Citation

Nordstrom C. Aggressive Behav. 1998; 24(2): 147-159.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1998, International Society for Research on Aggression, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Research at the frontlines of wars shows that the realities of war are quite different from the public presentations of war. The experiences of those surviving in the midst of war are frequently worlds apart from the "images" of political violence (mis)portrayed in public media, formal military texts, the literature, and war museums. This has allowed for a number of myths about war and human aggression to hold sway in both academic and popular culture that, as the basis for policies, can actually further harm those subjected to war. For example, although the vast majority of cultural and military treatises on war focus on soldiers, more children than soldiers are killed in wars in the world today. If this core reality of war is omitted from analyses, solutions become impossible. On the other hand, people often look at statistics like these and decry the inevitability of aggression in human nature and society. Yet, data from combat soldiers have shown that through much of modern history, the majority of combat soldiers on the front lines do not fire their weapons, at least not at other humans. They do not flee war, but they cannot bring themselves to kill others. When these facts are excluded from public discourse on political violence, we sacrifice our potential for understanding the human capacity for peacebuilding. Without actual war zone research-research conducted at the front lines of wars-it is impossible to distinguish between fact and fiction in these formal presentations of war. In exploring some of the common myths about war and comparing them with data collected at the front lines, this article examines the question of why these myths emerge with such force and chronicles the cultural construction of aggression. In conclusion, the article suggests that a new kind of empiricism is necessary for studying such difficult, dangerous, and complex phenomena as political aggression and peacebuilding. It is an empiricism that necessitates both sophisticated methodological tools attuned to wartime realities and theoretical insights capable of explaining them. Examples take the reader through key dilemmas and solutions in the search for a more representative, and responsible, understanding of political violence and peace.