AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 21, pages 3-11 (1995)

Jungian Approach to Human Aggression

With Speciai Emphasis on War
Anthony Stevens

Jungian Analyst, Fardel Manor, Near Ivybridge, Devon, United Kingdom

Cross-cultural and interdisciplinary agreement as to the universality of aggressive be-

havior and warfare is compatible with Jung's [(1959): "The Archetypes and the Collec-
tive Unconscious. The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol 9, Part I, Para 3." London:
Routledge] theory of archetypes functioning as components of the human collective
unconscious. Jungian formulations involve a phylogenetic view of psychic phenomena
since archetypes are conceived as neuropsychic entities which evolved through natural
selection. It is argued that the banding together of young males for the purpose of ag-
gressive pursuits such as hunting, intergroup conflict, and warfare is a biologically trans-
mitted propensity mediated by archetypal structures in the human brain-psyche.
Universally apparent patterns of affiliative and hostile behaviors are linked to Chance's
[(1988): "Social Fabrics of the Mind." London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates] hedonic
and agonic modes and seen as later ontological expressions of archetypal structures
responsible in childhood for formation of bonds of attachment to familiars and avoid-
ance and wariness of strangers. Erikson's [(1984): Yale Review 73(4):481-486] concept
of pseudospeciation is associated with Jung's concept of shadow projection to elucidate
the phenomena of patriotism, xenophobia, national paranoia, Lorenz's [(1966): "On
Aggression." London: Methuen & Co.] "militant enthusiasm," propaganda, and mobi-
lization for war. Finally, it is argued that peace between nations can be promoted through
conscious awareness of archetypally determined patterns of intergroup conflict and a
collective resolve not to pseudospeciate our neighbors. © 1995 Wiiey.Liss, inc.

Key words: agonic mode, archetype, collective unconscious, hedonic mode, pseudospeciation,
shadow projection

INTRODUCTION
It may seem presumptuous for a Jungian analyst to give his attention to war, as it is a
subject normally regarded as the exclusive preserve of military experts—historians and
strategists, generals and politicians. However, when one examines what these authori-
ties have to say, it becomes apparent that they suffer from three major shortcomings:
they ignore unconscious dynamics; they rely too heavily on rational explanations of
group conduct; and they attach too little importance to human biology. The Jungian
approach can go some way to rectify these deficiencies because it emphasizes the power
of unconscious influences on human behavior and adopts a perspective which is essen-

© 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

4 Stevens
tially psychobiological. As is not generally recognized, Jung's [1959] theory of arche-
types and his hypothesis of a collective unconscious both have epistemological roots in
biology: archetypes, Jung maintained, are basic to all the usual phenomena of human
existence. They are neuropsychic centers which possess the capacity to initiate, control,
and mediate the common behavioral characteristics and typical experiences of all hu-
man beings. Thus, on appropriate occasions, archetypes give rise to similar thoughts,
images, feelings, and ideas in people, irrespective of their class, creed, race, geographi-
cal location, or historical epoch. To accept the archetypal hypothesis, therefore, is to
adopt a phylogenetic view of the psyche, for archetypes are biological entities which
evolved through natural selection.
The theory of archetypes can be stated as a psychological law: whenever a phe-
nomenon is found to be characteristic of all human communities it is an expres-
sion of an archetype of the collective unconscious. When one compares evidence
from such diverse sources as analytical psychology, anthropology, archaeology,
biology, endocrinology, ethnography, ethology, history, mythology, neurology, pa-
leontology, and psychoanalysis, it becomes not unreasonable to propose that our
alternating capacities for warlike and peaceful behavior have their origins in the
collective unconscious of our species. "I have chosen the term 'collective,'" wrote
Jung [1959], "because this part of the unconscious is not individual but universal;
in contrast to the personal psyche, it has contents and modes of behaviour that are
more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals. It is, in other words,
identical in all men and thus constitutes a common psychic substrate of a
suprapersonal nature which is present in every one of us."
Space does not permit me to provide more than a fraction of this evidence, but here
are a few instances:

1. Practitioners of schools of depth psychology, who spend their lives working with
relatively uncensored material emerging from the unconscious psyches of their patients,
agree that aggression forms an essential part of the instinctive endowment of all human
beings. Every page of Freud's [1930] Civilization and Its Discontents is informed with
this conviction.
2. Anthropologists have reported the virtual universality of warlike behavior in hu-
man cultures everywhere. Surviving bands of hunter-gatherers who do not display war-
like propensities are exceptional because they inhabit remote, inhospitable territories
that no one wishes to take from them. They have consequently allowed their belligerent
capacities to atrophy with disuse. On the whole, timid people tend to live at unfashion-
able addresses.
3. Ethologists have demonstrated that humans possess repertoires of threat, ag-
gression, and appeasement behaviors that bear a close resemblance to similar be-
haviors in other primates, such as chimpanzees, baboons, and rhesus monkeys,
among whom crude forms of warfare have been observed. Although existing mon-
keys and apes are not our direct ancestors, their social behavior is so rich in paral-
lels to our own that it requires the dedicated blindness of a traditional behaviorist
not to see that they share common evolutionary origins with human beings [Eibl-
Eibesfeldt, 1971].
4. Endocrinologists have revealed an association between states of aggression
and raised levels of the hormones testosterone and noradrenaline. Submissive or
 Jungian Approach to Human Aggression and War 5
appeasement behaviors, on the other hand, are associated with raised levels of the
corticosteroids.
5. Neuroscientists have shown that centers exist in the limbic system of the brain
which are responsible for aggressive states in animals and in man and that other centers
exist in the cerebral cortex which are responsible for the control and inhibition of ag-
gressive behavior.

When one pieces together these threads of evidence, it becomes apparent that our
capacity for warfare must be much older than history. Homo sapiens has, after all,
existed for more than 500,000 years, yet history derives its data from only a wafer-thin
layer of the recent past. If we are ever to understand what lies at the bottom of all wars,
we have no choice but to adopt a perspective that includes our natural history as a
species as well as our political history as civilized people. To investigate the origins of
a phenomenon as universal and phylogenetically ancient as intergroup conflict, we must
leave the parochial limitations of history and enter the immensity of biological time.
When we do that, it begins to appear likely that the "causes" that historians attribute to
wars may not really be causes at all, but merely the triggers that set them off.

UNIVERSALITY OF CONFLICT (AND COOPERATION)

With a subject as grim as warfare, it would be intolerable if one never came across a
little light relief, and I am glad to say that there is one aspect of the huge and solemn
literature of "peace studies" which never ceases to delight, and that is the bellicose
ferocity with which peace researchers attack each others' theories!
This should not come as a surprise. It is just another example of our archetypal pro-
pensity for polarizing issues and taking sides. Partisanship occurs as readily in intellec-
tual matters as it does in politics and intemational affairs. Not even convocations of
bishops, orders of monks, or associations of psychoanalysts are free of it. As my col-
league Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig [1971] once put it: "There are few fields in which
intemal conflicts are fought in a more unfair, unconscious, and destructive manner than
among analysed . . . and allegedly 'conscious' psychotherapists."
For the last 200 years a bitter conflict has raged between those who argue that man is
"innately warlike" and those who argue that he is "innately peaceful." In the Jungian
view, he is neither one nor the other: he is both warlike and peaceful by turns. In fact,
war has repeatedly affected every part of our planet where men have come into contact
with one another. All frontiers between nations, races, and religions have been estab-
lished by wars and all previous civilizations have perished because of them. Armed
conflict, like sexual behavior, seems to be a primary characteristic of mankind. And I
say mankind deliberately. The cross-cultural evidence is overwhelming: war is a mas-
culine problem. Women do not make war: men do.
Unfortunately, anthropologists have shown remarkably little interest in the universal
propensity of young males to bond together for the purpose of aggressive activity. One
anthropologist who has studied the phenomenon, however, is Lional Tiger of Rutgers
University. Tiger [1971] has reached the conclusion that the very existence of a male
group is prone to lead to an aggressive relationship between that group and the outside
environment. Male bonding, he says, "is both a function and a cause of aggression and
violence." The universal tendency for men to band together for the purpose of hunting
6 Stevens

and warfare is, he says, "an underlying biologically transmitted 'propensity' with roots
in human evolutionary history." While he acknowledges that this propensity finds a
wide variety of cultural forms, he nevertheless insists that it is what he calls "an irre-
ducible predetermined factor." This "irreducible factor" is what Jung would have called
an archetype of the collective unconscious.
One highly significant attribute of archetypes is that they function as innate biases to
leam certain modes of behavior rather than others. And male bonding for aggression is
a good example of this. Eor such behavior is extremely easy to leam and virtually
impossible to eradicate once acquired—as penologists know only too well. Cross-cul-
tural studies have established that boys everywhere—like young male baboons, chim-
panzees, and rhesus monkeys—delight in aggressive rougji-and-tumble forms of play.
It is true that such behavior is usually tolerated and often encouraged by society—by
some societies more than others—^but this social approval, where it occurs, merely serves
to reinforce a propensity which already exists a priori.
In modem youth this propensity finds expression in dangerous sports and the violent
acts of street gangs, football hooligans. Hell's angels, neo-Nazi groups, and so on. You
can also see it in the kind of movies they flock to in their millions. Like the camera, the
box office never lies. The success during the last decade of Sylvester Stallone and Amold
Schwarzenegger has been founded on their faithful portrayal of muscle-bound, inar-
ticulate Neanderthals like "Rambo" and "Conan the Barbarian." Eilms like these and
"Rocky I, n . III, and IV," prove the old adage that nothing succeeds like excess.
Another Rutgers University anthropologist, Robin Fox [1982], says that group vio-
lence "is what men do." Fox [1982] writes: "If you take a group of men and oppose
them in some way to another group of men, the likelihood of their coming up with a
violent way of distinguishing themselves one from the other, and of organizing them-
selves intemally, is very h i g h . . . If a violent solution is not sought, it is usually because
of a threat of even greater violence from some other source."
The 19th century French philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon believed that human
beings have a direct, intuitive knowledge of war, because scarcely a generation passes in
any nation without some experience of it [1858]. The statistics of history support this
assumption: between 1500 B.C. and 1860 A.D. there were in the known world an average
of 13 years of war for every year of peace. In 1976, Dr. Maurice N. Walsh calculated that
in the previous 150 years, the major nations ofthe world had gone to war on average once
every 20 years—i.e., once per generation. Each generation has pad passu attempted to
contain its warlike propensities with concordats, alliances, non-aggression pacts, and peace
plans, but all have been equally unsuccessful in achieving their objectives. Between 1500
B.C. and 1860 A.D. more than 8,000 peace treaties were concluded. Each one of them was
meant to remain in force forever. On average they lasted 2 years. Far from creating peace,
treaties simply indicate that hostilities have, for the time being, subsided. The yang of war
and the yin of peace appear to represent fundamental forces at work which have proved,
up to the present, to be inescapable.
Wherever human communities have existed, confiict has been generated both within
and between them at all levels of intimacy. Cooperation is found also, to be sure, but
conflict is cooperation's shadow side. Like all other primates—and all other mammals for
that matter—we are both affiliative and hostile. This basic dichotomy has been stud-
ied by Michael Chance [1988] ofthe Social Systems Institute in Birmingham. Chance
[1988] describes two different and antithetical types of social system operating in
 Jungian Approach to Human Aggression and War 7

primate societies (including our own) which he designates the hedonic and agonic modes,
respectively. The hedonic mode is characteristic of affiliative groups in which the mem-
bers offer mutual support. The agonic mode is characteristic of hierarchically organized
groups where members are concemed with status and with warding off threats to it. In the
agonic mode tension, arousal, and stress are at a high level; in the hedonic mode things are
infinitely more relaxed. There is an evident link here with the mobilized and relaxed states
described by Anthony Wallace [1968] and which I have described as typical of human
populations in times of war and in times of peace [Stevens, 1989].
The distinction between two fundamental social modes made by Chance are in line
with similar distinctions occurring in the history of ideas. There are parallels, e.g., with
Freud's Eros and Thanatos instincts: Eros, the life instinct, expresses itself in the act of
bonding, integrating, and creating; Thanatos, the death instinct, in dissolving, disinte-
grating, and destroying. Moreover, in Freud's theoretical division of the instincts we
find echoes of the antithesis made by Empedocles between the two great opposing but
equal principles presiding over the perpetual fiuxes of all existence, which he called
love and strife. In short, the evidence points to the existence of two great archetypal
systems: 1) that concemed with attachment, affiliation, care-giving, care-receiving, and
altruism, and 2) that concemed with rank, status, discipline, law and order, territory and
possessions, and warfare.

TWO KINDS OF CONFLICT

When considering agonic behavior, a further distinction has to be made between
two kinds of conflict: conflict within groups and conflict between groups. This is
not just peculiar to us. All social animals make a distinction, e.g., between the sort
of controlled aggression they use against their own kind (which only occasionally
results in injury or death) and the more lethal aggression they use against outsiders
and members of other species. We, of course, do the same. There is in Brazil a tribe
called the Mundrucus, members of which make a clear distinction between them-
selves, whom they call "people," and the rest of the population of the world, whom
they call "pariwat." Pariwat rank as game: they are spoken of in exactly the same
way as huntable animals.
The Mundmcus are not alone in their ethnocentricity. To a greater or lesser extent, all
human societies do the same. This explains the universal distinction that all human
communities make between murder (which is everywhere regarded as bad) and killing
in warfare (which is regarded as heroic). This is an expression of what Erik Erikson
[1984] called pseudospeciation —the human propensity to regard one's own group as
special and superior to all others and to treat members of other communities as if they
belonged to another "inferior" species.
It is now more than 80 years since William Graham Sumner of Yale University
introduced into sociology the terms "in-group" and "out-group" [1906]. That this theo-
retical contribution has survived while so many others have perished is an index of its
archetypal validity. It refiects yet another fundamental dichotomy at the heart of the
social program which is genetically inscribed in the collective unconscious of our
species: it is the us and them dichotomy. The trouble with groups is that the moment
you join one it automatically becomes an in-group and all other groups immediately
become out-groups, and one's feelings about them change accordingly.
 8 Stevens

The "dual nature" of man, which has absorbed theologians and moral philosophers
for centuries, is not a peculiarly human phenomenon, for all social animals distinguish
between friend and foe, and modify their behavior accordingly. The 19th century phi-
losopher Herbert Spencer believed that human beings expressed their moral propensi-
ties through two fundamentally different modes of functioning—that characterizing
conduct with familiars (which he called "the mode of amity") and that characterizing
conduct with strangers (which he termed "the mode of enmity") [1892]. The funda-
mental discrimination between friend and foe is clearly a factor of the utmost impor-
tance for the survival of any social species. It is but an extension into adult life of the
attachment to familiars and the wariness of strangers which is apparent in all human
infants, irrespective of the culture in which they are reared. Both these forms of behav-
ior have an archetypal core. If the archetype at the core of attachment behavior is the
mother, then the archetype at the core of xenophobic behavior is the shadow—the ar-
chetype of the enemy, the predator, or the evil intruder.

THE SHADOW
Although the majority of us are entirely unconscious of the enemy archetype in
ourselves, it nevertheless exists as a powerful dynamic which can manifest itself in a
large number of ways. For example, in dreams it tends to appear as a sinister or threat-
ening figure possessing the same sex as the dreamer, and this figure is not infrequently
a member of a different nation, color, or race. There is usually something alien or
hostile about it which gives rise to powerful feelings of distrust, anger, or fear on the
part of the dreamer.
In the course of ontological development an interesting thing happens: the archetype
of the enemy is built into the personal psyche in the form of a complex (a complex is a
cluster of traits or associated ideas bound together by a common affect). There are two
important sources of this complex: 1) cultural indoctrination and 2) familial repression.
The cultural source includes all that one has been taught about the identity and char-
acteristics of groups considered to be hostile to one's nation, tribe, or extended kinship
group. It also includes theological concepts such as Evil, the Devil, Satan, Hell. The
familial source is derived from parental prohibition of qualities and behavior consid-
ered to be bad or reprehensible within the family milieu. It is this second source that is
of primary interest to analysts, and Jung introduced the term "shadow" to describe it.
The shadow represents all those aspects of the total personality that are either repressed
or left undeveloped in the unconscious because they have proved to be unacceptable to
the intimate social environment in which the individual grew up. In most of us the
shadow seldom sees the light of day because it is kept out of sight by that inner parental
authority which Freud called the superego and Jung called the moral complex.
Projection of the Shadow
The most difficult and demanding work in a Jungian analysis is to persuade the
analysand to acknowledge and accept responsibility for his or her shadow, the "enemy
within," for the whole complex is invariably tinged with feelings of guilt and unworthi-
ness and brings up fears of rejection should it be discovered or exposed. Indeed, to own
one's shadow is a painful and potentially terrifying experience—so much so that we
usually protect ourselves from such disturbing awareness by making use of ego-de-
 Jungian Approach to Human Aggression and War 9

fense mechanisms: we deny the existence of our shadow and project it onto others.
This is done not as a conscious act of will but unconsciously as an act of ego-preserva-
tion. In this way we deny our own "badness" and project it onto others, whom we then
hold responsible for it. This act of unconscious cunning explains the ancient practice
of "scapegoating": it underlies all kinds of prejudice against those belonging to iden-
tifiable groups other than our own and it is at the bottom of all massacres, pogroms,
genocide, "ethnic cleansing," and wars [Stevens, 1989].
Nations come into dangerous conflict when, for whatever reason, mutual shadow
projection occurs, resulting in the development of attitudes toward one another which
are based on a series of essentially paranoid assumptions. Through shadow projection
we are able to tum our enemies into devils and convince ourselves that they are not men
and women "like us" but monsters unworthy of humane consideration. National lead-
ers can make unscrupulous use of this propensity in order to achieve their own political
purposes. The speeches of Adolf Hitler, e.g., retumed repeatedly to the theme of
Untermenschen (subhumans), by which he meant people of Jewish and Slavic origin,
declaring that there was only one thing to do with such vermin and that was to extermi-
nate them. By skillful use of the Nazi propaganda machine he was able to induce a
sizable portion of the German population to project its shadow effectively onto these
tragically unfortunate people.
What makes such propaganda so devastating in its psychological consequences is
that it can activate the archetype of the enemy, which may then be projected onto a
designated out-group, in addition to the personal shadow. This combined projection of
shadow and archetype then functions as a justification for the slaughter which ensues.
Before the Gulf War could be launched and thousands of Iraqi conscripts incinerated as
they fled along the road from Kuwait City, it was necessary that Saddam Hussein should
be pseudospeciated as an Evil Monster. In the same way, the Serbs have been
pseudospeciated in an effort to justify Westem intervention in Yugoslavia. Atrocity sto-
ries invariably play an important role, and the same symbols are recycled again and
again—murdered babies, starved, beaten, and tortured prisoners—all relating to behav-
ior which contravenes the hedonic archetypes of altruism, bonding, and attachment.
To go to war with people we have first to convince ourselves that, by their own
conduct, they have put themselves outside the human family. Thus the Serbs have been
said to pay a sniper £300 every time he shoots a Bosnian child. The Belgian babies
whom the Germans were supposed to have boiled down for soap in 1914 were forerun-
ners of the premature Kuwaiti infants allegedly disconnected by the Iraqis from their
breathing apparatus in 1991.
The most dreadful catastrophes occur when the moral complex forges an alliance
with the shadow so as to justify us in perpetrating destructive acts of appalling malig-
nity. This is the hideous phenomenon of "righteous wrath." It was as a result of such a
superego-shadow alliance that the Nazis felt morally justified in exterminating the Jews.
Presumably the Serbs feel equally justified in their "ethnic cleansing" of the Moslems.
Projection of the superego onto the in-group and its leaders, together with the mobiliza-
tion of strong feelings of attachment to them, frees individuals of their guilt and permits
them to do collectively what it would horrify them to do on their own. When feeling at
peace and in the hedonic mode, it is hard to conceive of oneself in a group possessed by
what Konrad Lorenz (1966) called "militant enthusiasm," indulging in slaughter and
destmction. But such murderous images become more accessible when the enemy is
10 Stevens

portrayed as a creature that is not human at all, as a rattlesnake for which one feels
instinctive fear and loathing. As devil incarnate such an enemy is something to be exter-
minated without remorse. Destroying him becomes the highest duty, a sacrament. War
under these circumstances can be regarded not only as just but holy.
For as long as our species has existed, survival has depended on the acuity of our
xenophobic responsiveness. Shared paranoia promotes solidarity and prepares the group
for effective action in its own defense. Every nation cherishes its paranoia as a patriotic
duty, and because it is largely unconscious, we are all much better at diagnosing para-
noia in others than in ourselves. This is what makes international hostilities so resistant
to rational solutions. How else are we to explain the hideous persistence of malignant
conflicts like those in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel, and Yugoslavia?
The phenomenon of shadow projection helps us understand how it is that each side in
a conflict perceives the other as more hostile and unscrupulous, and itself as more inno-
cent and peaceful, than either side really is.
Some years ago, when the cold war was at its height and in danger of becoming hot,
some Jungians argued that the only way to end the arms race and undermine the Soviet
system was for the West to cease behaving in such a way as to invite projection of the
Soviet shadow. Then the Russians would no longer be able to use Western behavior as
justification for the repression of their own subject peoples and the maintenance of
their aggressive posture [Bernstein, 1989]. That history with its customary irony caused
things to happen the other way round does not invalidate the Jungian proposal. The
Soviet leaders dramatically improved the political climate and successfully undermined
NATO by ceasing to invite projection of the Western shadow. As Gennady Gerasimov
said on American television during the Reagan-Gorbachev summit meeting in Moscow:
"We are going to do something awful to you. We are going to deprive you of an enemy!"
Once the peoples of the East and West had withdrawn their shadow projections from
one another, a period of euphoria ensued in which hopes were expressed that we were
entering a period of unparalleled cooperation and peace. Unfortunately, the reality is
proving to be otherwise. Jungian theory would predict that unless we strive ceaselessly
to be conscious of what we are doing, the shadow will be projected onto other groups.
Ancient animosities, held in abeyance by the exigencies of global confrontation, are
reemerging and, even if they are contained, there is grave danger that the East-West
conflict will be transformed into a struggle between North and South.
It seems to me that one of the most dangerous failings of our culture is its belief that
it is unique and unprecedented and that the past is irrelevant to our contemporary prob-
lems. What I am saying, on the contrary, is that we are the same creatures that we have
always been. As a species we have not changed in the last 50,000 years. Our culture
may have evolved, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that our genes have. All
that has really changed is that we are now much better at transmitting information from
one generation to the next.
Our contemporary predicament is directly due to the fact that we have fabricated a
technological culture which is dangerously incompatible with our archetypal nature.
Our instinctive endowment does not properly equip us to live in cities and nations with
huge armies and thermonuclear bombs, but for the intimate personal exchanges, the
collaborative hunting, and the brief warlike skirmishes which characterized what I have
called the archetypal society of 40 or 50 members in which our species has lived out
the greater part of its existence [Stevens, 1993].
 Jungian Approach to Human Aggression and War 11

In those primordial circumstances, our capacity for violent conflict was no threat to
the species. On the contrary, it contributed to its success. What constitutes the threat is
not our ancient capacity for violent conflict but the terrifying weapons our clever cere-
bral hemispheres have put into our hands. Our paleolithic nature continues to prompt us
to behave as if great armies were skirmishing bands, as if intercontinental ballistic mis-
siles were flint projectiles, and as if thermonuclear warfare were a raid against a neigh-
boring tribe [Fox, 1982].
Grave international difficulties lie ahead. We shall be ill-equipped to deal with them
if we understand them purely in terms of practical politics and rational economics and
ignore the irrational imperatives on which all human conflicts are based.
The first and most crucial of these is our inherent propensity to make in-group/out-
group distinctions so radical as to result in pseudospeciation. This goes along with projec-
tion of the shadow onto members of an out-group which is perceived as menacing.
And this in turn is associated with the experience of xenophobia, paranoid distrust,
and violent hostility.

REFERENCES

Bernstein Jerome S (1989): "Power and Politics:
The Psychology of Soviet-American Partner-
ship." Shambhala: Boston & Shaftesbury.
Chance MRA (ed) (1988): "Social Fabrics of
the Mind." London: Laurence Erlbaum As-
sociates.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt I (1971): "Love and Hate." London:
Methuen & Co.
Erikson EH (1984): Reflections on ethos and war.
Yale Review 73(4):481-^86.
Fox R (1982): The violent imagination. In Marsh P,
Campbell A (eds): "Aggression and Violence."
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Freud S (1930): "Civilization and Its Discontents,
Standard Edition XXI." London: Hogarth Press
and Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
Guggenbuhl-Craig A (1971): "Power in the Help-
ing Professions." New York: Spring Publications.
Jung CG (1959): "The Archetypes and the Col-
lective Unconscious. The Collected Works
of C.G. Jung, Vol 9, Part I, Para 3." London:
Routledge.
Lorenz K (1966): "On Aggression." London:
Methuen & Co.
Proudhon Pierre-Joseph (1858): "De La Justice dans
la Revolution et dans L'Eglise." Paris.
Spencer Herbert (1892): "The Principles of Eth-
ics," vol. 1. London: Williams and Norgate,
1904.
Stevens A (1989): "The Roots of War: A Jungian
Perspective." New York: Paragon House.
StevensA(1993): "TheTwo-Million-Year-Old Self."
College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Sumner William Graham (1906): "Folkways." Bos-
ton: Ginn, 1940.
Tiger L (1971): "Men in Groups." London: Panther.
Wallace AFC (1968): Psychological preparations for
war. In Fried M, Harris M, Murphy R (eds): "War:
The Anthropology of Armed Conflict and Ag-
gression." Garden City, NY: Natural History
Press.
Walsh MN (1976): In Nettleship MA, Givens RD,
Nettleship A (eds): "War, Its Causes and Corre-
lates." Paris: Mouton Publishers.