Preventing Armageddon in the 21st Century by Mort Deutsch

Psychologists for Social Responsibility pamphlet for the 2005 and 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conferences

Much of the world is understandably gripped by moral outrage, immersed in justifiable positions in the aftermath of the Hamas massacre. With more than enough focus on right and wrong in the media, I will instead address approaches designed to reduce violence and transform the conflict.

While revenge-based actions may seem appropriate, they are counterproductive, inevitably escalating violence. Taking actions that are emotionally compelling usually makes matters worse. Concrete thinking about defeating terrorism leads to actions that in fact increase terrorism.

I will be posting several pieces introducing evidence-based, problem-solving, tension-reducing approaches to reversing cycles of violence, grounded in social sciences, political psychology and conflict analysis, as I did on My 2009 Warning to Obama about Gaza.

Below is a clear, short pamphlet, written by Professor Morton Deutsch for Psychologists for Social Responsibility(PsySR). It speaks to the heightened danger of the current moment. He gave me the 1984 version to distribute at the 2005 UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (RevCon), where I represented PsySR as a member of civil society. Below is his revision for the 2010 UN NPT RevCon, renamed “Preventing Armageddon in the 21^st Century.”

Mort Deutsch was a President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, the International Society of Political Psychology, Psychologists for Social Responsibility and founding member of the World Dignity University initiative and Global Advisory Board Member of the Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies organization. Note that humiliation is a dangerous emotion and a major factor in violence and terrorism. In 1986, Deutsch founded the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (ICCCR) at Columbia University. He died in March 2017 at the age of 97, and was active until the end. He was a beloved supportive colleague and mentor to many.

Psychologists for Social Responsibility at the UN NPT

A highlight of my personal and professional life was my active participation in Psychologists for Social Responsibility^[1] (PsySR), beginning in 1996. I was honored to co-chair the Committee on Global Violence and Security with Marc Pilisuk, author of  The Hidden Structure of Violence: Who Benefits from Global Violence and War and a handbook on Using Psychology to Help Abolish Nuclear Weapons with Jamie Rowen.

PsySR “was created in 1982, during the height of the Cold War, with the mission of using psychological skills and knowledge to reduce the threat of nuclear war.”  PsySR is the 501(c)(3) associated with the American Psychological Association’s Division 48, The Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence. It also overlaps with APA’s Division 9, SPSSI, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, founded in 1936, “to imagine how psychology could better serve society.”

I attended several of the UN NPT conferences as a civil society representative for PsySR, endeavoring to go deeper than the calls to eliminate nuclear weapons by raising consciousness about conflict analysis and the need to address the underlying dynamics.

Here is Mort’s pamphlet.

PSYCHOLOGISTS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Preventing Armageddon in the 21st Century by Morton Deutsch, Ph.D.

Revised for the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, May, 2010

Some conflicts – whether between spouses, labor and management, or nations – seem to escalate out of control. They follow a malignant course toward outcomes that nobody wants. People who are caught up in such conflict usually find ample justification for blaming the other party. It seldom occurs to the opponents to look hard at the conflict itself, including the conditions that intensify it or might de-escalate it.

Psychologists and other social scientists are well acquainted with such conflicts. Conflict research yields knowledge that has been successfully applied and can be productively applied to the conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis, India and Pakistan, the volatile situation with Iran, and other conflicts that seem to be stuck in the kind of escalating sequence that could lead to continued mutual harm. The findings of research on conflict do not replace the need for expert understanding of our antagonists or of the technical side of arms negotiation. But focusing on the typical characteristics of the conflict process itself, rather than exclusively on the characteristics and motives of our antagonists, may suggest a different approach for dealing with an adversary. How we define the problem determines where we look for solutions.

What do we know about malignant conflicts – ones that lead to bad results from everybody’s standpoint?

A win-or-lose orientation tend to escalate conflicts. Under controlled laboratory conditions research has shown that when the participants define a conflict as a win or lose situation, several consequences are predictable: a) communication is impaired, reinforcing existing stereotypes and encouraging misinformation and error; b) the opponents become more suspicious of each other, more sensitive to difference and threats, and c) each party becomes convinced that a solution to the conflict can only be found through superior force or by outwitting the antagonist. Thus, disputes over specific issues that might be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties become struggles solely for superior power.

Malignant conflicts encourage misperception and misjudgments that yield unwanted results. Research shows that during such conflicts, each party tends to perceive its own behavior more favorably than the other’s, and to look at the conflict from a “blaming” rather than “problem-solving” point of view. As the conflict escalates, the actions taken by each party commit each more deeply to policies that perpetuate the conflict; the opponents thus become locked into their positions of self-interest rather than open to exploring mutually desirable policies and programs. Information communications and contact, which might mitigate the conflict, are reduced. All parties become so focused on winning that they readily lose sight of their basic interests – which is the case of many intractable conflicts whether at the interpersonal or international levels.

Psychological experiments suggest that when one party in a conflict attempts to increase its security without regard for the security of the other party, the attempt readily becomes self-defeating. Such a situation is potentially catastrophic when the stakes involve nuclear war. If military inferiority is dangerous, so is superiority. It is dangerous for either side in a conflict to feel tempted or frightened into action, or to have grounds to believe that its antagonist might be so tempted or frightened. According to this analysis, our security and that of an adversary can only be obtained through our mutual security.

Conflict research provides no easy answers to our difficult conflicts. However, by focusing on factors involved in the dynamics of the conflict itself, rather than simply on the blameworthiness of our opponent, conflict research has highlighted the need for different strategies from those that follow from our own blind involvement in the conflict process. Such strategies ought to include initiatives aimed at opening communication and finding common objectives. Neither party in a conflict has a complete monopoly on good or evil. Neither is insane. It is the conflict process that is crazy. With imagination, patience, and commitment, we can do something about that.

References

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frank, J. D. Sanity and survival in the nuclear age. (1962). New York: Random House. Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Psychologists for Social Responsibility seeks to bring greater psychological knowledge and public awareness to the many issues highlighted in this brief overview.

This perspective is adapted from an earlier publication, “Preventing Armageddon,” by Morton Deutsch and Brewster Smith, published by the American Psychological Association.

---

^[1] Mission Statement: Psychologists for Social Responsibility is an engaged community of members and supporters who work to advance peace and social justice through the ethical use of psychological knowledge, research, and practice. Representing a variety of cultural and disciplinary perspectives, we recognize diversity as a valuable resource in our efforts to address economic, racial, and gender-based injustices and other forms of oppression. We believe that peace with justice in an environmentally sustainable world depends upon a commitment to global well-being, universal human rights, mutual understanding, and collaborative partnerships in the pursuit of change.