93 International Journal of Psychophysiology, 8 (1989) 93-91

Elsevier

PSP 00230

Sociophilosophical essay

We do remember our humanity

T. Radil Institute of Physiology, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague (Czechoslovakra)

(Accepted 3 August 1988)

Activities of the International Organisation of Psychophysiology are oriented both toward devel- oping and facilitating scientific research in psy- chophysiology on an international scale, and to- wards the preservation of world peace. A contri- bution towards solving global problems of mankind may be accomplished by promoting ade- quate activities of scientists and adopting all the theoretical knowledge linked to psychophysiology available, and all the practical skills derived from it for the above purpose. Both facts mentioned are closely interrelated. As psychophysiology is dealing with research on the activities of the human brain, and everything human beings do is created by their brains, the humanistic orientation of psycho- physiology follows from its basic principles. The ethical basis of psychophysiology is close to that of medical sciences which are formulated by the Hippocratic oath. There is no doubt about the humanitarian impact of psychophysiology (Be- chtereva, 1986; Mangina, 1986).

The point of view of the International Organi- sation of Psychophysiology on the global prob- lems of the contemporary world, as demonstrated at its Third and Fourth International Conference in Vienna and Prague (1986, 1988), was close to that formulated by the peace movement of physi- cians, the significance of which has been highly appreciated by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The greatest danger threatening the world pre-

Correspondence: T. Radil, Institute of Physiology, Czechoslo- vak Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czechoslovakia.

sently is nuclear war. Nuclear armament and, linked with it, the threat of nuclear war, which began on a worldwide scale more than 43 years ago with the explosions of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Neel et al., 1985) has had among other things a fatal effect on the psychic balance and the mental health of many people.

Human life has always had, and always will have tragic aspects. People are born, they develop, work, transform nature in their own image and advance knowledge for their own benefit, found their families, have children, etc., but they also become ill, suffer and die. Under ordinary condi- tions, however, fear bordering on anxiety about death affects mainly those of the psychologically healthy population, apart from rare exceptions, who are directly threatened by their doom, i.e. primarily people who are seriously ill or old. For- tunately, other people are not permanently consci- ous of their human lot owing to defensive psycho- logical mechanisms, at least not to the extent that it might unfavourably influence their action and way of life or cause psychic difficulties that would go beyond the boundaries of normality. They live as if they were to live for ever and it is good that this is the case.

The menace of nuclear destruction, however, substantially changes the situation for the worse (Frank, 1984; Radil, 1986). Unlike a variety of deaths, so to speak hitherto known, nuclear death is equally close to everybody. The same peril threatens the old as well as the young, adults as well as children, men as well as women, the sick as well as the healthy. The menace concerns all peo-

0167-8760/89/$03.50 6 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (Biomedical Division)

94

pie, regardless of intellectual, cultural, social, political, national, and all possible other dif- ferences. This is a new phenomenon which has important psychological and psychophysiological consequences. Nothing similar has ever been expe- rienced by mankind and nothing similar has ever threatened it.

The real danger is the sudden and simultaneous destruction of tens to hundreds of millions or billions of people, of whole families, generations, nations and civilizations, and also of everything produced by present and preceding generations, nations and civilizations. The menace of extinc- tion is not only to all mankind but is also to all advanced forms of the regular historical link be- tween generations. It is said that people die twice. The second time is when memory of them disap- pears from the consciousness of their descendants. Most people have ceased to believe, or they have at least doubts, in the illusion of life after death. But they suppose, and with a full right, that they will in a certain way “live” on after their inevita- ble individual end in the memory of their descen- dants or a wider human community to which they belong, and also in their work or achievements which they have created. We know that this “im- mortality”, if we understand it in a narrower individual sense, lasts shortly from the historical point of view, in the overwhelming majority of people only for 2 or 3 following generations. Then they are forgotten, and also direct traces of their actions vanish. In the biological as well as the social sense, however, a trace of them survives anonymously. Between the impossibility of a per- manent preservation of the individual and the preservation of the species there exists an indispu- table relationship. Knowledge of generation con- tinuity is a very important factor in a balanced acceptance of the human lot, which means mortal- ity and the objective as well as the subjective limitation of what an individual human being can experience and achieve in his or her life (here it holds true: “Ars longa vita brevis”). But each generation on the one hand continues to build upon what was created by the previous genera- tions, while on the other hand it is in turn fol- lowed by the next generation. The life and work of every individual is a part of a more permanent

existence of the wider human continuity. This is also one of the circumstances providing the in- dividual’s life with meaning.

This all holds true under usual conditions. A nuclear catastrophe, however, would mean the complete destruction of everything that was created before and would make impossible any organic continuation of what exists now, for their would be nobody left to survive and continue. Previous catastrophes of mankind, no matter how horrendous, were of a different nature. In spite of colossal human and material losses it was always possible to build upon something and it was al- ways possible to continue in some way. This may be illustrated by the Second World War (Radil- Weiss, 1983; Radil, 1984). The nuclear catastrophe would be absolute. More and more people throughout the world more or less realize the given aspects and particulars. and such conscious- ness is therefore not indifferent, neither from the existential point of view, nor from the point of view of forming one’s own individual ideas about the meaning of one’s life, social and personal motivation of individuals, mental and psycho- somatic balance, and even for the preservation of psychic health. Anxiety about nuclear death in a narrower clinical sense of the word is becoming a problem even in children and adolescents, as is testified by the work of psychiatrists (see Frank, 1984).

Apart from this, however, the above-mentioned feeling has a deep, multifarious, and entirely nega- tive influence on the general ideological and cult- ural atmosphere. A very negative role is played by incessant intense propaganda about the necessity of nuclear armament, allegedly in the interest of opposing some threat and balancing assumed, in reality non-existent, backwardness in this sphere. In the opinion of many psychiatrists, the growing wave of violence and death in fiction, films, plays for television and theatre. etc., is in the first place a reflection of the omnipresent and permanent menace of the nuclear catastrophe.

Also, narcomania as a social phenomenon has among other things its ideological and psychoso- cial causes, including general uncertainty and anxiety as well as a deformation of the system of values and loss of perspectives, all of which are

95

connected with the social crisis linked with the nuclear armament, the dissemination of war psychosis, and the threat of using weapons of mass destruction. Drugs are also one of the ways of escaping from reality. Another aspect concerns the endeavour “to enjoy as much as possible before the flood”. This attitude to life, linked with the over-emphasis on sex and the overestimation of consumer values, has a pronounced effect on culture and ideology. What is actually involved is a deformed and absurd application of the princi- ple, which is usually psychotherapeutically em- phasized with the intention of overcoming anxiety about near and predictable death, and which con- sists of the formation of consciousness, that under certain conditions the quality of life is more im- portant and substantial than its duration and that therefore every day should be lived through as if it were the last. But the real ‘philosophy’ of the above principle, consisting of the enrichment of life and the selection of individual experiences as well as actions that are most valuable from a deeply humane point of view, has nothing in com- mon with something resembling some convulsive orgy on a sinking ship.

Everything mentioned here has some aspects that in various ways go beyond the boundaries of what can be regarded as health under certain conditions, which concern psychophysiology as well as medicine (especially psychiatry) and cause great worry to scientists and physicians.

Nuclear armament and the possibility of using its results, however, have a deep impact on not only those whose lives they endanger, the over- whelming majority of whom cannot make direct decisions about them. The psychological and psy- chophysiological consequences of the qualitatively new situation, namely the menace of the total extinction of mankind, or of a large part of it, caused by human action, also concerns those who can more or less make decisions on nuclear weapons, or bear responsibility for their develop- ment, use, and employment for the purpose of psychological warfare, which actually means ex- ercising a mass psychological stress on the popula- tion by threatening physical liquidation.

The question is how can anybody assume the responsibility for such an extreme antihumane

decision and for an action which is in the maxi- mum contradiction of ethics? Are these individu- als mentally healthy? What are the psychological and psychophysiological mechanisms of their thinking and behaviour? These questions are not only justified but are also of exceptional impor- tance. Certain purposeful acts or accidental errors of such people could, after all, lead to irreparable consequences for mankind.

The development of weapons of mass destruc- tion is not in the hands of dullards but of scien- tists and technicians with the best brains, and the psychological and social circumstances of their dehumanization and demoralization, which form the condition of their action, are not only a theo- retical problem but also a practically important one. From this point of view there exist signals of warning from the activity of physicians in Nazi Germany (Lifton, 1982; Radil-Weiss, 1983) which reveal what could be done under certain condi- tions by some intellectuals serving the military- industrial, or more precisely, the military-scien- tific-industrial complex. It would also be a mis- take to underestimate the intellectual level of those who control the weapons of mass destruction.

Obviously, it would be a great error to try to reduce specific and complex social laws that are of decisive importance to historical development in the world to mere psychic events and to try to explain what happened, or could happen, exclu- sively by means of mental processes taking place inside the heads of some - even though important _ individuals. The role of personalities in history is a complex question that lies outside the scope of our subject. It is, however, doubtless of interest as well as importance to become acquainted with the opinions of specialists who are concerned with such psychological and psychopathological ques- tions (see Frank, 1984).

We could mention, for example, the false ex- pectation that it is possible to win a contingent nuclear war and survive unharmed as a nation, group, family or individual, and the unrealistic conviction that one’s own actions are always right and morally justified (the absolutization of own moral criteria), whereas those of the opponents are not. In accordance with such criteria the oppo- nents are qualified as something outside the

framework of humanity. That then provides an illusory justification for the destruction of the opponent in some kind of “holy war”. Holy wars, however. never ended with the achievement of some real, even though unjust, goals such as gain- ing a certain territory or subjugating its popula- tion, etc., but either by the destruction of the opponent, possibly by the eradication of the sys- tem of his world outlook and values, or by the total exhaustion of both sides (Frank, 1984). In the present situation, it would end with the defi- nite and complete nuclear destruction not only of the two main opponents but most likely of human civilization.

Another important risk factor seemingly reliev- ing responsible people of a direct personal re- sponsibility for what may happen with nuclear weapons is the application of computers. From the technical circumstances connected with the exceptionally high speed of the flight of intercon- tinental rockets and medium-range missiles, which are the carriers of nuclear heads, it follows that nuclear weapons are directly controlled not by men but by computers. An illusive idea can ap- pear that machines and not people make decisions and are responsible for whether or not the nuclear conflict will begin. It is as if people were dominated by machines and the servants have become the masters.

All the above circumstances can probably re- ally contribute not only to the “alibiism” of some of the people responsible but also to the strengthening of the fatalism of the population. On the whole, however, it is clear that those who make decisions mask their activity by the fairy-tale about the governing of computers.

It is evident that such explanations have a certain significance but that they are rather simple and hardly sufficient to provide an adequate idea about possible psychosocial and psychopathologi- cal mechanisms important from the point of view of the role of the individuals participating in deci- sions concerning the start of the nuclear conflict. Apart from this it is necessary at all times to bear in mind the primary role of not individually psy- chological but of social determinants of historical phenomena, including the nuclear danger.

Apart from the above circumstances, an im-

portant role is now probably being played by psychological factors that also operated in the demoralization of intellectuals in Nazi Germany (Lifton, 1982; Radil-Weiss, 1983; Radil, 1984, 1986). The transfer of responsibility to superiors: for instance, soldiers and scientitsts pretend that they did not develop and actively manipulate deadly weapons, but merely implemented some innocent technical projects the use of which is to be decided upon by the superior politicians. The mechanism of “a lesser evil under unchangeable circumstances”; for example, pointing out the necessity of defense against an illusory threat from outside that is allegedly even more dangerous. The inversion of psychological roles such that agres- sors regard themselves as being endangered. The bureaucratic and technical dehumanization of the prepared murderous machinery, influenced mark- edly by the above-mentioned cybernetization of military nuclear programmes. The technical and organizational perfection of the entire - in princi- ple criminal - system created for the mass killing of millions of people, a perfection one can even be proud of.

Two more recent pseudoarguments may be ad- ded to the above. The first of them speaks about the humane significance of armament from the point of view of the advancement of top science and technology. This unjustified pseudoargument may come in handy as a means of the dehumani- zation of specialists (including psychologists, psy- chophysiologists and physicians) participating in the development and improvement of the weapons of mass destruction. This is something relatively new that was not so relevant in former times; it is some monstrous consequence of the scientific and technical revolution gone wrong.

The second pseudoargument is a consequence of the misapplication and vulgarization of the advancement of biological sciences. It is based upon scientifically unjustified sociobiological re- flections (Wilson, 1975) concerning the aggressive nature of man, presumably typical of the species (Lorenz, 1966) and following from the inherited programmes of behaviour encoded in the human brain. Wars, although a social phenomenon. are alleged to be a direct consequence of these un- alterable individual characteristics. To say that

97

wars are necessary because people are naturally violent lacks any scientific justification from the neurosciences, including psychophysiology and other disciplines. No biological law predestines man to actually start a nuclear war and destroy himself. Rather the opposite is true: through the conscious activity of people the law of the pre- servation of the individual as well as the human species is put into effect.

It is, of course, essential that the understanding in itself of the subjective as well as objective determinants of thinking and possible behaviour of those who prepare the nuclear catastrophe does not free the people who are marked for the role of victims from fear and anxiety. In reality not only the first but also the second would be victims. But it would be unreal to presume that the mere knowledge of this danger would stop the instiga- tors of a nuclear war. This knowledge is the real and actual psychological source of the behaviour of the instigators of the nuclear conflict, which still has its importance, however, among other things from the point of view of understanding and predicting their behaviour, and also for re- vealing them as individuals who are often, as history shows, antisocial and sometimes psycho- pathic.

The nuclear armament, when understanding its dangerous consequences, quite clearly has negative consequences from the point of view of mental balance, of happiness and contentment, and some- times even of the mental health of a great number of people. In spite of this, it is not necessary to be silent on these risks but on the contrary to speak about them so that as many people as possible become aware of them. This holds true every- where, as the whole world is endangered. But it is not only a case of the mobilization of world public opinion, the aim of the world peace movement, which is an effective social and political means of fighting against the nuclear danger. Rather, an active approach to the problems linked with a possible nuclear catastrophe is also of psychother- apeutic and preventive importance in relation to being free from anxiety about nuclear death.

In the complex dialectics of contemporary world development, the preparation of the nuclear war contributes, on the one hand, to the division of

mankind. On an international scale, a difficult and complex struggle between the forces of progress and reaction are taking place. It is necessary to become involved in the interest of progress, and we are justified in believing that progress will win. On the other hand, however, the defence against the nuclear catastrophe unites all those who act in the interest of the survival of mankind. All people are threatened by the same danger, and all normal and honest people all over the world share similar worries, desires and hopes about the human lot.

What has been said is of special relevance for scientists including psychophysiologists. The rnili- tarization of science is of utmost importance in the global danger threatening mankind. Dernili- tarization of science and its orientation toward projects of basic humanitarian significance should therefore be one of the principal strategic goals not only of scientists themselves but of everybody and should form an indispensable component of the effort of all progressive forces towards world peace. Peace is in fact the basic and most imper- ative question of humanity. And we as scientists should and do remember our humanity.

REFERENCES

Bechtereva, N.P. (1986) Vice-Presidential Address. Third Inter-

national Conference, International Organization of Psycho-

physiology, Vienna, July 1986. Frank, J.D. (1984) Nuclear death: an unprecedented challenge

to psychiatry and religion. Am. J. Psychiatry, 141:

1343-1348.

Lifton, R.L. (1982) Medical killing in Auschwitz. Psychumy,

45: 283-297.

Lorenz, K. (1966) On aggresion. Harcourt, Brace and World.

New York.

Mangina, C.A. (1986) Prmdenrial Address. Thud International Conference, International Organization of Psychophysi-

ology, Vienna, July 1986.

Neel, J.V., Beebe, G.W. and Miller, R.W. (1985) Delayed biomedical effects of the bombs. Bull. Atomc Sci., 40:

72-75.

Radil-Weiss, T. (1983) Men in extreme conditions: some medi-

cal and psychological aspects of the Auschwitz concentra- tion camp. Psychiatty, 46: 259-269.

Radil, T. (1984) On the basic problem of medical ethics. From

curing to killing, from physicians to murderers. Praktick$

Gkai, 64: 561-566 (in Czech).

Radil, T. (1986) Anxiety about nuclear death. Praktickj Ekai.

66: 201-204 (in Czech).

Wilson, E.O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synfhesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.