Social Norm Violation as a cause of war.

It is odd how easy people fall into habits. What is deemed usual and accepted is known to psychologists as social norms. People fall into the habit of accepting certain things as how they “should be”. When something that “should be” is changed, that is, when a social norm is violated people react negatively. As seen in multiple lab experiments <(Schreiber, Darren 2009), (Mary B. McPherson a; Patricia Kearney a; Timothy G. Plax a )> People tend to anger when a social norm violation occurs. This anger can be seen in both individuals and groups and can be on grounds as broad as religion or as simplistic as clothing color.

By looking back at such conflicts as the cold war and the Second World War, it is possible to see how the violation of social norms may cause escalation and increased tension in a war. The fight against the Japanese and the Germans during the Second World War was, according to much propaganda (http://www.vulture-bookz.de/imagebank/Propaganda/images/1942x~This_is_the_Enemy_US_%5B2%5D.jpg), a fight against communism. According to anti-communist campaign writers and artists, communism was the main threat to the U.S.A.’s democratic way of life, the main threat to the norm. As in the lab experiments, people gained a purely negative attitude to the people who broke the democratic norm of the time. This tension even went so far as to put Japanese Americans in camps so as to keep the norm safe. Communism was different, thus it was the enemy.

Social norm violation can also be attributed to the start of America’s involvement World War II. Because the Japanese saw America as different, and thus a threat, they made a preemptive strike at Pearl Harbor. America was in violation of the Japanese social norm, thus anger in Japan built against America. This anger inevitable caused the Japanese to violate a social norm of America, life, thus America fought back. Although a system where all countries have the same social norm is not possible, it is possible to look objectively at the differences between countries or groups of people to see where tension lies and how to properly deal with any aggression that may occur. By studying what makes social groups different and how they interact with other groups, it is possible to stall or even prevent another conflict from happening.

Recources
-(http://www.vulture-bookz.de/imagebank/Propaganda/images/1942x~This_is_the_Enemy_US_%5B2%5D.jpg),
- Schreiber, Darren. "Race and Norm Violation: A Functional Brain Imaging Study" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Classical Chinese Garden, Portland, Oregon USA, . 2009-05-24 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p204555_index.html
- a Mary B. McPherson is an Assistant Professor, and Patricia Kearney and Timothy G. Plax are Professors of Communication Studies at California State University, Long Beach. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713770975~db=all?tab=citations

North vs. South

The Civil War raged in America from 1861-1865, splitting it between North and South. Nearly 700,000 people from both sides lost their lives fighting a war whose meaning can be boiled down to one ideal, slavery. But with the masses of differing opinions on different subjects, how could an entire nation be brought down to one yes or no answer? The answer may lie in the psychological principals of group think and group mentality.
Group mentality is a social phenomenon seen in many aspects of society such as jobs, schools, and homes. It occurs when a group becomes completely polarized to a certain thought without any differing opinions. Though the members of the group may have slightly differing opinions to start with, over time those opinions blur into a set ideal. One modern example of this can be seen at football games. Each team has its own fans who think it is the better team, the fans may both look at the statistics showing the other team to truly be better, but they believe in their team either way. This however detracts from the thoughts of the individual until there is no individual, only a crowed of fans. The same effect can be seen in The Civil War. Although there may have been some dissenting opinion on one side at the beginning, during the midst of the war, the only thing separating people was their respective "team". Because people saw themselves as Northerners or Southerners, with no mid ground, there was no room for the individual mind.
In times such as this it is not uncommon for leaders to emerge. The only problem is that these leaders will tend not only to lead the actions of their people, but also their minds. This is known as group think. The individuals of a group make their decisions based solely on the thoughts of one member. When looking back at General Custard's last stand, it is obvious that the challenges his men faced would have been incredible. However because Custard wanted to fight, his men gave up their own rational thoughts for his. Lincoln himself became an icon to the North, and there were times in the war where his thoughts lead hundreds to fight.
When mankind tosses away its greatest gifts, rationality, reason, and thought, it delves into a darker and more primal state. Such large group movements as the Civil war can be seen in many other conflicts such as WWII Nazi vs. Jew, or the middle eastern Palestine Vs. Israeli. When the individual mind is taken away and people attribute themselves to something other than themselves, conflict arises. War will not end when all people share the same views, but when people are willing to think for themselves and not go with what the majority thinks, just to fit in. When individuality is taken away and the group mindset takes over, the world can be split in two.

Resources
~ Davis, Burke. "The Civil War, Strange and Fascinating Facts,". Wings, 1988.
~ http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/groupthink.html
~ http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/2451

War junkies

Addiction is defined as being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming. From the time man crafted their first tools there has been conflict. The first ever recorded war was c. 2700B.C. (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0004.htm). This primal action has been repeated so much by man that it has become imprinted into our vary genes. Humans have become addicted to war. So much use over such a long time has caused humans to see war as a constant threat. Because war is always thought of by humans, it is always effecting humans. We are like a junkie, constantly thinking about when we will get our next supply, although instead of anticipation, fear is the usual response.

So why are people addicted to war? As like most junkies, there is a certain "high" offered with war. Adrenalin will pump as war campaigns are fought and propaganda is spread across the home-fronts. The mentality of the country becomes focused on the war above all else. Not much different from a junkie experiencing a long awaited high. A junkie also believes that they "need" their drug. Countless wars have been fought based on "need". In the case it is not war itself people are addicted to, but what war offers. Prizes and comfort for the winner. No country goes to war expecting to lose just as no junkie expects to get a dose of their respected drug that proves to be lethal, but it does happen.

Another interesting fact about addiction is that, over time, a tolerance is built up. More and more of the drug is needed each time to experience a "high". This will inevitably lead to an overdose, which is potentiality lethal to the junkie. From the first recorded war, the size war and the effort put in by the countries behind them have grown exponentially. Medieval wars never saw more than tens of thousands dead, during the 17th and 18th century, wars may have had a million dead. The World came close to "overdose" in the early 20th century with WWI and WWII. More than 100,000,000 total deaths occurred during and because of these wars. However as with other junkies, the world did not kick its habit, but merely lowed its dose. Thus the cycle starts again.

Viewing war as an addiction, it is possible to treat it. Going cold turkey would be the best route; however this would bring "withdrawals" in the form of heavy tension between the countries after a while. People could learn to wean themselves off of war, but this would still require war to exist, thus deaths would occur. It is unsure the route needed to break humans of this primal addiction, but with the possibility of another "overdose" occurring, a solution is needed fast.

War as a Sterotyped Action

War as a stereotyped action
The "stereotyped action" is an action that is repeated multiple times by a person in order to fulfill some form of inner need or desire. It is seen many times in cases of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and other mental illnesses. The action is preformed either unknowingly by the person or under full conscious direction in order to gain some form of mental or physical reward, although that reward is never achieved. Consequently, the act of doing something repeatedly and expecting a purely different result is accepted by many psychologists as insanity. Throughout human history a single stereotyped action has defined and shaped human existence. War.
Over and over again humanity has fought in countless wars. From the first inter-tribe wars our ancestors fought, to the modern "total war" mentality and large scale conflicts that engulf entire countries in battle. From news coverage, documentaries, and firsthand accounts, people have grown knowledgeable about the true horrors of war and the wreckage it leaves behind. War is often described as a tragedy, a horrific display of mankind's brutality, or a dark stain in the course of human history. So why is it that this action is repeated multiple times in multiple places across the globe? The consequences of war are well known and many people detest the idea of so much guaranteed loss for so little possible gain. Simple compromise may have avoided many of these altercations. Why do people always expect a different outcome when engaging war? The simple answer is insanity.
If it is so hard to believe that humanity as a whole can be insane, then look at smaller cases of the stereotyped action in people. Nail biting affects millions of people across the world; a person constantly whittles down their nail until it is to a point where the person feels mentally stable again. Although nail biting is a small illness, it still shows that one small mental trait can be shared by millions upon millions of people, even though there may be no contact between the individuals. War is only a larger scale nail biting phenomenon. It is an action which humans repeat, always expecting some form of liberation, justice, or wealth.
In the end it is always the same however. People will have asked why a war ever happened, land is made uninhabitable, and, as of less than 200 years ago, mental illnesses such as shell-shock become a soldier's standard (http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/shellshock.htm). If people know what is going to happen because of war and know the price of fighting possibly outweighing the rewards, why does it even occur at all? Why is this stereotyped action taking over rational human thought? The simple answer is, insanity.

References:
~Hart, Bernard. The Psychology of Insanity. Toronto, Canada: The Macmillan Co., 1916.
~Web M.D, "Nail-Biting - Topic Overview". Healthwise. 9/26/2009 .
~http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/shellshock.htm