Breaking the Cycle of Violence

1. The Psychosocial Consequences of War In several specific recent conflicts, there have been clear signs of a 'cycle' of violence from one generation to another (Bosnia, Rwanda). One task before the international community in constructing a world society is how to break such cycles, which often contain elements (massacre, mass rape) difficult to explain with the popular rational choice theories. In this article I present an approach to postwar rehabilitation intended to offer better prospects for breaking the cycle of violence. It is suggested that a focus is required in three 'zones': the outer, social world which must be rebuilt in a postwar society; the inner, psychological world which must be reintegrated to cope with the impact of trauma; and a third, transitional, 'zone' between the two the zone of play in childhood and 'culture' in adulthood. Take Yugoslavia for example. In this country about 1.6 million people were killed during World War II, 1.3 million of them civilians some 10% of the population. Pecjak (1994) reported that the worst atrocities in Bosnia in the 1990s were exactly in the areas most affected by the World War II massacres; two of the Bosnian Serb generals involved were themselves child survivors of World War II massacres in which their whole villages and families had been wiped out. Palme (1995) reported that Croatian psychiatrists then working with captured Serbian military officers found an unexpectedly high frequency of 'old', World War II trauma-related issues. There are indications of similar cycles in other parts of the world; in Rwanda and Burundi, recent decades have seen one cycle of violence after the other. Though the explanation must be sought primarily in the structural conditions obtaining in the postwar period, there is also the possibility that the psychosocial consequences of war are such that they may add an additional, destructive dimension to the dynamics of the 'post-conflict' situation. An increasing number of studies show that not only the survivors of war (soldiers as well as civilians) but also many of their children are greatly affected by the psychosocial impact of war (e.g. Strom, 1974; Williams, 1987; Gustafsson, Lindkvist & Bohm, 1987; Prince, 1985; Lavik et al., 1994). The trauma of war can result in long-term physical and mental health problems, adjustment problems, and such complex issues as survivor guilt. In some individuals it can also promote personal and spiritual growth. The fact that different individuals adopt different survival strategies (Prince, 1985) explains why one cannot directly deduce adult behaviour from childhood trauma. The imagery and mythology of war can become an unconscious organizing principle, determining how people see the world a generation later and how they choose to act. Studies of the transgenerational transmission of trauma thus suggest a variety of patterns, some people becoming psychologists and social workers, while others become psychiatric patients, mercenaries or criminals. The 'second generation' population, in other words, contains resources for its own (and society's) healing; but the small minority that adopts a militaristic strategy of revenge may become a major factor in precipitating a new round