posted by Jerry on Jun 11
It may seem entirely natural to kill, but long-time evidence implies otherwise. While aggression is not unusual to the human species, so are altruistic impulses born of self-awareness and identification with The Other. This is why armies from ancient Roman legionnaires to modern-day infantrymen must steadily drill their recruits and continue to condition even plenty of their combat vets in murderous behaviors.
For example, as far back as Roman times it was observed that men had a natural aversion to stabbing, preferring to slash with their swords instead. Stabbing, intentionally and forcibly thrusting a blade into an opponent, was generally evaded by most beginners to war because, we may surmise, people simply have an almost instinctual desire not to inflict fatalities at least not at such close ranges.
After WWII, to cite another instance, studies conducted by the United States military revealed that less than 1/2 of all squaddies actually fired their weapons, even when fired on themselves. This is the reason why the primary mission of basic training in the military any military, since time immemorial has been conditioning the psychology of recruits to kill on command.
Indeed, such conditioning masks the killing act, the killing behavior, not as killing but as the obeying of a command; psychologically, one no longer kills as such but merely replies to orders by pulling a trigger or pushing a button.
And the more of an interface there’s between attacker and victim the simpler it is to kill. This appears sensible, naturally it’s much tougher to kill someone face to face than to kill him remotely through a videolink. It is also much more traumatic for the murderer. And so it is that armies focus their efforts on securing obedience, for military operations involve teamwork and it’s the one puny link that may break the chain.
Leave a Reply