# Psychology and Peace

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Ronald Roesch, Psychology and Peace, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Published in the Journal of Bahá’í Studies Vol. 1, number 2 (1988)
> © Association for Bahá’í Studies 1988
> 
> Psychology and Peace*
> Ronald Roesch
> 
> *This paper was presented at the Association for Bahá’í Studies Pacific Northwest Regional Conference,
> October, 1986.
> 
> Abstract
> The relevance of psychology to the establishment of peace is reviewed in the context of the Bahá’í peace
> message. The peace message reflects the Bahá’í view that peace means considerably more than the absence of
> war and that peace will not be achieved until fundamental issues of unity and justice are addressed. The
> Universal House of Justice identified many barriers that stand in the way of universal peace, including racism,
> the inordinate disparity between rich and poor, religious strife, inequality of the sexes, nationalism, lack of
> educational opportunities for all peoples of the world. Given the Bahá’í perspective on peace, the author
> suggests that psychology has much to offer, since it has long been concerned with how these problems have
> affected individuals and society. Several areas in psychology are reviewed to illustrate how the science of
> psychology can be helpful in overcoming these barriers and establishing the spirit of unity so important to the
> development of a peaceful world.
> 
> Résumé
> La pertinence de la psychologie dans l’établissement de la paix est examinée dans le contexte de la déclaration
> bahá’íe sur la paix. Cette déclaration sur la paix reflète le point de vue bahá’í selon lequel la paix signifie bien
> plus que l’absence de guerre, et selon lequel la paix ne pourra être établie tant que les questions fondamentales
> d’unité et de justice ne seront pas considérées. La Maison Universelle de Justice a identifié plusieurs obstacles à
> l’établissement de la paix universelle, tels le racisme, la disparité démesurée entre riches et pauvres, les conflits
> religieux, l’inégalité des sexes, le nationalisme et le manque de possibilités d’éducation pour tous les peuples du
> monde. Étant donné la perspective bahá’íe sur la paix, l’auteur suggère que la psychologie a beaucoup à offrir
> puisqu’elle s’intéresse depuis longtemps à la façon dont ces problèmes touchent les individus et la société.
> Plusieurs domaines de la psychologie sont passés en revue pour illustrer comment la psychologie, en tant que
> science, peut aider à surmonter ces obstacles et à établir l’esprit d’unité si essentiel au développement d’un
> monde en paix.
> 
> Resumen
> La relevancia de la psicología en el establecimiento de la paz es examinada en el contexto del mensaje de paz
> Bahá’í. El mensaje de paz refleja el punto de vista Bahá’í que la paz significa considerablemente más que una
> ausencia de guerra y que no habrá paz hasta que no se haya enfrentado las cuestiones fundamentales de unidad y
> justicia. La Casa Universal de Justicia identificó muchas barreras que impiden la paz mundial, incluyendo el
> racismo, la discrepancia inmensa entre rico y pobre, la contienda religiosa, la desigualdad de los sexos, el
> nacionalismo, la falta de oportunidades educacionales para todas las personas del mundo. Dada la perspectiva
> Bahá’í sobre la paz, el autor sugiere que la psicología, tiene mucho que ofrecer puesto que ha estado interesada
> desde hace mucho tiempo en cómo estos problemas afectan a los individuos y las sociedades. Varias áreas de la
> psicología son examinadas para ilustrar como la ciencia de la psicología puede ayudar a superar estas barreras y
> establecer el espíritu de unidad tan importante para el desarrollo de un mundo pacífico.
> 
> T    he Universal House of Justice of the Bahá’í Faith has stated that establishing peace is the most urgent need
> facing our planet today. It has issued an important and remarkable document on peace, entitled The Promise
> of World Peace: A Bahá’í Statement on Peace and addressed to the peoples of the world. For Bahá’ís, it is
> significant that this message is addressed to all people, not just to Bahá’ís. This reminds us that the
> responsibility for peace is everyone’s and that Bahá’ís like everyone else are required to work with other groups
> and individuals toward this end. We cannot afford to be isolated and unaware of other efforts in our society. It is
> important for us to be informed about what others are doing so that we can identify other constructive forces
> working for peace.
> For example, we need to be aware of what science has to offer so that we can extend, reinforce, and apply
> our ideas about a new world order. Scientific underpinnings to our religious principles also help us keep our
> spirits strong, as hope and belief are buttressed with knowledge and fact. Recall these words of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:
> There are certain pillars which have been established as the unshakeable supports of the Faith of God.
> The mightiest of these is learning and the use of the mind, the expansion of consciousness, and insight into
> the realities of the universe and the hidden mysteries of Almighty God.
> To promote knowledge is thus an inescapable duty imposed on every one of the friends of God.
> (Selections 126)
> 
> In our times it is often difficult to discern the constructive and creative forces; we are bombarded with the
> destructive, with conflict, chaos, and tragedy that are so much a part of our daily experiences. Yet, Shoghi
> Effendi clearly states that both destructive and constructive forces are at work in this difficult age. We are, he
> said, in the dark heart of the age of transition so we must focus our efforts on positive and creative changes that
> will contribute to building the future world of unity and peace.
> I have not been a Bahá’í for long, only a few years. But have learned a great deal about the power of faith in
> that short time and of the energy available to people with shared values who are working together toward a
> common goal. It was not until the peace statement was issued, however, that I began to think about how my
> professional life could be integrated with my spiritual life. Harmony between science and religion is, of course,
> an important principle of the Bahá’í Faith. I was excited when I first read the peace statement because it
> stimulated me to look at my own field of science—psychology—to see what it had to offer to the construction of
> a peaceful, healthy, and cooperative society. In this paper, I want to provide a few examples to illustrate the
> potential for applying psychology to the study of peace. Before doing so, I want to highlight a few aspects of the
> peace statement since I will be reviewing the literature in psychology as it relates to several issues raised in the
> peace message.
> 
> The Bahá’í Statement on Peace
> The peace statement is a positive document, which makes clear that despite the troubling times in which we live,
> “world peace is not only possible but inevitable.” It presents a broad focus and comprehensive plan for the
> achievement of a peaceful world. Peace will not be established simply by an agreement to reduce nuclear arms,
> because the banning of weapons does not remove the causes of war. The Universal House of Justice identifies
> many barriers that stand in the way of universal peace. These barriers include racism, the inordinate disparity
> between rich and poor, religious strife, inequality of the sexes, nationalism, lack of educational opportunities for
> all people, and a fundamental lack of communication between peoples of the world. It is here that psychology
> has much to offer since it, too, has long been concerned with how these problems have affected individuals and
> society.
> The cardinal principle that makes change in these areas possible is the belief in unity. In the foreword to the
> peace statement, Ervin Laszlo of the Club of Rome notes, “Bahá’ís proclaim that the most important condition
> that can bring about peace is unity—the unity of families, of nations, and of... science and religion” (xvii). The
> Universal House of Justice makes clear that world order can only be established if belief in the oneness of
> mankind is accepted. Acceptance of this truth is fundamental to the eradication of prejudice, and it is the basis
> for the profound commitment needed to create a world order that would guarantee justice for all citizens
> everywhere.
> The Bahá’í view of oneness and unity does not mean that everyone should think or act alike. Rather, the
> underlying principle is “unity through diversity.” Diversity of cultures, like diversity of individual
> temperaments, does lead to differences, conflicts, and friction. Bahá’ís do not envision a world free of problems,
> but we do believe that conflicts can and must be resolved in peaceful ways.
> 
> The Relevance of Psychology to the Study of Peace
> I can only give you a very brief overview of psychology and its relevance to the search for peace; indeed, I still
> have much to learn about what psychology can contribute. But I hope from this presentation you may gain some
> appreciation of the important applications science can bring to the concerns we all have about the state of the
> world. Psychology is a good example because it provides knowledge about attitudes, human nature, and
> interpersonal and group interactions that vitally affect the challenges we face.
> Most of you probably think of psychology as being concerned with the understanding and treatment of
> people who are considered to be mentally ill. There are some psychologists who do specialize in this area, but
> psychology is much broader than this. It includes specialists in group dynamics and decision making, attitude
> change, animal research, and child development, among others. My own specialty area is called community
> psychology. In brief, community psychology focuses on the prevention of problems before they occur as well as
> on strategies for intervening in problems at the earliest possible time before a problem becomes more serious
> (Rappaport, Values). Unlike clinical psychology, which focuses on changes in the individual, community
> psychology is more concerned with change in society—changes in the systems and policies affecting
> individuals. Community psychologists might not conduct therapy with an individual but would be concerned
> with societal and community practices or policies that may have contributed to or even caused the problems
> faced by the individual. A community psychologist would attempt to create change in these areas with the
> expectation that these changes would bring about changes in an individual’s situation.
> This is not to say that community psychologists would not involve the affected individuals in attempts to
> confront a problem. Indeed, these people can be the central catalyst for change. An important theoretical
> principle of community psychology is referred to as empowerment. This principle holds that people should be
> allowed not only the responsibility for change in their conditions but also the resources and opportunities for
> effecting those changes. Community psychologists, then, study ways of empowering, of facilitating people’s
> efforts toward advancement. As one of the leading theorists in community psychology has defined it, the goal is
> to “foster social policies and programs that make it more rather than less likely that others not now handling
> their own problems in living or shut out from current solutions, gain control over their lives” (Rappaport,
> American Journal).
> Change based on these principles often focuses on the need for a redistribution of power and access to
> resources. Social policies that implicitly or explicitly discriminate against certain groups would obviously be
> inconsistent with such a conceptual framework. Further, this approach rests on the assumption that people have
> strengths and competencies, but that the expression of these capabilities may be hindered by social policies and
> practices.
> Let me give you some examples of how community psychology might be applicable to several of the
> barriers to peace outlined in the peace statement, namely racism, prejudice, and the lack of education. The
> change strategies from a community psychology perspective are based in part on the idea that individuals are
> sometimes misidentified as both the cause of an identified problem as well as the appropriate target of
> intervention. A book by William Ryan entitled, Blaming the Victim, provides an excellent example of this
> situation. In his book, Ryan makes the case that the way in which a problem is defined has dramatic effects on
> what we do to try to solve that problem. An example will perhaps best illustrate what he means. Consider this:
> An eight-year-old black child is having difficulty in school learning how to read. From a clinical perspective, the
> focus is likely to be on what is wrong with the boy that causes him to fail in school. A clinical psychologist
> might administer an intelligence test, and a low score on the test would be used to explain why the child doesn’t
> learn how to read. It might also be suggested that background or race is the reason for the child’s problems. The
> shorthand phrase would be something like “cultural deprivation.” Attempts to change the situation would likely
> focus on the child to attempt to change that child in some way.
> Now consider an alternative definition of the problem: that the problem is caused not so much by
> factors residing within the individual but by the failure of the school system to meet the needs of this particular
> child. The effect of routinely looking to the individual as a problem is that it narrows our focus and distracts us
> from looking at other contributing factors. Suppose that the problem is created at least in part because of school-
> related variables, such as low teacher expectations, overcrowded classrooms, or rigid curriculum, Community
> psychologists would be interested in how such factors affect not only this child but also other children having
> difficulty learning to read.
> The first way of defining the problem lays the blame for failure on the child and ignores other possible
> contributing factors. As one educator put it, “We do not have inferior schools, we have been getting an inferior
> type of student.” In contrast, alternative definitions may lead to solutions that focus on changes in the way the
> school operates. This kind of change is difficult but not impossible to achieve. It requires substantial alterations
> in the way in which we think about the cause of a given problem. Such an approach attempts to facilitate
> solutions which do not “blame the victim” but rather which address social conditions retarding individual
> growth and achievement.
> How does this relate to issues raised in the peace statement? Racism and prejudice are frequently at the
> heart of discriminatory practices that deprive people of individual rights, access to resources and hence,
> advancement. As the Universal House of Justice puts it, “Racism retards the unfoldment of the boundless
> potentialities of its victims, corrupts its perpetrators, and blights human progress” (12). Because victims of
> discrimination typically have little power, the causes of their poverty remain unchanged. To overcome their
> problems, they must be empowered with the resources to change their situations. It is useful to consider two
> forms of racism and prejudice: Individual racism refers to individual attitudes and feelings about a race or
> group. Institutional racism refers to the practices of institutions of society that may perpetuate racial inequality. I
> will use the latter form of racism to illustrate how the principle of empowerment can be applied.
> It is possible for institutions to discriminate against minority groups or women without an intent to
> discriminate (Senn & Sawyer, American 671–74). Admission to graduate programs, for example, depends
> heavily on grades and scores on standard admission examinations. These graduate programs, including
> professional programs such as law and medicine, typically admit a small number of students from a large pool
> of applicants. If grades and exam scores were the sole criteria, it is known that minority students would not fare
> well because their scores tend to be lower. The causes of this may be debated, but it is likely that economic
> conditions contribute substantially. Blacks in the United States, for instance, are more likely to come from
> economically deprived families and consequently have to be employed while attending university. This situation
> undoubtedly affects grades and performance on standard exams. Admission procedures may not be intentionally
> discriminatory but in practice have the effect of perpetuating racial inequality.
> What can be done about this? It is possible to change institutional practices so that a greater percentage of
> minority students will be admitted to graduate and professional programs. I am familiar with the practice at the
> University of Illinois, Department of Psychology. A separate admission committee for minority students was
> established to evaluate minority students independently from other applicants. This committee could select
> approximately one-third to one-half of the incoming class, thus ensuring that a substantial number of minority
> students would be trained as psychologists. The admission policy was based on the assumption that blacks who
> were denied admission often had the ability to succeed but were denied the opportunity because of policies that
> effectively blocked their admission. The changes in admission policies in some schools empowered these
> students in the sense that they were now able to gain some control over their lives. The fact that these students
> have done as well as their white peers attests to the validity of the concept of empowerment in this context. This
> practice existed in many universities but was challenged by a white applicant to a medical school who was
> denied admission even though his grades and examination scores were higher than some minority students who
> were admitted.
> This case, known as the Bakke case (see Karst & Horowitz, for a review), exemplifies the problems
> inherent in redressing longstanding racial inequality. To correct the imbalance, it may be necessary to practice
> what might be referred to as ”reverse discrimination.” Many universities have strong affirmative action
> programs to recruit minority and female faculty (the latter being a minority of university faculty). It is true that
> some majority individuals will be affected if university or employment practices more actively recruit
> minorities. When there are limited positions or student spaces, some qualified majority applicants might be
> denied admission or employment who might otherwise have been admitted or hired. The question for society
> has to do with whether such steps are necessary in order to correct past inequity and to break the perpetuation of
> economic and educational deprivation among certain groups. The dilemma for those in power is that social
> change often (if not always) calls for a redistribution of power. Consequently, social change is frequently
> resisted by those in power. This resistance is rationalized in a variety of ways, including adherence to the belief
> that social differences are natural if not desirable, that people deserve what happens to them (the “Just World”
> belief), and other “blaming the victim" strategies (Albee, American; Lerner & Lerner, Justice; Ryan, Blaming).
> Changes such as those dealing with admission policies may have the same impact in reducing the disparity
> between rich and poor on a national level. Internationally, there is even greater disparity between the wealthy
> and poor countries. Thousands die of hunger in Africa despite surpluses of wheat in other countries. Can the
> same principle of empowerment be applied at the international level? I believe that it can. It would require a
> worldwide policy to ensure that all countries have sufficient resources to provide a reasonable standard of living
> for its citizens. If the resources do not exist within a country, they should be provided by other countries with an
> abundance of a needed resource. This includes technological and educational resources as well as food and other
> supplies.
> What is required is a fundamental change in the thinking and policies of most countries. Each country must
> view itself as being part of a unified world and therefore as having a responsibility to help the citizens of other
> countries in need to solve their problems. It requires, as the Bahá’í peace statement suggests, that nationalism be
> replaced by a concern for the well-being of all citizens of the world. This has been referred to as a “shared
> humanity” perspective (Brockett, 1986), which implies a need for a redistribution of resources and benefits to
> countries in need with the goal of empowering them to confront the problems they face.
> The stumbling block is, of course, that most affluent countries are unwilling to take such steps, just as some
> individuals resented the admission of minorities to professional schools. It is quite possible erroneously to blame
> an entire Country for its problems just as we sometimes incorrectly blame individuals. Nevertheless, I believe
> there is cause for optimism. There are many examples of countries providing aid to other countries in need.
> Agricultural programs, for instance, have long been established through international development programs,
> and there have been positive responses to famines in certain countries (Horton, World; Vestal, Africa). However,
> while such efforts should not be minimized, they have not had the impact many thought they would have. I think
> that this is partly due to the fact that the principle of empowerment has not been central to these programs. Too
> often, a possible solution is imposed on a group or country without involving them in the planning. An aid
> program that simply provides food to a country in the middle of a famine will do little to prevent a famine from
> occurring again. The country must be empowered with the resources to enable it to prevent recurrence of the
> problem. The changes must take into account cultural differences in the country as a whole, as well as regional
> differences within the country. That this is possible is perhaps best illustrated by the example of India, which
> once suffered famine on a regular basis. India no longer experiences famine because it was able to implement
> changes that were integrated into the culture.
> So far, I have provided a few examples of how one specialty of psychology may have knowledge that can
> be applied to our study of ways to achieve peace. Now, I will give some other examples of psychology’s
> relevance to peace.
> Aggression and Human Nature
> Psychology has had considerable involvement in the debate over whether humans are inherently aggressive. As
> the peace statement comments, “ ...so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social,
> economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behaviour is intrinsic to
> human nature and therefore ineradicable” (3). The Universal House of Justice suggests that this is not the case
> and that it is possible to establish a social order which would encourage harmony and cooperation.
> In an interesting book entitled, The Hare and the Tortoise: Culture, Biology, and Human Nature,
> psychologist David Barash examines the research on the issue of whether aggression is genetic or learned.
> Barash reviews studies from ethologists and comparative psychologists, as well as learning theorists. There are
> two distinct sides, one sure that we are genetically mandated to be aggressive and the other arguing that
> aggression is learned in our environments. Barash argues that we don’t have enough information to answer the
> debate but that he believes the truth lies somewhere in between. He concludes that, “All human violence results
> from particular environmental factors such as poor rearing conditions, frustration, social disorganization,
> personal neuroses or psychoses, etc .... the capacity for such behavior must ultimately derive from our genetic
> makeup, the results of biological evolution” (159).
> The message from the psychological and other scientific literature, then, is that even if we have a capacity
> or propensity for violence, it is necessary that certain environmental conditions be present for that violence to
> emerge. However, it is just as possible to create an environment that facilitates non-violent solutions to conflict.
> Johan Galtung, a professor of world politics of peace and war, wrote in his appreciation of the Bahá’í peace
> statement:
> 
> That there is a selfish, competitive strain in individuals and nations alike, and that this may express itself in
> the direct violence released through offensive weaponry...all this we know. Under certain conditions that is
> what comes out. But under other conditions the opposite comes out, altruism rather than egotism,
> cooperation rather than conflict and competition. Our task is to understand those conditions.... (85)
> 
> There is considerable positive evidence that people can learn to use cooperative strategies instead of
> competitive ones. One example is the work of Morton Deutsch, a social psychologist who has conducted a
> number of interesting and creative studies on the effectiveness of different strategies for inducing cooperative
> behavior. He has examined several methods including (1) The turn-the-other-cheek strategy in which one side or
> individual seeks to elicit cooperation by being cooperative no matter what the other side does; (2) The punitive-
> deterrent strategy, which rewards cooperation but punishes noncooperation; and (3) The nonpunitive strategy,
> which places an emphasis on rewarding cooperation by providing positive incentives and avoids the use of
> punishment.
> The nonpunitive strategy was consistently found to be the most effective in eliciting cooperative behavior.
> Subjects in the ”turn-the-other-cheek” condition were strongly exploited as the incentives for competition
> increased, while the punitive strategy elicited more aggressive and less cooperative responses.
> In applying his research to foreign policy, Deutsch concludes:
> 
> It is sometimes assumed that the best way to deter the Soviet Union from initiating aggressive actions
> and to encourage them to engage in cooperative actions is to threaten them with severe punitive retaliation
> if they behave aggressively or non-cooperatively. Our experiments suggest that this may be a dangerous
> strategy; it may discourage rather than encourage cooperative behavior and provoke rather than deter
> aggressive action. In contrast, a nonpunitive strategy that emphasizes protecting oneself rather than punitive
> retaliation in response to aggression is much less likely to provoke aggression and much more apt to elicit
> cooperation. The clear implication is that the United States and the Soviet Union...should be engaged in a
> buildup of self-protective defensive weapons while they should drastically reduce the weapons that could be
> used for attacks. (169–79)
> 
> The emphasis on cooperation rather than aggression or more typically, the threat of aggression, has been
> referred to as a Peace Through Cooperation (PTC) model (Kimmel, American). This approach acknowledges
> that individuals and nations can indeed be competitive and ethnocentric, but they can also learn to
> be cooperative and empathetic. In fact, organizations and societies function largely because most members
> voluntarily cooperate with each other. PTC theorists believe that conflicts arise because of misperceptions and
> misunderstandings, especially among groups with different cultural and social backgrounds. Attempts to address
> these problems should focus on improving communication, promoting trust, and resolving conflicts through
> correcting perceptions, according to Kimmel. Peace is a positive concept in which communication and
> cooperation among nations is the priority. PTC theorists believe that nuclear weapons are counterproductive and
> undermine rather than promote national security.
> Communication
> Psychologists have created many programs designed to reduce tension and increase understanding between
> antagonistic societies or groups. Let me give you two examples. The first is based on the work of Muzafer
> Sherif, a social psychologist. Sherif’s research is known as the “Robber’s Cave” study, named after the campsite
> where the study was conducted. The campers were boys aged eleven or twelve. At first, the boys were assigned
> to one of two groups, each of which lived in separate cabins and as a group engaged in a variety of cooperative
> activities such as camping out, swimming, transporting canoes, and so on. Each group developed the
> characteristics of a cohesive group. In the second stage of the study, competition was introduced between the
> two groups, such as tournaments in which only one group could win a desired prize. This resulted in conflicts
> between the groups in which the groups engaged in name calling, raids on the other’s cabin, and physical
> attacks. The most fascinating aspect of this research is the ways in which Sherif and his colleagues attempted to
> reduce intergroup conflict. They first looked at ways of bringing the groups together in pleasant activities such
> as going to the movies and eating together. This had little effect in reducing the tension between groups. Sherif
> believed that this was because the activities did not involve the groups in interdependent tasks. He introduced
> tasks that required the groups to work together to achieve a goal neither could achieve independently. These
> tasks had the effect over time of reducing the conflicts and increasing friendly and cooperative behavior. The
> implications for reducing conflict between countries should be obvious. Mutual projects and exchanges should
> be encouraged in which two or more countries work toward a common goal. Scientific and technological
> projects would be most important in establishing a cooperative rather than competitive relationship between
> countries.
> A second example comes from the work of Gerald Caplan, a community psychiatrist. In his book, Arab and
> Jew in Jerusalem, Caplan describes his consultation efforts in establishing a vocational educational program for
> Arabs in Jerusalem and his attempts to reduce Arab-Jew friction in government offices. His book is an excellent
> example of the manner in which an independent party can help two opposing groups understand each other’s
> customs, beliefs, and values. Caplan spent the first several years of his consultation in a study of the Arab
> community to understand problems in communication between Jerusalem Arabs and Jews. He did this to ensure
> that any programs created would take into consideration the values and traditions of both groups.
> For example, he observed that considerable conflict and resentment was related to the interactions of the
> two groups in the marketplace, the location of a substantial portion of the confrontations between the two
> cultures. Caplan noted the distinct differences between bargaining styles. The Jews, influenced more by Western
> market practices, viewed the marketplace as a battlefield in which insults of both the item and the seller would
> be used to bring down the price. Arabs viewed it more as a game with as many social as economic aspects. For
> Arabs, the purchase was almost incidental to the social interaction. It was never acceptable to an Arab to have a
> customer be abusive of either the goods or the merchant. The differences in style reinforced stereotypes of both
> groups and, as Caplan suggests, “the fact that neither side was apparently aware of the incompatibility of their
> bargaining practices was itself a major factor in perpetuating a situation of mutual affront” (Explorations 93).
> Caplan’s work documents the need to understand all groups and issues before attempting to create any program
> designed to reduce conflict. Otherwise, the intervention may not take into account cultural differences and will
> be doomed to fail.
> 
> Psychology as an Organization
> It is useful to make a distinction between two types of contributions that psychology can make to the goal of
> achieving peace. The first refers to the scientific contributions made as a result of psychological research and
> theory as applied to peace issues. The second type has to do with the impact that psychology as an organization,
> representing thousands of psychologists, can have.
> Some of the scientific contributions of psychology have been reviewed throughout this paper. Before
> concluding, I want to comment on some steps that professional organizations can take in promoting peace. The
> professional organizations of psychology have made public statements about the role and relevance of
> psychology with respect to the prevention of war and the achievement of peace. For example, the American
> Psychological Association (APA) has called for a freeze on the testing and production of nuclear arms and a
> diversion of funds to other purposes so that jobs and the economy would be protected. The Canadian
> Psychological Association has called upon its members to bring their expertise to understanding the
> psychological dynamics of war and peace.
> These public statements are important in establishing the concern of the profession of psychology. Many
> psychologists belong to organizations like Psychologists for Social Responsibility and are active in peace
> studies. However, the involvement of psychologists has been sporadic. While a majority of psychologists report
> that they read about and discuss the nuclear war issue, most have not been actively engaged (Polyson, Stein, &
> Sholley, American). Indeed, there is a lack of agreement within the profession about whether psychology should
> make official public statements at all. Some psychologists, for example, believe that there are insufficient data to
> warrant public presentations about nuclear arms issues. Others argue that the purpose of psychology is to
> promote human welfare, and consequently we should as a profession be actively involved in influencing public
> opinion and social policy.1
> My view is that it is appropriate for psychology to take a position such as the APA council stated and for
> psychologists to attempt to apply their research to peace issues. Psychologists as always will need to be cautious
> about the generalizability of their findings, but the fact that there are insufficient data in some areas should not
> exclude our involvement. As I have made clear in this presentation, there are a considerable number of areas in
> which psychological research and theory may be of use in understanding some of the barriers to peace and in
> laying the groundwork for potential solutions.
> 
> Conclusion
> I have tried to present a brief introduction of what one scientific discipline, psychology, has to offer all of us in
> our pursuit of a peaceful society. It is my hope that this presentation also points to the importance of viewing the
> issue of peace from a very broad perspective. Such a perspective makes clear that peace must be defined as
> more than the absence of conflict. In brief, it means the establishment of a just world in which the barriers to
> peace identified in the peace statement have been eliminated. A peaceful world would adopt the principle of
> unity as the overriding value that influences all decisions. As Bahá’u’lláh wrote more than a century ago, “The
> well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established”
> (Gleanings 286).
> Mr. Willy Brandt, the former Chancellor of West Germany and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1971,
> makes the need for this broad perspective most evident. In his book, World Armament and World Hunger,
> Brandt argues that money spent on the arms race should be diverted to other concerns. Although one-fifth of the
> world population suffers from hunger and malnutrition, Brandt makes the point that the arms race diverts needed
> resources from these social problems. He comments that, “Where mass hunger reigns, we cannot speak of peace
> ....Morally, it makes no difference whether human beings are killed in war or condemned to death by starvation”
> (17–18). Brandt calls for the need to promote international justice based on a new spirit of solidarity, the recog-
> nition and acceptance of the interdependence of all countries. He comments that, “In the long run no nation or
> group of nations will save itself by dominating others or by isolating itself” (32). I believe that the Bahá’í
> statement on peace is a significant step toward the creation of a unified world, and we will move more quickly
> to this inevitable end if we continue to learn about and apply what our scientific disciplines have to offer.
> I want to make one final point for I fear that the focus of this presentation has been too directed at conflict
> and war. It is important for us to be free of these concerns, but it is not our ultimate goal. In the words of the
> Universal House of Justice:
> 
> The source of optimism we feel is a vision transcending the cessation of war and the creation of
> agencies of international co-operation. Permanent peace among nations is an essential stage, but not,
> Bahá’u’lláh asserts, the ultimate goal of the social development of humanity. Beyond the initial armistice
> forced upon the world by the fear of nuclear holocaust, beyond the political peace reluctantly entered into
> by suspicious rival nations, beyond pragmatic arrangements for security and coexistence, beyond even the
> many experiments in co-operation which these steps will make possible lies the crowning goal: the
> unification of all the peoples of the world in one universal family. (To the Peoples 22)
> 
> 1. See McConnell et al. for a review.
> Works Cited
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Comp. Research Department. Haifa: Bahá’í World
> Centre, 1978.
> 
> Bahá’u’lláh. Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh. Trans. Shoghi Effendi. Rev. ed. Wilmette: Bahá’í
> Publishing Trust, 1976.
> 
> Albee, G. W. “Toward a Just Society: Lessons Learned from Observations on the Primary Prevention of
> Psychopathology.” American Psychologist 41 (1986).
> 
> Barash, D. P. The Hare and the Tortoise: Culture, Biology, and Human Nature. New York: Viking, 1986.
> 
> Brandt, W. World Armament and World Hunger: A Call for Action. London: Victor Gollancz, 1986.
> 
> Brockett, C.D. “A Kohlbergian Approach to International Distributive Justice: A Comparison of the Shared
> Humanity and Interdependence Perspectives.” Political Psychology 7: 349–67.
> 
> Caplan, G. Arab and Jew in Jerusalem: Explorations in Community Mental Health. Cambridge: Harvard
> University Press, 1980.
> 
> Deutsch, M. Distributive Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
> 
> Horton, D. “Assessing the Impact of International Agricultural Research and Development Programs.” World
> Development 14 (1986).
> 
> Karst, K.L., and H.W. Horowitz. “The Bakke Opinions and Equal Protection Doctrines.” Harvard Civil Rights
> and Civil Liberties Law Review 14 (1979).
> 
> Kimmel, P. R. “Learning about Peace: Choices and the U.S. Institute of Peace as Seen from Two Different
> Perspectives.” American Psychologist 40 (1985).
> 
> Lerner, M. J., and S. C. Lerner. The Justice Motive in Social Behavior. New York: Plenum, 1981.
> 
> Polyson, J. D. Stein and B. Sholley. “Psychologists and Nuclear War: A Survey.” American Psychologist 41
> (1986).
> 
> Rappaport, J. Community Psychology: Values, Research, and Action. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
> 1977.
> ———. “In Praise of Paradox: A Social Policy of Empowerment over Prevention.” American Journal
> Community Psychology 9 (1981).
> 
> Ryan, W. Blaming the Victim. New York: Random House, 1971.
> 
> Senn, D. J. and J. Sawyer. “Institutional Racism: A Problem for Psychology?” American Psychologist 26
> (1971).
> 
> Sherif, M., O. J. Harvey, B. J. White, W. R. Hood, and C. W. Sherif. Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The
> Robber’s Cave Experiment. Norman: University Book Exchange, 1961
> .
> Universal House of Justice. 2nd ed. To the Peoples of the World: A Bahá’í Statement on Peace. Ottawa:
> Association for Bahá’í Studies, 1986.
> 
> Vestal, T. M. “Famine in Ethiopia: Crisis of Many Dimensions.” Africa Today 32 (1985).
>
> — *Psychology and Peace (Used by permission of the curator)*