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

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.