The Seville Statement on Violence
Preparing the ground for the construction of peace
Disseminated by decision of the General Conference of UNESCO at its twenty-fifth session, Paris, 16 November 1989.
Edited with commentary by David Adams. UNESCO, 1991.
Note for online edition: Two sections have been omitted from the original 1991 edition because they are out of date: Other sources of peace education from UNESCO and Seville Statement resource contacts.
Edited with commentary by David Adams. UNESCO, 1991.
Note for online edition: Two sections have been omitted from the original 1991 edition because they are out of date: Other sources of peace education from UNESCO and Seville Statement resource contacts.
What Is the Seville Statement on Violence?
The Seville Statement on Violence is a scientific statement which says peace is possible, because war is not a biological necessity. The Statement was written by an international team of specialists in 1986 for the United Nations sponsored International Year of Peace and its follow-up. The Statement was based on the latest scientific evidence, and it has been endorsed by scientific and professional organizations around the world.
The Seville Statement says there is nothing in our biology which is an unsurmountable obstacle to the abolition of war and other institutional violence. It says that war is a social invention, and that peace can be invented to replace it. The Statement consists of an introduction, five propositions, and a conclusion. Each of the five propositions challenges a particular mis-statement that has been used to justify war and violence.
The Statement was adopted by UNESCO in 1989. This brochure is part of UNESCO's effort to disseminate the Statement for use in programs of education for peace and international understanding. It is designed for use by secondary school teachers, youth leaders, and others who want to work for peace by challenging the myths used to justify violence and war.
In the following pages the various parts of the Seville Statement are presented on the left side of the brochure and commentary is presented on the right side. First, however, two other sections are needed: The Seville Statement in Plain Words; and Why a Statement on Violence is Needed.
The Seville Statement says there is nothing in our biology which is an unsurmountable obstacle to the abolition of war and other institutional violence. It says that war is a social invention, and that peace can be invented to replace it. The Statement consists of an introduction, five propositions, and a conclusion. Each of the five propositions challenges a particular mis-statement that has been used to justify war and violence.
The Statement was adopted by UNESCO in 1989. This brochure is part of UNESCO's effort to disseminate the Statement for use in programs of education for peace and international understanding. It is designed for use by secondary school teachers, youth leaders, and others who want to work for peace by challenging the myths used to justify violence and war.
In the following pages the various parts of the Seville Statement are presented on the left side of the brochure and commentary is presented on the right side. First, however, two other sections are needed: The Seville Statement in Plain Words; and Why a Statement on Violence is Needed.
The Seville Statement in Plain Words
Introduction
This Statement is a message of hope. It says that peace is possible and that wars can be ended. It says that the suffering of war can be ended, the suffering of people who are injured and die, and the suffering of children who are left without home or family. It says that instead of preparing for war, we can use the money for things like teachers, books, and schools, and for doctors, medicines, and hospitals.
We who wrote this Statement are scientists from many countries, North and South, East and West. The Statement has been endorsed and published by many organizations of scientists around the world, including anthropologists, ethologists (animal behavior), physiologists, political scientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists.
We have studied the problem of war and violence with today's scientific methods. Of course, knowledge is never final, and someday people will know better than we know today. But we have a responsibility to speak out on the basis of the latest information.
Some people say that violence and war cannot be ended because they are part of our natural biology. We say that is not true. People used to say that slavery and domination by race and sex were part of our biology. Some people even claimed they could prove these things scientifically. We now know they were wrong. Slavery has been ended and now the world is working to end domination by race and sex.
Five Propositions
1. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that war cannot be ended because animals make war and because people are like animals. First, it is not true because animals do not make war. Second, it is not true because we are not just like animals. Unlike animals, we have human culture that we can change. A culture that has war in one century may change and live at peace with their neighbors in another century.
2. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that war cannot be ended because it is part of human nature. Arguments about human nature cannot prove anything because our human culture gives us the ability to shape and change our nature from one generation to another.
It is true that the genes that are transmitted in egg and sperm from parents to children influence the way we act. But it is also true that we are influenced by the culture in which we grow up and that we can take responsibility for our own actions.
3. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that violence cannot be ended because people and animals who are violent are able to live better and have more children than others. Actually, the evidence shows that people and animals do best when they learn how to work well with each other.
4. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that we have to be violent because of our brain. The brain is part of our body like our legs and hands. They can all be used for cooperation just as well as they can be used for violence. Since the brain is the physical basis of our intelligence, it enables us to think of what we want to do and what we ought to do. And since the brain has a great capacity for learning, it is possible for us to invent new ways of doing things.
5. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that war is caused by "instinct." Most scientists do not use the term "instinct" anymore because none of our behavior is so determined that it cannot be changed by learning. Of course, we have emotions and motivations like fear, anger, sex, and hunger, but we are each responsible for the way we express them. In modern war, the decisions and actions of generals and soldiers are not usually emotional. Instead, they are doing their jobs the way they have been trained. When soldiers are trained for war and when people are trained to support a war, they are taught to hate and fear an enemy. The most important question is why they are trained and prepared that way in the first place by political leaders and the mass media.
Conclusion
We conclude that we are not condemned to war and violence because of our biology. Instead, it is possible for us to end war and the suffering it causes. We cannot do it by working alone, but only by working together. However, it makes a big difference whether or not each one of us believes that we can do it. Otherwise, we may not even try. War was invented in ancient times, and in the same way we can invent peace in our time. It is up to each of us to do our part.
This Statement is a message of hope. It says that peace is possible and that wars can be ended. It says that the suffering of war can be ended, the suffering of people who are injured and die, and the suffering of children who are left without home or family. It says that instead of preparing for war, we can use the money for things like teachers, books, and schools, and for doctors, medicines, and hospitals.
We who wrote this Statement are scientists from many countries, North and South, East and West. The Statement has been endorsed and published by many organizations of scientists around the world, including anthropologists, ethologists (animal behavior), physiologists, political scientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists.
We have studied the problem of war and violence with today's scientific methods. Of course, knowledge is never final, and someday people will know better than we know today. But we have a responsibility to speak out on the basis of the latest information.
Some people say that violence and war cannot be ended because they are part of our natural biology. We say that is not true. People used to say that slavery and domination by race and sex were part of our biology. Some people even claimed they could prove these things scientifically. We now know they were wrong. Slavery has been ended and now the world is working to end domination by race and sex.
Five Propositions
1. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that war cannot be ended because animals make war and because people are like animals. First, it is not true because animals do not make war. Second, it is not true because we are not just like animals. Unlike animals, we have human culture that we can change. A culture that has war in one century may change and live at peace with their neighbors in another century.
2. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that war cannot be ended because it is part of human nature. Arguments about human nature cannot prove anything because our human culture gives us the ability to shape and change our nature from one generation to another.
It is true that the genes that are transmitted in egg and sperm from parents to children influence the way we act. But it is also true that we are influenced by the culture in which we grow up and that we can take responsibility for our own actions.
3. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that violence cannot be ended because people and animals who are violent are able to live better and have more children than others. Actually, the evidence shows that people and animals do best when they learn how to work well with each other.
4. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that we have to be violent because of our brain. The brain is part of our body like our legs and hands. They can all be used for cooperation just as well as they can be used for violence. Since the brain is the physical basis of our intelligence, it enables us to think of what we want to do and what we ought to do. And since the brain has a great capacity for learning, it is possible for us to invent new ways of doing things.
5. It is scientifically incorrect when people say that war is caused by "instinct." Most scientists do not use the term "instinct" anymore because none of our behavior is so determined that it cannot be changed by learning. Of course, we have emotions and motivations like fear, anger, sex, and hunger, but we are each responsible for the way we express them. In modern war, the decisions and actions of generals and soldiers are not usually emotional. Instead, they are doing their jobs the way they have been trained. When soldiers are trained for war and when people are trained to support a war, they are taught to hate and fear an enemy. The most important question is why they are trained and prepared that way in the first place by political leaders and the mass media.
Conclusion
We conclude that we are not condemned to war and violence because of our biology. Instead, it is possible for us to end war and the suffering it causes. We cannot do it by working alone, but only by working together. However, it makes a big difference whether or not each one of us believes that we can do it. Otherwise, we may not even try. War was invented in ancient times, and in the same way we can invent peace in our time. It is up to each of us to do our part.
Why a Statement on Violence Is Needed
A statement on violence is needed to counteract certain widely held myths about violence. These myths stand in the way of constructing peace at every level from the family and local community to the world.
The constructing of peace begins in our minds as a vision of something new for the future. It should be based on respect for human rights and freedoms and understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial, and religious groups. It should condemn the use of war for expansion, aggression and domination and the use of force and violence for purposes of repression. The vision should be linked to action, to real events, and to work for peace which is taking place around the world.
At the same time as we construct a new vision, we need to clear away old myths that stand in the way. Just as it is necessary to clear the land before starting to build a house, so, too, it is necessary to clear away certain myths before we can build a new vision in the mind and create the confidence that it can be realized.
We need to clear away the myth which claims that war and violence are intrinsic to human nature and therefore inevitable. This is why the Seville Statement on Violence was written and why it is needed today.
The myth is widespread. Studies in Finland and the United States in 1984 and 1986 found that 52% and 44% of students, respectively, believed that "war is intrinsic to human nature." These are virtually the same results that were obtained in 1969 when a major survey was conducted of 5,000 university students in 18 nations. In most of these nations between 40% and 60% of the students believed that "war is a result of the inherent nature of men."
Scientific evidence has indicated that young people who believe the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature are less likely to believe they can do anything for peace. They are also less likely to take part in action for peace. On the other hand, if young people reject the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature, they are more likely to believe they can help to bring about peace, and they are more likely to take action for peace.
As psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud wrote to physicist Albert Einstein, "these two factors - man's cultural disposition and a well-founded fear of the form that future wars will take - may serve to put an end to war... But by what ways or byways this will come about, we cannot guess." They foresaw the task that now rests upon our generation, but it is up to us to find the ways to bring it about.
By teaching and disseminating the Seville Statement on Violence, we can use the collective wisdom and action of scientists as a tool to sweep away the myth that war and violence are inevitable. We can prepare the ground for the constructing of peace.
The constructing of peace begins in our minds as a vision of something new for the future. It should be based on respect for human rights and freedoms and understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial, and religious groups. It should condemn the use of war for expansion, aggression and domination and the use of force and violence for purposes of repression. The vision should be linked to action, to real events, and to work for peace which is taking place around the world.
At the same time as we construct a new vision, we need to clear away old myths that stand in the way. Just as it is necessary to clear the land before starting to build a house, so, too, it is necessary to clear away certain myths before we can build a new vision in the mind and create the confidence that it can be realized.
We need to clear away the myth which claims that war and violence are intrinsic to human nature and therefore inevitable. This is why the Seville Statement on Violence was written and why it is needed today.
The myth is widespread. Studies in Finland and the United States in 1984 and 1986 found that 52% and 44% of students, respectively, believed that "war is intrinsic to human nature." These are virtually the same results that were obtained in 1969 when a major survey was conducted of 5,000 university students in 18 nations. In most of these nations between 40% and 60% of the students believed that "war is a result of the inherent nature of men."
Scientific evidence has indicated that young people who believe the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature are less likely to believe they can do anything for peace. They are also less likely to take part in action for peace. On the other hand, if young people reject the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature, they are more likely to believe they can help to bring about peace, and they are more likely to take action for peace.
As psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud wrote to physicist Albert Einstein, "these two factors - man's cultural disposition and a well-founded fear of the form that future wars will take - may serve to put an end to war... But by what ways or byways this will come about, we cannot guess." They foresaw the task that now rests upon our generation, but it is up to us to find the ways to bring it about.
By teaching and disseminating the Seville Statement on Violence, we can use the collective wisdom and action of scientists as a tool to sweep away the myth that war and violence are inevitable. We can prepare the ground for the constructing of peace.
The Seville Statement and Commentary
Introduction: First Part
The Seville Statement
Believing that it is our responsibility to address from our particular disciplines the most dangerous and destructive activities of our species, violence and war; recognizing that science is a human cultural product which cannot be definitive or all encompassing; and gratefully acknowledging the support of the authorities of Seville and representatives of the Spanish UNESCO, we, the undersigned scholars from around the world and from relevant sciences, have met and arrived at the following Statement on Violence. In it, we challenge a number of alleged biological findings that have been used, even by some in our disciplines, to justify violence and war. Because the alleged findings have contributed to an atmosphere of pessimism in our time, we submit that the open, considered rejection of these mis-statements can contribute significantly to the International Year of Peace.
Misuse of scientific theories and data to justify violence and war is not new but has been made since the advent of modern science. For example, the theory of evolution has been used to justify not only war, but also genocide, colonialism, and suppression of the weak.
Commentary
This is not the first time that UNESCO has dealt with the misuse of scientific theories. UNESCO, with the rest of the United Nations, was created after World War II to ensure that such a war would not occur again. That war had been made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of humanity, and by the propagation in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of humanity and races. The doctrine of inequality had been justified by pseudo-scientific theories.
Beginning in 1950, UNESCO convened a series of meetings of scientific experts who issued formal declarations on the subject of race. They asserted the fundamental unity of humanity and declared that we all belong to the same species. They said that the concept of race reflected a social image bound up with the physical appearance of individuals, rather than a scientific fact based on specific biological data.
Recognizing the work of these experts, UNESCO declared in 1978 that all scientists have a special responsibility. They should ensure, by all means available to them, that their research findings in the field of racial prejudice and practices are not misinterpreted. They should also assist the public in understanding such findings.
The responsibility was broadened at a meeting of scientists in Athens in 1981. Although the scientists had been convened by UNESCO to continue the work against the misuse of science for purposes of racism and racial discrimination, it was suggested that similar work should be carried out against the misuse of scientific concepts to justify domination and violence. Anthropologist Santiago Genovés pointed out misconceptions which arise from the careless use of scientific concepts, including a) confusion between the kinds of violence observable in most animals and those observed in humans; b) confusion between survival of the fittest and survival of the strongest; and c) confusion between natural causes and cultural causes.
That was the origin of the meeting in Seville.
Believing that it is our responsibility to address from our particular disciplines the most dangerous and destructive activities of our species, violence and war; recognizing that science is a human cultural product which cannot be definitive or all encompassing; and gratefully acknowledging the support of the authorities of Seville and representatives of the Spanish UNESCO, we, the undersigned scholars from around the world and from relevant sciences, have met and arrived at the following Statement on Violence. In it, we challenge a number of alleged biological findings that have been used, even by some in our disciplines, to justify violence and war. Because the alleged findings have contributed to an atmosphere of pessimism in our time, we submit that the open, considered rejection of these mis-statements can contribute significantly to the International Year of Peace.
Misuse of scientific theories and data to justify violence and war is not new but has been made since the advent of modern science. For example, the theory of evolution has been used to justify not only war, but also genocide, colonialism, and suppression of the weak.
Commentary
This is not the first time that UNESCO has dealt with the misuse of scientific theories. UNESCO, with the rest of the United Nations, was created after World War II to ensure that such a war would not occur again. That war had been made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of humanity, and by the propagation in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of humanity and races. The doctrine of inequality had been justified by pseudo-scientific theories.
Beginning in 1950, UNESCO convened a series of meetings of scientific experts who issued formal declarations on the subject of race. They asserted the fundamental unity of humanity and declared that we all belong to the same species. They said that the concept of race reflected a social image bound up with the physical appearance of individuals, rather than a scientific fact based on specific biological data.
Recognizing the work of these experts, UNESCO declared in 1978 that all scientists have a special responsibility. They should ensure, by all means available to them, that their research findings in the field of racial prejudice and practices are not misinterpreted. They should also assist the public in understanding such findings.
The responsibility was broadened at a meeting of scientists in Athens in 1981. Although the scientists had been convened by UNESCO to continue the work against the misuse of science for purposes of racism and racial discrimination, it was suggested that similar work should be carried out against the misuse of scientific concepts to justify domination and violence. Anthropologist Santiago Genovés pointed out misconceptions which arise from the careless use of scientific concepts, including a) confusion between the kinds of violence observable in most animals and those observed in humans; b) confusion between survival of the fittest and survival of the strongest; and c) confusion between natural causes and cultural causes.
That was the origin of the meeting in Seville.
Introduction: Second Part
The Seville Statement
We state our position in the form of five propositions. We are aware that there are many other issues about violence and war that could be fruitfully addressed from the standpoint of our disciplines, but we restrict ourselves here to what we consider a most important first step.
Commentary
Like all scientific statements, this cannot be the final word on the subject. Instead, it is an important first step.
Some people have criticized the Statement by saying, "How do you know that someday scientists may not learn new data and develop new theories which contradict what you say today?"
The Statement recognizes that "science is a human cultural product which cannot be definitive or all encompassing." The points made in the Statement represent our present state of knowledge. Future research will no doubt elaborate upon these points, but there is no reason to think that it will change them in essence.
Therefore, the Statement has drawn its conclusions as carefully as possible. It has tried in all cases to base the conclusions on scientific data and to state them in such a way that they do not claim more truth than the data can support. Where there were disagreements among the participants or where disagreements might be expected from other scientists and from various disciplines, the Statement did not address certain issues.
Thus, the Statement does not try to list the factors that cause war and institutional violence. These factors will be addressed in future work. UNESCO has decided to organize an international interdisciplinary seminar to study the cultural and social causes of violence as a contribution to further reflection on the subject.
The success of the Statement in drawing conclusions as carefully as possible can be measured by the large number of professional scientific organizations that have endorsed it.
You, the reader, are urged to consult the scientific publications on which the Statement is based. They are listed at the end of this brochure. Each of those publications also contains many references as well. Readers are urged to take part in the continuing scientific research and debate on this important matter, which may well intensify in the coming years.
We state our position in the form of five propositions. We are aware that there are many other issues about violence and war that could be fruitfully addressed from the standpoint of our disciplines, but we restrict ourselves here to what we consider a most important first step.
Commentary
Like all scientific statements, this cannot be the final word on the subject. Instead, it is an important first step.
Some people have criticized the Statement by saying, "How do you know that someday scientists may not learn new data and develop new theories which contradict what you say today?"
The Statement recognizes that "science is a human cultural product which cannot be definitive or all encompassing." The points made in the Statement represent our present state of knowledge. Future research will no doubt elaborate upon these points, but there is no reason to think that it will change them in essence.
Therefore, the Statement has drawn its conclusions as carefully as possible. It has tried in all cases to base the conclusions on scientific data and to state them in such a way that they do not claim more truth than the data can support. Where there were disagreements among the participants or where disagreements might be expected from other scientists and from various disciplines, the Statement did not address certain issues.
Thus, the Statement does not try to list the factors that cause war and institutional violence. These factors will be addressed in future work. UNESCO has decided to organize an international interdisciplinary seminar to study the cultural and social causes of violence as a contribution to further reflection on the subject.
The success of the Statement in drawing conclusions as carefully as possible can be measured by the large number of professional scientific organizations that have endorsed it.
You, the reader, are urged to consult the scientific publications on which the Statement is based. They are listed at the end of this brochure. Each of those publications also contains many references as well. Readers are urged to take part in the continuing scientific research and debate on this important matter, which may well intensify in the coming years.
First Proposition
The Seville Statement
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors. Although fighting occurs widely throughout animal species, only a few cases of destructive intra-species fighting between organized groups have ever been reported among naturally living species, and none of these involve the use of tools designed to be weapons. Normal predatory feeding upon other species cannot be equated with intra-species violence. Warfare is a peculiarly human phenomenon and does not occur in other animals.
The fact that warfare has changed so radically over time indicates that it is a product of culture. Its biological connection is primarily through language which makes possible the coordination of groups, the transmission of technology, and the use of tools. War is biologically possible, but it is not inevitable, as evidenced by its variation in occurrence and nature over time and space. There are cultures which have not engaged in war for centuries, and there are cultures which have engaged in war frequently at some times and not at others.
Commentary
Scientists have made many studies of animal behavior, including animal aggression. These studies were reviewed at Seville by Professor John Paul Scott, who has been one of the pioneers in this field of study.
The data reviewed at Seville lead to the conclusion that warfare is unique to humans. The inter-colony conflicts of ants, wolves, monkeys, and chimpanzees do not involve the use of tools, institutionalization, or verbal coordination of behavior, all of which are common to all human warfare. The behavior of animals has changed over time in the course of biological evolution. Human warfare, on the other hand, has changed in ways that are clearly due to cultural rather than biological evolution. Thus, in the relatively short time of recorded history, war has changed dramatically both in the nature of its military organization and in the nature of the weapons that are used.
The work at Seville was also guided by the studies of war that have been done by social scientists. As they have pointed out, the causes of international conflict and war are so complex that they need to be studied with a systematic and scientific analysis of the historical record. They cannot be reduced to only a few factors, whether biological or social. The Statement reflects the observation that war, unlike human biology, varies dramatically through time and across geography. People that make war in one century (like the Vikings, for example) may live at peace with their neighbors in another century.
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors. Although fighting occurs widely throughout animal species, only a few cases of destructive intra-species fighting between organized groups have ever been reported among naturally living species, and none of these involve the use of tools designed to be weapons. Normal predatory feeding upon other species cannot be equated with intra-species violence. Warfare is a peculiarly human phenomenon and does not occur in other animals.
The fact that warfare has changed so radically over time indicates that it is a product of culture. Its biological connection is primarily through language which makes possible the coordination of groups, the transmission of technology, and the use of tools. War is biologically possible, but it is not inevitable, as evidenced by its variation in occurrence and nature over time and space. There are cultures which have not engaged in war for centuries, and there are cultures which have engaged in war frequently at some times and not at others.
Commentary
Scientists have made many studies of animal behavior, including animal aggression. These studies were reviewed at Seville by Professor John Paul Scott, who has been one of the pioneers in this field of study.
The data reviewed at Seville lead to the conclusion that warfare is unique to humans. The inter-colony conflicts of ants, wolves, monkeys, and chimpanzees do not involve the use of tools, institutionalization, or verbal coordination of behavior, all of which are common to all human warfare. The behavior of animals has changed over time in the course of biological evolution. Human warfare, on the other hand, has changed in ways that are clearly due to cultural rather than biological evolution. Thus, in the relatively short time of recorded history, war has changed dramatically both in the nature of its military organization and in the nature of the weapons that are used.
The work at Seville was also guided by the studies of war that have been done by social scientists. As they have pointed out, the causes of international conflict and war are so complex that they need to be studied with a systematic and scientific analysis of the historical record. They cannot be reduced to only a few factors, whether biological or social. The Statement reflects the observation that war, unlike human biology, varies dramatically through time and across geography. People that make war in one century (like the Vikings, for example) may live at peace with their neighbors in another century.
Second Proposition
The Seville Statement
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature. While genes are involved at all levels of nervous system function, they provide a developmental potential that can be actualized only in conjunction with the ecological and social environment. While individuals vary in their predispositions to be affected by their experience, it is the interaction between their genetic endowment and conditions of nurturance that determines their personalities. Except for rare pathologies, the genes do not produce individuals necessarily predisposed to violence. Neither do they determine the opposite. While genes are co-involved in establishing our behavioral capacities, they do not by themselves specify the outcome.
Commentary
Throughout history there have been writers who claimed that humanity is inherently violent or selfish. Darwin's theory of evolution has been used to justify the claim. In recent years the claim has been expressed in the terms of modern genetics.
These claims have been reviewed and refuted by Seville signatory S.A. Barnett, a scientist who has studied animal behavior and aggression. The claims fail to recognize that while humans are capable of violence and selfishness, we are also capable of non-violent action and cooperation. Instead, the claims usually represent the resistance of the writers to social reforms that are based on the equality of people. The fact that the claims are expressed in terms of Darwin's theory or in terms of modern genetics does not make them any more scientific.
The discoveries of Darwin and of modern genetics have been revolutionary for many branches of science, but they cannot directly explain animal or human behavior. As reviewed at Seville by behavior geneticist Benson Ginsburg and psychologist Bonnie Frank Carter, scientific research on mice, dogs, and wolves shows that their behavior is influenced but not directly determined by their genetic inheritance. Rather than causing behavior directly, their genetic code controls the production of chemicals called enzymes which operate at the level of the body's cells to control their development and function.
In animals, it is possible to do experiments in which genes are moved from one animal to another. As described at Seville, results of such experiments in mice show that the personality is not determined by the genes alone, but depends upon the conditions of nurturance, including both the ecological and social environments. This must be even more true for humans than for mice, since human personality is more dependent than that of mice upon the social environment.
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature. While genes are involved at all levels of nervous system function, they provide a developmental potential that can be actualized only in conjunction with the ecological and social environment. While individuals vary in their predispositions to be affected by their experience, it is the interaction between their genetic endowment and conditions of nurturance that determines their personalities. Except for rare pathologies, the genes do not produce individuals necessarily predisposed to violence. Neither do they determine the opposite. While genes are co-involved in establishing our behavioral capacities, they do not by themselves specify the outcome.
Commentary
Throughout history there have been writers who claimed that humanity is inherently violent or selfish. Darwin's theory of evolution has been used to justify the claim. In recent years the claim has been expressed in the terms of modern genetics.
These claims have been reviewed and refuted by Seville signatory S.A. Barnett, a scientist who has studied animal behavior and aggression. The claims fail to recognize that while humans are capable of violence and selfishness, we are also capable of non-violent action and cooperation. Instead, the claims usually represent the resistance of the writers to social reforms that are based on the equality of people. The fact that the claims are expressed in terms of Darwin's theory or in terms of modern genetics does not make them any more scientific.
The discoveries of Darwin and of modern genetics have been revolutionary for many branches of science, but they cannot directly explain animal or human behavior. As reviewed at Seville by behavior geneticist Benson Ginsburg and psychologist Bonnie Frank Carter, scientific research on mice, dogs, and wolves shows that their behavior is influenced but not directly determined by their genetic inheritance. Rather than causing behavior directly, their genetic code controls the production of chemicals called enzymes which operate at the level of the body's cells to control their development and function.
In animals, it is possible to do experiments in which genes are moved from one animal to another. As described at Seville, results of such experiments in mice show that the personality is not determined by the genes alone, but depends upon the conditions of nurturance, including both the ecological and social environments. This must be even more true for humans than for mice, since human personality is more dependent than that of mice upon the social environment.
Third Proposition
The Seville Statement
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behavior more than for other kinds of behavior. In all well-studied species, status within the group is achieved by the ability to cooperate and to fulfil social functions relevant to the structure of that group. "Dominance" involves social bondings and affiliations; it is not simply a matter of the possession and use of superior physical power, although it does involve aggressive behaviors. Where genetic selection for aggressive behavior has been artificially instituted in animals, it has rapidly succeeded in producing hyper-aggressive individuals; this indicates that aggression was not maximally selected under natural conditions. When such experimentally-created hyper-aggressive animals are present in a social group, they either disrupt its social structure or are driven out. Violence is neither in our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes.
Commentary
Writers who claim that humans are by nature violent and selfish tend to over-emphasize the importance of aggression in the behavior of animals. At the same time, they tend to under-emphasize the importance of cooperation.
The dominance and leadership of animals who live in social groups is characterized by their ability to cooperate as well as by their aggressiveness. As reported at Seville by behavior geneticist Benson Ginsburg and psychologist Bonnie Frank Carter, studies on wolves, monkey and apes have shown this to be the case. In fact, if overly-aggressive animals are introduced into a group, the structure of the group is likely to be disrupted.
Of course, this does not deny that aggressive behavior plays a role in both animal and human behavior. For example, it is well known that mothers are particularly aggressive in defense of their young when they are threatened. In animal species who live in social groups, aggressive behavior is selected within the context of cooperation and mutual assistance.
In human behavior, also, aggressive behavior occurs in a context of cooperation. This has been pointed out by anthropologist and Seville signatory Richard Leakey, in his book with Roger Lewin. In fact, the cooperation shown by all human societies in food gathering and hunting strikes anthropologists as one of our most remarkable behavioral qualities. Cooperation has been especially important to the survival of our species.
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behavior more than for other kinds of behavior. In all well-studied species, status within the group is achieved by the ability to cooperate and to fulfil social functions relevant to the structure of that group. "Dominance" involves social bondings and affiliations; it is not simply a matter of the possession and use of superior physical power, although it does involve aggressive behaviors. Where genetic selection for aggressive behavior has been artificially instituted in animals, it has rapidly succeeded in producing hyper-aggressive individuals; this indicates that aggression was not maximally selected under natural conditions. When such experimentally-created hyper-aggressive animals are present in a social group, they either disrupt its social structure or are driven out. Violence is neither in our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes.
Commentary
Writers who claim that humans are by nature violent and selfish tend to over-emphasize the importance of aggression in the behavior of animals. At the same time, they tend to under-emphasize the importance of cooperation.
The dominance and leadership of animals who live in social groups is characterized by their ability to cooperate as well as by their aggressiveness. As reported at Seville by behavior geneticist Benson Ginsburg and psychologist Bonnie Frank Carter, studies on wolves, monkey and apes have shown this to be the case. In fact, if overly-aggressive animals are introduced into a group, the structure of the group is likely to be disrupted.
Of course, this does not deny that aggressive behavior plays a role in both animal and human behavior. For example, it is well known that mothers are particularly aggressive in defense of their young when they are threatened. In animal species who live in social groups, aggressive behavior is selected within the context of cooperation and mutual assistance.
In human behavior, also, aggressive behavior occurs in a context of cooperation. This has been pointed out by anthropologist and Seville signatory Richard Leakey, in his book with Roger Lewin. In fact, the cooperation shown by all human societies in food gathering and hunting strikes anthropologists as one of our most remarkable behavioral qualities. Cooperation has been especially important to the survival of our species.
Fourth Proposition
The Seville Statement
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that humans have a "violent brain." While we do have the neural apparatus to act violently, it is not automatically activated by internal or external stimuli. Like higher primates and unlike other animals, our higher neural processes filter such stimuli before they can be acted upon. How we act is shaped by how we have been conditioned and socialized. There is nothing in our neurophysiology that compels us to react violently.
Commentary
Among the scientists who drafted the Seville Statement, several are engaged in research on the brain. Brain research has investigated how the brain controls emotions like anger and fear and social skills like the ability to learn and the use of language.
Most of the research on the brain mechanisms of aggressive behavior has been done on laboratory rats and cats, as reviewed by Seville signatory David Adams. Even at the level of these animals, whose behavior is simpler than that of monkeys and humans, the brain mechanisms of aggression are not automatically elicited by stimuli, but are modulated in terms of the social context, for example, the extent to which the other animal is familiar.
In monkeys and apes, the situation is even more complicated. For example, Jose Delgado and his co-workers have shown that aggressive behavior evoked by electrical stimulation of the brain may be expressed by a monkey against a subordinate opponent, but would not be expressed against a dominant opponent. In a related experiment on apes, electrical stimulation of the brain of a gibbon produced aggressive behavior in the laboratory, but not when it was tested in a natural situation on an island.
The review concluded that "human aggressive behavior is far more complex than that of other vertebrates. It has been transformed by many cultural factors such as the development of institutions and economic systems and the elaboration of motor patterns with tools and language. Knowing this, we have a moral obligation to avoid oversimplified phylogenetic extrapolations which may be particularly provocative, and we should make it clear that such human phenomena as crime and war are not the inevitable results of neural circuitry."
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that humans have a "violent brain." While we do have the neural apparatus to act violently, it is not automatically activated by internal or external stimuli. Like higher primates and unlike other animals, our higher neural processes filter such stimuli before they can be acted upon. How we act is shaped by how we have been conditioned and socialized. There is nothing in our neurophysiology that compels us to react violently.
Commentary
Among the scientists who drafted the Seville Statement, several are engaged in research on the brain. Brain research has investigated how the brain controls emotions like anger and fear and social skills like the ability to learn and the use of language.
Most of the research on the brain mechanisms of aggressive behavior has been done on laboratory rats and cats, as reviewed by Seville signatory David Adams. Even at the level of these animals, whose behavior is simpler than that of monkeys and humans, the brain mechanisms of aggression are not automatically elicited by stimuli, but are modulated in terms of the social context, for example, the extent to which the other animal is familiar.
In monkeys and apes, the situation is even more complicated. For example, Jose Delgado and his co-workers have shown that aggressive behavior evoked by electrical stimulation of the brain may be expressed by a monkey against a subordinate opponent, but would not be expressed against a dominant opponent. In a related experiment on apes, electrical stimulation of the brain of a gibbon produced aggressive behavior in the laboratory, but not when it was tested in a natural situation on an island.
The review concluded that "human aggressive behavior is far more complex than that of other vertebrates. It has been transformed by many cultural factors such as the development of institutions and economic systems and the elaboration of motor patterns with tools and language. Knowing this, we have a moral obligation to avoid oversimplified phylogenetic extrapolations which may be particularly provocative, and we should make it clear that such human phenomena as crime and war are not the inevitable results of neural circuitry."
Fifth Proposition
The Seville Statement
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that war is caused by "instinct" or any single motivation. The emergence of modern warfare has been a journey from the primacy of emotional and motivational factors, sometimes called "instincts," to the primacy of cognitive factors. Modern war involves institutional use of personal characteristics such as obedience, suggestibility, and idealism, social skills such as language, and rational considerations such as cost-calculation, planning, and information processing. The technology of modern war has exaggerated traits associated with violence both in the training of actual combatants and in the preparation of support for war in the general population. As a result of this exaggeration, such traits are often mistaken to be the causes rather than the consequences of the process.
Commentary
To understand something as complicated as modern warfare, it is necessary to take a multi-level approach. One must consider the differences between the nature and causes of actions at different levels of complexity, from the individual to the group to the society and state. For this reason, the meeting at Seville included scientists who study at all these levels, including individual psychologists, social psychologists, and sociologists.
The behavior of soldiers in modern war has little to do with their aggressiveness. This has been pointed out by animal behavior specialist Robert Hinde and social psychologist Jo Groebel who took part in drafting the Seville Statement: "The institution of war prescribes a variety of roles, each with its attendant rights and duties. Politicians, generals, soldiers, munition workers perform their allotted tasks, carrying out their duties with little contribution from their aggressive propensities. This is true even of the combatants, for whom cooperation and buddy-relationships, obedience, and fear may be more important than aggression."
When nations prepare for war, they employ the mass media in propaganda campaigns to produce fear and anger against the enemy. Propaganda exploits the fear and anger that every person experiences at one time or another. However, as Seville signatory and psychologist Riitta Wahlström has shown in her studies, the enemy image is an artificial construction rather than a constant human trait. For example, in Finland at the present time, people do not have an enemy image. Furthermore, the capacity of the human mind is so great that we can have a global loyalty at the same time as we identify with our nationality, ethnic group, and family.
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that war is caused by "instinct" or any single motivation. The emergence of modern warfare has been a journey from the primacy of emotional and motivational factors, sometimes called "instincts," to the primacy of cognitive factors. Modern war involves institutional use of personal characteristics such as obedience, suggestibility, and idealism, social skills such as language, and rational considerations such as cost-calculation, planning, and information processing. The technology of modern war has exaggerated traits associated with violence both in the training of actual combatants and in the preparation of support for war in the general population. As a result of this exaggeration, such traits are often mistaken to be the causes rather than the consequences of the process.
Commentary
To understand something as complicated as modern warfare, it is necessary to take a multi-level approach. One must consider the differences between the nature and causes of actions at different levels of complexity, from the individual to the group to the society and state. For this reason, the meeting at Seville included scientists who study at all these levels, including individual psychologists, social psychologists, and sociologists.
The behavior of soldiers in modern war has little to do with their aggressiveness. This has been pointed out by animal behavior specialist Robert Hinde and social psychologist Jo Groebel who took part in drafting the Seville Statement: "The institution of war prescribes a variety of roles, each with its attendant rights and duties. Politicians, generals, soldiers, munition workers perform their allotted tasks, carrying out their duties with little contribution from their aggressive propensities. This is true even of the combatants, for whom cooperation and buddy-relationships, obedience, and fear may be more important than aggression."
When nations prepare for war, they employ the mass media in propaganda campaigns to produce fear and anger against the enemy. Propaganda exploits the fear and anger that every person experiences at one time or another. However, as Seville signatory and psychologist Riitta Wahlström has shown in her studies, the enemy image is an artificial construction rather than a constant human trait. For example, in Finland at the present time, people do not have an enemy image. Furthermore, the capacity of the human mind is so great that we can have a global loyalty at the same time as we identify with our nationality, ethnic group, and family.
Conclusion
The Seville Statement
We conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war, and that humanity can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism and empowered with confidence to undertake the transformative tasks needed in this International Year of Peace and in the years to come. Although these tasks are mainly institutional and collective, they also rest upon the consciousness of individual participants for whom pessimism and optimism are crucial factors. Just as "wars begin in the minds of men", peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us.
Commentary
The invention of peace is a project with many tasks to which each of us has something to contribute. The tasks are individual, collective, and institutional. We can make our contributions as individuals, as members of groups or professions, as citizens of a nation, and in cooperation with the United Nations. At Seville, the writers of the Statement of Violence worked on all these levels at the same time.
One of the participants in Seville was a biochemist who has worked on brain metabolism and childhood diseases. That scientist was Federico Mayor Zaragoza who later was elected as Director-General of UNESCO. As Director-General, he has carried on the commitment of UNESCO to the task of inventing peace. Here is part of what he said in his inaugural address:
"Humanity can climb towards that high, bright summit of peace and justice, living in harmony with other peoples and with the environment. For it is not true that conflict is inevitable, and it is not true that humanity naturally tends toward aggression and war. There are no genes for love; nor are there genes for aggression. One is not born this way or that; one is made. One is made through education, through development, in the hands of those artisans who, throughout the world, carry out the most difficult and transcendent program: schoolteachers. I want to recognize them here, and I will keep them in mind throughout my term of office.
"Peace grows and makes its home in each person. There is an immense, imperceptible substratum for peace. We must recognize the uniqueness, the significance, and the relevance of each and every woman and man."
We conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war, and that humanity can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism and empowered with confidence to undertake the transformative tasks needed in this International Year of Peace and in the years to come. Although these tasks are mainly institutional and collective, they also rest upon the consciousness of individual participants for whom pessimism and optimism are crucial factors. Just as "wars begin in the minds of men", peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us.
Commentary
The invention of peace is a project with many tasks to which each of us has something to contribute. The tasks are individual, collective, and institutional. We can make our contributions as individuals, as members of groups or professions, as citizens of a nation, and in cooperation with the United Nations. At Seville, the writers of the Statement of Violence worked on all these levels at the same time.
One of the participants in Seville was a biochemist who has worked on brain metabolism and childhood diseases. That scientist was Federico Mayor Zaragoza who later was elected as Director-General of UNESCO. As Director-General, he has carried on the commitment of UNESCO to the task of inventing peace. Here is part of what he said in his inaugural address:
"Humanity can climb towards that high, bright summit of peace and justice, living in harmony with other peoples and with the environment. For it is not true that conflict is inevitable, and it is not true that humanity naturally tends toward aggression and war. There are no genes for love; nor are there genes for aggression. One is not born this way or that; one is made. One is made through education, through development, in the hands of those artisans who, throughout the world, carry out the most difficult and transcendent program: schoolteachers. I want to recognize them here, and I will keep them in mind throughout my term of office.
"Peace grows and makes its home in each person. There is an immense, imperceptible substratum for peace. We must recognize the uniqueness, the significance, and the relevance of each and every woman and man."
The Scientists Who Wrote the Seville Statement
Eleven of the twenty signatories are shown presenting the Statement to the representative of the University of Seville, May 16, 1986.
·Ashis Nandy - Political Psychology - India
·Bonnie Frank Carter - Psychology - U.S.A.
·Benson E. Ginsburg - Behavioral Genetics - U.S.A.
·Diana L. Mendoza - Psychobiology - Spain
·Samir-Kumar Ghosh - Sociology - India
·Santiago Genovés - Anthropology - Mexico
·J. Martin Ramirez - Psychology - Spain
·David Adams - Psychology - U.S.A.
·José Luis Díaz - Psychobiology - Mexico
·John Paul Scott - Animal Behavior - U.S.A.
·Riitta Wahlström - Psychology - Finland
·S.A. Barnett - Ethology - Australia
·N.P. Bechtereva - Neurophysiology - U.S.S.R.
·José M.R. Delgado - Neurophysiology - Spain
·Andrzej Eliasz - Psychology - Poland
·Jo Groebel - Psychology - Germany
·Robert Hinde - Animal Behavior - United Kingdom
·Richard E. Leakey - Anthropology - Kenya
·Taha H. Malasi - Psychiatry - Kuwait
·Federico Mayor Zaragoza - Biochemistry - Spain
·Bonnie Frank Carter - Psychology - U.S.A.
·Benson E. Ginsburg - Behavioral Genetics - U.S.A.
·Diana L. Mendoza - Psychobiology - Spain
·Samir-Kumar Ghosh - Sociology - India
·Santiago Genovés - Anthropology - Mexico
·J. Martin Ramirez - Psychology - Spain
·David Adams - Psychology - U.S.A.
·José Luis Díaz - Psychobiology - Mexico
·John Paul Scott - Animal Behavior - U.S.A.
·Riitta Wahlström - Psychology - Finland
·S.A. Barnett - Ethology - Australia
·N.P. Bechtereva - Neurophysiology - U.S.S.R.
·José M.R. Delgado - Neurophysiology - Spain
·Andrzej Eliasz - Psychology - Poland
·Jo Groebel - Psychology - Germany
·Robert Hinde - Animal Behavior - United Kingdom
·Richard E. Leakey - Anthropology - Kenya
·Taha H. Malasi - Psychiatry - Kuwait
·Federico Mayor Zaragoza - Biochemistry - Spain
Organizations That Support the Seville Statement
· American Anthropological Association
· American Association for Counseling and Development
· American Psychological Association
· American Orthopsychiatric Association
· American Sociological Association
· Americans for the University of UNESCO
· Anuvrat Vishva Bharati (Global Organization)
· Asociación Peruana de Estudios e Investigación para la Paz
· Association for Humanistic Education and Development (US)
· Association of African Women for Research and Development
· California State Psychological Association
· Canadian Psychologists for Social Responsibility
· Community of the Peace People (1976 Nobel Peace Prize) (Northern Ireland)
· Czechoslovak UNESCO Commission
· Danish Psychological Association
· Danish UNESCO Committee
· Honduras National Spiritual Assembly of Baha'i
· International Association of Educators for World Peace
· International Council of Psychologists
· International Society for Research on Aggression - Commission on Violence
· Italian National UNESCO Commission
· Laboratory of Education for Peace (Greece)
· Medical Association for Prevention of War (UK)
· Mexican Association for Biological Anthropology
· Minnesota Psychological Association
· Movimento por la Vida y la Paz (Argentina)
· New York State Psychological Association
· New Zealand Psychological Society
· Norwegian UNESCO Commission
· Open International University for Complementary Medicines
· Polish Academy of Sciences
· Psychologer for Fred (Norway)
· Psychologists for Social Responsibility (US)
· Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues (US)
· Spanish UNESCO Commission
· University of Montreal Department of Psychiatry
· Veterans for Peace
· West Virginia Psychological Association
· World Federalist Association (US)
· Yamoussoukro International Congress on Peace in the Minds of Men
· American Political Science Association
· Arab Writers Union
· Asociación de Estudios Bahá'ís - Chile
· Association for Counselor Education and Development (US)
· Association for Humanistic Psychology (US)
· Association for World Education
· Baha'i International Community
· Canadian Psychological Association Section on Social Responsibility
· Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development (US)
· Contemporary Trends in Development of Psychology (book) (China)
· Finnish Psychological Association
· Finnish Peace Research Association
· Greek Pedagogical Association
· Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation (US)
· International Peace Research Association
· International Political Science Association Peace and Conflict Committee
· International Social Science Council
· International Society for Comparative Psychology
· International Society for Human Ethology
· International Studies Association
· International Union for Psychological Sciences Peace Committee
· Japanese Psychologists for Peace
· Japanese Research Association of Psychological Science
· Mouvement Universel de la Responsabilité Scientifique (France)
· New Zealand Council for Educational Research
· Norwegian Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War
· Norwegian Psychological Association
· Peace Education Institute (Finland)
· Permanent National Commission of Education for Peace, Ministry of Education (Peru)
· Scientists Against Nuclear Arms (Australia)
· Shanti Ashram (India)
· Tampere Peace Research Institute (Finland)
· USSR Academy of Sciences (Psychology)
· World Association for Orphans and Abandoned Children
World Goodwill NewsletterThe Relation of Struggle and Violence
The Seville Statement on Violence does not address an important question - the relation between struggle and violence. However, it is not possible to teach the message of the Seville Statement without encountering this question.
The position of UNESCO on violence is clear. UNESCO was established in order to promote the cultural and educational factors which would enable the world to avoid both the obvious violence of war and the less obvious institutional violence that can lead to war.
At the same time, UNESCO is committed to struggle for justice and liberty. For example, UNESCO has been in the front lines of the struggle to end the institution of apartheid in South Africa, which is the most brutal manifestation of prejudice, intolerance, and racism.
The question arose when the Seville Statement on Violence was presented to the Yamoussoukro International Conference on Peace in the Minds of Men, sponsored by UNESCO in the Ivory Coast in 1989. As the rapporteur noted, the discussion made it clear that there is a "need to distinguish clearly between violence and struggle," and that "the Seville Statement should in no way obscure the legitimacy of the struggle for human rights, for justice, and against oppression."
The distinction between struggle and violence has occupied the greatest leaders of our times. For example, Nobel Peace Laureate Martin Luther King, Jr. put it this way:
"Nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards. It does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly nonviolent. This is why Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight... while the nonviolent resister is passive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent that he is wrong. The method is passive physically, but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active nonviolent resistance to evil."
Although some people might condemn all expression of anger, Martin Luther King would not agree with this. In commemorating the life of civil rights and peace leader W.E.B. DuBois, King said that "history had taught him it is not enough for people to be angry - the supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force."
The position of UNESCO on violence is clear. UNESCO was established in order to promote the cultural and educational factors which would enable the world to avoid both the obvious violence of war and the less obvious institutional violence that can lead to war.
At the same time, UNESCO is committed to struggle for justice and liberty. For example, UNESCO has been in the front lines of the struggle to end the institution of apartheid in South Africa, which is the most brutal manifestation of prejudice, intolerance, and racism.
The question arose when the Seville Statement on Violence was presented to the Yamoussoukro International Conference on Peace in the Minds of Men, sponsored by UNESCO in the Ivory Coast in 1989. As the rapporteur noted, the discussion made it clear that there is a "need to distinguish clearly between violence and struggle," and that "the Seville Statement should in no way obscure the legitimacy of the struggle for human rights, for justice, and against oppression."
The distinction between struggle and violence has occupied the greatest leaders of our times. For example, Nobel Peace Laureate Martin Luther King, Jr. put it this way:
"Nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards. It does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly nonviolent. This is why Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight... while the nonviolent resister is passive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent that he is wrong. The method is passive physically, but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active nonviolent resistance to evil."
Although some people might condemn all expression of anger, Martin Luther King would not agree with this. In commemorating the life of civil rights and peace leader W.E.B. DuBois, King said that "history had taught him it is not enough for people to be angry - the supreme task is to organize and unite people so that their anger becomes a transforming force."
How You Can Teach the Seville Statement
The following suggestions are based on UNESCO's rich experience in education for peace and international understanding. They should be integrated into any teaching program that is already underway. They should also be integrated into actions for peace and justice in which young people are already involved. After all, people learn from experience more than they learn from reading, listening to lectures, or preparing for examinations.
1. Listen to and learn about the values and concerns of young people. Most young people already believe in the values on which a vision of peace can be constructed: understanding and respect for all peoples, cultures, civilizations, values and ways of life; awareness of the increasing global interdependence of peoples and nations, and the need for international solidarity and cooperation. Most young people are afraid of the threat of war and violence. And they are angry that the world is threatened with injustice and war.
2. Young people welcome the opportunity to share in the creation of an optimistic vision for the future. The myth that war is part of human nature is an obstacle to the development of such a vision. By discussing the Seville Statement on Violence and the scientific evidence supporting it, you can help them remove this obstacle and work together on the creation of a vision of peace for the future.
3. Encourage action. Young people are aware not only of their rights, but also of their duties. They are usually ready to participate in solving the problems that face their community, country and world at large. Learning about the Seville Statement should be combined with action. By taking action, young people can put their values into practice and express their anger in a constructive way. They can reduce their fear and develop courage by taking part in constructing the future.
4. As a teacher you can be a role model by taking action yourself and telling your students about what you have done. You can also tell your students about actions for peace by other role models. The photos of Mead, King, Gandhi, Freud, and Einstein are included here because they can serve as role models. You may wish to contact some of the organizations listed above that have endorsed or disseminated the Statement.
5. Encourage young people to work together. It is important for them to learn how to work in a group, and to develop their abilities to communicate with others. As the Seville Statement says, the task of inventing peace rests upon each of us, but the most important tasks are institutional and collective. That means we must work together to get them done. Fortunately, our species is even more capable of cooperation than aggression.
6. Help young people integrate their work for peace with every other aspect of life, with their families and communities, religious affiliations, and their jobs and work relationships. The task of inventing peace will require the cooperation of everyone and it will take many years to accomplish.
7. Help young people develop a global perspective and solidarity with people throughout the world, and to integrate it with the loyalties to nationality, ethnic group and family. Show how the enemy image is an artificial construction and not a constant human trait. Use the Seville Statement on Violence and other activities of UNESCO as examples of how people from around the world can work together for peace.
1. Listen to and learn about the values and concerns of young people. Most young people already believe in the values on which a vision of peace can be constructed: understanding and respect for all peoples, cultures, civilizations, values and ways of life; awareness of the increasing global interdependence of peoples and nations, and the need for international solidarity and cooperation. Most young people are afraid of the threat of war and violence. And they are angry that the world is threatened with injustice and war.
2. Young people welcome the opportunity to share in the creation of an optimistic vision for the future. The myth that war is part of human nature is an obstacle to the development of such a vision. By discussing the Seville Statement on Violence and the scientific evidence supporting it, you can help them remove this obstacle and work together on the creation of a vision of peace for the future.
3. Encourage action. Young people are aware not only of their rights, but also of their duties. They are usually ready to participate in solving the problems that face their community, country and world at large. Learning about the Seville Statement should be combined with action. By taking action, young people can put their values into practice and express their anger in a constructive way. They can reduce their fear and develop courage by taking part in constructing the future.
4. As a teacher you can be a role model by taking action yourself and telling your students about what you have done. You can also tell your students about actions for peace by other role models. The photos of Mead, King, Gandhi, Freud, and Einstein are included here because they can serve as role models. You may wish to contact some of the organizations listed above that have endorsed or disseminated the Statement.
5. Encourage young people to work together. It is important for them to learn how to work in a group, and to develop their abilities to communicate with others. As the Seville Statement says, the task of inventing peace rests upon each of us, but the most important tasks are institutional and collective. That means we must work together to get them done. Fortunately, our species is even more capable of cooperation than aggression.
6. Help young people integrate their work for peace with every other aspect of life, with their families and communities, religious affiliations, and their jobs and work relationships. The task of inventing peace will require the cooperation of everyone and it will take many years to accomplish.
7. Help young people develop a global perspective and solidarity with people throughout the world, and to integrate it with the loyalties to nationality, ethnic group and family. Show how the enemy image is an artificial construction and not a constant human trait. Use the Seville Statement on Violence and other activities of UNESCO as examples of how people from around the world can work together for peace.
Bibliographies for Commentaries and Other Sections
Here are the scientific publications and UNESCO documents on which the commentaries and other sections are based. They are listed here in the order of their appearance in the brochure. Additional
references may be found in the bibliographies of each of these publications.
Mead, M. Warfare Is Only an Invention Not a Biological Necessity. Asia. XL, 402-405, 1940.
Adams, D. and Bosch, S. The myth that war is intrinsic to human nature discourages action for peace by young people. In J.M. Ramirez, R.A. Hinde and J. Groebel (Eds.), Essays in Violence. Seville, Spain: University of Seville, 1987.
Eckhardt, W. Crosscultural theories of war and aggression. International Journal of Group Tensions. 2, 36-51, 1972.
Freud, S. Why War? From Collected Papers, Vol. 5, New York: Basic Books, 1959.
UNESCO. Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice. Paris, 1979.
UNESCO. Racism, Science, and Pseudo-Science. Paris, 1983.
Scott, J.P. The biological basis of warfare. In J.M. Ramirez, R.A. Hinde, and J. Groebel (Eds.), Essays in Violence. Seville, Spain: University of Seville, 1987.
Singer, J.D. The political origins of international war: A multifactorial review. In J. Groebel and R.A. Hinde (Eds.), Aggression and War: Their Biological and Social Bases. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Barnett, S.A. Models and morals: Biological images of man. In P.F. Brain and D. Benton (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Aggression Research. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, 1981.
Ginsburg, B.E. and Carter, B.F. The behaviors and the genetics of aggression. In J.M. Ramirez, R.A. Hinde, and J. Groebel (Eds.), Essays in Violence. Seville, Spain: University of Seville, 1987.
Leakey, R. and Lewin, R. Origins. New York: Dutton, 1987, p. 223.
Adams, D.B. Brain mechanism for offense, defense, and submission. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2, 201-241, 1979.
Delgado, J.M.R. Cerebral play of forces in offensive-defensive mechanisms. In Adams, op. cit.
Groebel, J. and Hinde, R.A. Aggression and War: Their Biological and Social Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Wahlstrom, R. Enemy image as a psychological antecedent of warfare. In J.M. Ramirez, R.A. Hinde and J. Groebel (Eds.), Essays in Violence. Seville, Spain: University of Seville, 1987.
UNESCO. General Conference Twenty-Fourth Session. Information Document 24C/INF.22. 16 November, 1987 (translated from the Spanish).
King, M.L., Jr. Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. Harper and Row: New York, 1958.
King, M.L., Jr. Tribute to W.E.B. Dubois on the one hundredth anniversary of his birth. Freedomways, Second Quarter, pages 104-111, 1968.
UNESCO. Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Paris, 1974. Reprinted in Prospects, Vol. XV, No. 3, 1985.
Share this article
Help us spread the ideas of peace
Explore the Peaceful World Blueprint
