and to help us be as good as we can be, with as much freedom as possible, within our limited capacity. There can never be a heaven on Earth or a utopian society so the goal is to keep anti-social and harmful behaviors in check.

Those with an “unconstrained vision” believe that humans can change their base nature and move close to perfection. All it takes is shedding our selfishness and increasing our intellect to solve the world’s problems. Bascially, problems are solvable with the right ideas and the right (intellectually advanced) people creating those ideas. And, if we can remove greedy systems that create inequities, we can reach Eden, so to speak. Because if people’s base needs are met, then their souls will be allowed to thrive and their full potential can be met.

There is so much more depth to Sowell’s insights than my two paragraphs explained, so I encourage you to read more on your own. But, I offer a glimpse into his ideas because I think it sheds light on why people disagree and why people respond to societal ills as they do: their base assumptions about human potential are vastly different. Couple this with what we know about our survival instincts, group dynamics and group psychology, and we have a better understanding as to why we find ourselves fighting the same ideas, the same groups, and the same wars again and again and again.

Could this be why we have not been able to achieve absolute peace on Earth?

Could it be that we just haven’t tried hard enough or the right laws haven’t been created or the right people just haven’t been put into place…yet?

OR

Could it be that we are simply destined to find ourselves repeating the same patterns and behaviors because we are selfish and insatiable creatures?

How can we do better?

The Power of Purpose

“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

Spend any time online and you might be convinced the world is coming to an end any minute. I have definitely thought it. I have wondered if some of the post-apocalyptic movies, shows, and video games are harbingers of things to come. We know the nuclear arsenal across the globe is substantial and some say we are one red button push away from a global nuclear catastrophe. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up and yet, I think we need to keep trying despite it all.

In chapter 13 of The Laws of Human Nature entitled, “Advance with a Sense of Purpose”, Greene discusses the Law of Aimlessness. He lays out why we must develop our uniqueness in this world and why aimlessness leads to things like anxiety, depression, and insecurity. He argues that if we can engage in a career, a talent, a cause, or a personal mission that gives us a sense of purpose we are not only fueled to keep going, but it also helps us face the absurdities and tragedies of life.

When we charge forth with curiosity and a sense of purpose we tend to show up instead of shutting down. A healthy, thriving society depends on the electrifying energy of unique individuals who show up, in good faith by adhering to the base agreements and gifting the world with their talents and contributions.

Do we have to show up like everyone else? No. And I reject any notion that says we have to or must show up like everyone else. Think back to Greene’s quote about maintaining your rationality as an individual and, instead, cultivate actions that align with YOU. Sometimes this means you may feel isolated. However, there may be times when you decide to join forces with others around a common purpose and goal. It’s clear that there is power in numbers. And when the members of a group are focused and aligned in a pro-social manner, the ripple effects are undeniable.

What do I mean by “pro-social”? I mean the group allows for dissent and questions. You can freely come and go without fear or retribution or bodily harm. You can maintain your individuality while supporting the group. Otherwise, the group is leaning towards cultish behavior or, in the case of a government, authoritarianism. If you can leave, run.

Speaking of running, I am AMAZED that you have made it this far. Thank you for sticking with me and spending time with my words. It has taken me many, many hours and days to pull this together. One thing I am not is a fast writer! But I hope, at the very least, I added to your understanding of history, human nature, and purpose. I did include sources below so if you have any interest in further reading, there is plenty to keep you busy for a while.

Please keep showing up and looking people in the eyes. Please keep having hard conversations and being curious. Please keep focused on your purpose and try not to lose yourself in the 24-7, divisive fray that is our modern world.

We might not be able to create heaven on Earth, but we can minimize hell by doing our best with this tiny blip of time we have here.

Love,

Missy

Sources:

1. The Laws of Human Nature by Robert Greene

2. https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/chronology-mass-killings-during-chinese-cultural-revolution-1966-1976.html

*The widespread phenomenon of mass killings in the Cultural Revolution consisted of five types: 1) mass terror or mass dictatorship encouraged by the government – victims were humiliated and then killed by mobs or forced to commit suicide on streets or other public places; 2) direct killing of unarmed civilians by armed forces; 3) pogroms against traditional “class enemies” by government-led perpetrators such as local security officers, militias and mass; 4) killings as part of political witch-hunts (a huge number of suspects of alleged conspiratorial groups were tortured to death during investigations); and 5) summary execution of captives, that is, disarmed prisoners from factional armed conflicts. The most frequent forms of massacres were the first four types, which were all state-sponsored killings. The degree of brutality in the mass killings of the Cultural Revolution was very high. Usually, the victims perished only after first being humiliated, struggled and then imprisoned for a long period of time.

3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/the-cultural-revolution-50-years-on-all-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-political-convulsion

4. https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/cambodia

5. https://www.ushmm.org/teach/teaching-materials/roles-of-individuals/ethical-leaders/background/causes-and-motivations

6. https://www.pbs.org/tpt/dictators-playbook/episodes/idi-amin/

7. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html

8. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker

9. https://www.britannica.com/event/Rwanda-genocide-of-1994

10. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/modern-sunni-shia-tensions

11. https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/cambodia