The Central African Republic is a landlocked country in Central Africa, formerly a French colony that is part of French equatorial Africa. It gained independence in 1960 but has been volatile, with clashes between local armed groups. Dexter Díaz, author of The Ten Human natures, is queen's counsel, who summarized the ten human natures in a study that began in 2008, lasted nine years, and expanded across four continents. In analyzing the fifth human nature, the aggressor, he set the model of his research in modern warfare and traveled to the Central African Republic to talk to the children there, using scientific conclusions to analyze the psychological reactions of child soldiers after being forced to commit or witnessing acts of violence.
The following is authorized by the publishing house, excerpted and compiled from "Ten Kinds of Human Nature", with deletions and minor modifications compared with the original text, and the subtitle is added by the extractor.
Ten Human Natures: Who Decides Our Choices of Good and Evil, by Dexter Díaz, translated by Yang Hongmei, xinsi | CITIC Publishing Group August 2021
The war found them
At the time I wrote this book, in the middle of the second decade of the new millennium, there were about 300,000 child soldiers worldwide. In more than 80 military conflicts around the world, these children have often been ordered to perform some of the most dangerous and horrific tasks. Not only did they have to work as porters, guards, spies, maids (and sometimes male servants), but also as sex slaves, or because they could be sacrificed at any time, they were pushed to the front as bait to attract fire or consume enemy bullets, as advance troops to cross unfamiliar territories, clearing the way out of mines with their feet and bodies.
Conflict zones on all continents have produced thousands of children who have been separated from their loved ones, abandoned or whose parents have both died, and their lives are extremely tragic. Therefore, the conflict itself is extremely effective in recruiting advertising. As Rachel Brett and Irma Specht, who delved deeply into the role of child soldiers, put it: War found them. Moreover, as psychologist Thomas Elbert and colleague Maggie Schauer observed, "child soldiers have never played such an important role in history."
This change may be part of the so-called "fourth generation war", a war dominated by unconventional (non-state) forces that is qualitatively different. It is a highly symbolic war that fights not only physically, but also mentally, and one of its main weapons is to create some form of terror.
Such wars target civilians and are subjected to mass atrocities, systematic sexual violence and massacres and maim of all kinds. In fact, throughout the 20th century, the proportion of civilian casualties in war continued to rise. In the process, child soldiers have become a key "evolutionary form of rebellion" (in the words of Thomas Hammers, a former U.S. Marine Corps colonel and counterinsurgency expert). Children are exploited, exploited and abused all over the world, from the UK to Syria.
But not all child soldiers respond to their new lives in the same way. The atrocities witnessed have had a serious psychological and psychiatric impact on some children, leaving them suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, as Elbert and Shore discovered, this is not the case for other children.
For this group of child soldiers, how to perceive and appreciate the acts of violence they are forced to commit or witness is a process of gradual transformation. At first, they will find the violence terrible, and consistent with what Fari Kushman's team found, they will find the violence very painful. For example, Corey (not her real name) is a young girl who was kidnapped in Uganda at the age of 13 by the Holy Spirit Resistance Army (LRA) armed group led by Joseph Kony, and her commander ordered her to beat her friend to death with a stick.
I knew I didn't want to do that. Doris was lying on the ground next to us. We stood up and raised our sticks. The stick was as thick as my palm and as long as my arm. We started hitting her, and the stick landed on her hips, shoulders, and back. I heard her crying out for help and everyone watching us... I felt helpless. Then Doris shouted my name, and she shouted, "You're going to beat me to death, we're such good friends, and now you're going to kill me." I slowed down my hands as much as I could and replied to her, "I don't want to do that either, I was forced." If I can decide, I wish I hadn't done it myself. After that, Doris stopped talking and stopped crying.
However, as a result of repeated exposure to violent experiences, violence not only becomes a normal and acceptable behavior, but can also become attractive. Violence can excite people, and this mechanism is exactly what Thomas Elbert and his colleagues sought to understand in the study of sexual violence.
The dazedness, vulnerability and inexperience of children joining armed groups provide a reliable "window of opportunity" for the transition of violence to forms of excitement. Compared with adults, children have narrower horizons, are less able to assess risk, and have fewer exposures to social norms and standards of ethical behavior. Their minds are malleable and can be easily destroyed, rebuilt and rebuilt, and recalibrated in horrific ways. So, as Elbert and colleagues learned when interviewing former child soldiers in northern Uganda, they could turn into "terrible killers."
Richard MacLure and Myriam Denov of the University of Ottawa wrote in their study of sierra Leonean ex-combatants that children were transformed into "warriors" and committed "unspeakable atrocities." Elbert's theory was that either child soldiers were in a brutal environment that led to the breakdown of the mechanisms used to inhibit killing, or that some children, especially those who grew up in armed groups, simply did not learn about it.
Perhaps this is not difficult to guess. It is indeed frightening, and we do not want it to be so, but we can imagine the results. After all, children are so vulnerable and isolated that they are easily affected. It is in this sense that a senior officer of the Chadian army said: "Child soldiers are ideal candidates ... You tell them to kill, and they kill. ”
In the study of child soldiers, even more striking findings were that those who were more "cruel", those who embraced violence and killing, did not have such a strong post-traumatic stress response, even if they had been involved in or witnessed extreme violence, terror and death. From West Nile to South Sudan, from Sri Lanka to Congo to the Genocide in Rwanda, the performance of child soldiers in various war zones strongly supports this discovery. These children behave very differently from ordinary people:
...... After killing someone, they sit together and talk about their killing story like an adventure, vividly recreating the pain of the victims.
They mocked the victims and even laughed out loud.
The commanders who manipulate the child soldiers discourage the formation of too close friendships between adolescents and children. They have been worried that the child soldiers will escape. As a result, when a child soldier attempts to flee or betray, other children also face terrible collective punishment.
As Suzan San and Jopp De Jong found in their study of Burundi:
Rebel commanders construct a culture in which friendship is banned and as a result becomes a potential source of stress, so these child soldiers learn to be quiet and learn to "go it alone."
Stills from the movie Beast of No Bounds (2015).
Killing people gives them psychological resilience
Thomas Elbert is Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology at the Faculty of Psychology at the University of Konstanz. He had experience working on the ground in many of the world's most inflammatory and dangerous conflict zones, and while Elbert had investigated a large number of atrocities, he possessed a highly contagious and motivated personality and a gift for summarizing complex concepts in vivid terms.
"Well, if you want to know about the situation of child soldiers, you have to understand the functioning of some of them," he said, "and they are professional killers." The reason for this is because they grew up that way, or that's how they were raised. If we don't have a good day, how will we relax? We go home, scold our colleagues or court adversaries for a few words, and then have a glass of wine or beer. The same is true for the children of these armed groups, who go out and kill people in the same way. ”
"You think, they know that life in the jungle militia and rebels is terrible. At any time, he could be injured and killed. They are hungry, have no place to live and lack medicines. That kind of life sucks. Their hearts are filled with frustration, and as things get worse and worse, they start looking for narcotics. Their narcotics, though, are neither wine nor beer, but a "thrill of battle." Their fighting addiction came up. They rush out of the jungle, take part in battles, and kill others. Until that frustration subsides and then arises again. ”
"Those children?" I say.
Elbert paused. "Yeah, you might see them in a movie and think they're still kids. They are, but now we should get it right. ”
Elbert studied psychology, mathematics and physics in Munich and received his Ph.D. in 1978. He is a member of the German Academy of Sciences and has published more than 400 academic papers. His research on the human brain has covered neurophysiological studies of tinnitus (human auditory hallucinations) and wartime mental health studies, which he has focused on in recent years.
The list of Elbert's research sites looks like a map of the world, with all of the world's most brutal places of conflict: Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Congo, Uganda, Somalia. He and his research team have interviewed colombian rebels, rwandan genocide perpetrators, ugandan child soldiers, and German World War II veterans for historical reference. They spoke to more than 2,000 people who had fought, and the number was rising.
"For child soldiers in some armed groups, violence is like heroin. They use violence and killing to alleviate inner frustration and stress. Sometimes, you'll hear them talk about their actions, about what they've done, and the bloodshed and hurt they've caused. Unless we acknowledge and understand this addiction, we cannot fight it. These children will still crave violence. ”
You see, when it comes to survival, how resourceful human beings are! We also find this trait in these child soldiers: it's strange to say so, but their behavior is adaptive. They kill people on the battlefield, yes, killing people is harmful, killing people is terrible, but on the battlefield, killing people helps them survive. ”
"Survive?" I said, "How do you survive?" ”
"The killings gave them vaccinations. Although it sounds bizarre, killing people provides them with psychological resilience. ”
The scary thing is that children become attached to an armed group
Nim Tottenham is an associate professor of psychology at Columbia University in New York City and heads the university's Laboratory for Developmental Affective Neuroscience. The lab has had groundbreaking research on how early life experiences, especially trauma, affect our behavior. Tottenham's team, in particular, studied the potential effects of stressors from a neurobiological perspective, namely how brain structure changes when traumatized. The key to their research is attachment issues.
"Humans are not like turtles," Tottenham explains, speaking calmly and clearly, "turtles have never seen their parents and never thought of seeing them." ”
"Then should humans establish a connection with their parents?" I asked.
"It's important to understand that the brains of human children are not just the brains of a trumpet adult. Neurobiology suggests that a special evolutionary adaptation maximizes an infant's chances of survival during development, and this adaptation relies heavily on the care that our species deserves. ”
As a result, those countries in the midst of war are the places where thousands of displaced, lonely children congregate and where potential powder kegs are made for the future of the country. As we talked, I noticed that Tottenham was wearing a clean, neat white shirt. She looks very intelligent and has beautiful black hair. Before coming to Columbia, she studied for her Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota. Her pioneering work earned her the "Outstanding Contribution to early career award" from the American Psychological Association.
"What we know about trauma is that," Tottenham said, "trauma can be inherited through the genome, a conclusion that we derive from cumulative evidence." Thus, the damage suffered by child soldiers is not limited to themselves, but also affects their future generations, as well as the future of their countries. Tottenham's team looked in detail at how lack of proper contact and care from parents can traumate children in institutional settings such as orphanages, even in institutions that appear to be "good" on the surface. Losing parents can lead to very noticeable changes in brain structure, which in turn can affect behavior.
"What about children who grew up in armed groups or stayed in them for a long time?" I asked.
"Think about attachment issues," Tottenham says, "the neurobiological architecture of humans is designed to meet the needs of human animal growth, and attachment is essential." If a child becomes attached to an armed group, you may find that the child develops convergent behavior toward activities that most people consider to be very dangerous. ”
"Such as serious violence?"
"Yes, they don't show disgust or avoidance, they go straight to violence." Attachment is so important, no matter how dysfunctional the role of parents is. So you will find that even if some children have been freed from the abuse of their parents, they will still have serious psychological trauma because of this separation. ”
In this sense, getting rid of abusive parents is not only not a relief, but a pain.
"It looks like we need to be attached to growing up." Tottenham said. "What if it's in armed groups? What if it's in a violent environment? ”
"Let me put it this way, for the sake of survival in the present, the human brain can make a keen adjustment. As sensational as this is, from a neurobiological point of view, the recruitment of children into armed groups is precisely scientific. ”
"Why?" I asked.
Tottenham went on to say: "The neuroplasticity of the human brain peaks around the age of 10, and neuroplasticity means that you can effectively shape brain function as you wish. After the age of 10, this function of the brain will be locked and it will be difficult to change. Not impossible, but hard. ”
I explained to Tottenham the refugee study I had conducted.
"From a neuroanatomical point of view, the leaders of these armed groups you are talking about, they chose to recruit children is quite wise."
"What a wise law?" I asked.
"If they want to build a killing machine."
Continuing to kill is in response to the initial feelings of guilt
Most of the conflicts in today's world are not the highly automated virtual wars that people imagine, taking place on computer screens hundreds or thousands of miles away. On the contrary, most wars today are personal and one-on-one. Killings are usually done with the hand with knives, which are bloody and brutal, crazy and devastating, and are shot at the back of the head at people lying face down on the streets of the village. The behavior involved in this killing, which has been shown in our research to be extremely disgusting, is still happening. At this moment, conflicts are rising and falling around the world, why is this happening?
In psychology, there is a concept called "goal similarity." It can hinder the act of killing, or more accurately, it will do in the first place. "Goal similarity" suggests that killing comes at a cost. From an external point of view, the cost is obvious: the victim will suffer adverse consequences. But, from an intrinsic point of view, killing can also have consequences for the perpetrator, affecting our sense of self and our understanding of ourselves and our abilities.
This is especially true when there is a perceived similarity between the perpetrator and the victim (the "target"). Clinical studies have shown that PTSD in soldiers is strongly associated with feelings of guilt and shame, which differs from many other types of PTSD. As one psychologist treating the trauma of Vietnam War veterans put it: "You realize you've done unimaginable things and part of your ego has been blown up." "That's when the bugs are on the scene."
Or more precisely, tide worms (also called wood lice), or more precisely: tide worms and insecticide machines. The study was ingenious, scary, and rather disgusting. But from a scientific point of view, it can provide us with valuable insights.
Insights on what? Insights into why we are reluctant to hurt others and how harming others can cause damage to ourselves (self-perception). The insecticider is a death machine transformed from a coffee grinder: a copper tube is installed on one side of the coffee grinder, providing a slide for the white funnel above, all the way to the grinding blade of the machine. At least that's what the experiment participants were told.
In fact, the grinder features carefully hidden stoppers to prevent bugs from actually killing. And the grinder is also pre-stuffed with some shredded paper scraps to simulate the terrible process of the bugs being ground. In this way, researchers can say with a clear conscience: not a single bug has been harmed in the experiment. The bugs were handed to the volunteers in clear plastic cups without a lid, so they were able to observe the bugs, which were about 1.3 centimeters long, before they were exterminated.
Researchers at Arizona State University carefully counted the number of bugs killed in 20 seconds, or the number of bugs that the volunteers thought they had killed (the bugs actually fell into a hidden, sealed container). Volunteers are asked to answer a question that has 9 standardized metrics, ranging from "(1) completely similar" to "(9) extremely similar." The problem is this:
How similar/different do you think you are from small insects? Please rate.
Here, I must mention a secondary message: surprisingly, tide worms are not insects. In fact, the tide worm is not like a butterfly, red butterfly or other flying insect, it belongs to the crustacean. The exoskeleton of the tide worm is hard and is more closely related to shrimp and crabs. But in terms of experimental validity, there is no evidence that either crustaceans or insects associate ourselves with them, nor does it suggest that we think one is more terrifying than the other.
There are two test scenarios. One is the "first kill", in which participants are guided to "grind" a bug with an insecticide machine to familiarize themselves with the process. The other is "no killing", that is, there is no drill at all. Now, something noteworthy has happened.
Scenario 1, in the absence of first kill and trial killing operations, when the participants are required to kill the bugs as much as possible within 20 seconds, there are also huge differences in the number of bugs killed according to the degree of identification of the participants with the bugs. The higher the degree of identification with the bugs, the fewer bugs were killed. This is an expected result.
In scenario two, in the case of a first-kill guide, the subject is induced to grope for the feeling of killing the insect, and some unusual phenomenon occurs. Those who have a high sense of identification with bugs not only did not reduce the killing of bugs, but instead a new situation emerged: the number of insects killed increased. Although the increase is not large, it is quite obvious.
The more participants identified with the similarities between themselves and the insects, the more insects they killed. This finding may help us to understand the atrocities that have taken place in the Central African Republic and elsewhere.
In summary, those who previously had a stronger sense of identification with the small creatures that were fed into the exterminator now tend to kill more of them. Why? What happened?
The evidence that comes together often suggests that most of us are not born with a motive to harm or kill others, that it is not our "nature" or presupposition. In fact, we have good reason to prove that the opposite is true. Evidence of this view is that as the recognition of bugs increases, so does the number of bugs killed by the study volunteers. But...... What do we think of the "first kill" scenario? The first observation of this phenomenon may seem confusing. Once we understand the mechanism that works, we are no longer confused.
Once the killing begins, it poses a "threat" to people's self-perception, which is the intrinsic cost of killing. Paradoxically, one of the ways to deal with this threat is to keep killing. That's why participants who see a certain self in bugs end up killing more bugs. The killings continue in response to or mask the initial feelings of guilt and destruction, to hide the shock of realizing that they have done something "unimaginable." Part of your ego is "blown up."
Then, we can imagine a lose-lose conflict in which people start killing those around them, their neighbors...
Genes don't set us up a "violent brain."
In the summer of 2015, the UN Secretary-General said in a report to the Security Council that 2014 was the worst year ever experienced by a war zone child. Child abductions are on the rise, and extreme violence is rising to unprecedented levels. To that end, UNICEF has launched the "Children are not soldiers" theme campaign, which faces enormous challenges.
Gado camp is only 20 miles from the border of the Central African Republic, and the first thing you notice when you enter the camp is that it is crowded with children (60% of refugees are infants or teenagers). Paramedics told me that children are sometimes amputated because they have no early treatment to prevent the disease. But sometimes, as the United Nations reports, children's amputations can also be due to acts of war.
I spent some time talking to these displaced people, or rather listening to their voices. They longed to go home, but they were afraid to go home, because less than an hour's drive behind them, the bloodshed continued. They spoke bitterly, while at the same time feeling immensely proud of their hometown. During this period, there were more bloody clashes and forests were plundered and destroyed.
We must recognize that aggression is an adaptation and part of an act of survival. Animal aggression has a long history and is everywhere. It exists deep within us and may be part of us, but it is not the only part. It's not even the most important part of us, it's just there. It cannot define us, nor can it determine us. It co-evolved with our culture, with our rules, with constraints, with compassion. But we must soberly understand what it is and what it is not. Thomas Elbert et al. are constantly exploring innovative and imaginative ways to combat the thrill and addiction of war and its penetration into post-conflict societies and lives. Their work has a huge impact on post-conflict societies and transitional justice, this aggression takes place in very special circumstances, our aim is to eliminate the aggression, but first of all, let us know what it really is.
Perhaps UNESCO is right: genes don't give us a "violent brain.". But human-to-human violence still endangers our lives and communities, flooding our news programmes and newspapers. The mental mechanisms that predispose us to killing, to overcoming the aversion to harming others, which make us throw insects into exterminators around the world, are at war with other instincts and impulses within us.
If we have an aggressor in our body, then it can't do whatever it wants. This is true at almost any time, for almost anyone. The ability to invade is undoubtedly good for survival: protecting young offspring against potentially deadly attacks. But the fact that we have the ability to exhibit aggressive behavior does not mean that we are inherently aggressive. We have other qualities, we have compassion, we have dedication.
I've also heard others talk about children who are determined to be enemies of those who slaughter and commit murder and have no desire for violence, which means that the atrocities he witnessed may well have caused him deep pain and trauma. He didn't want to develop that kind of psychological resilience, he didn't sleep like a fish with his eyes open, he chose to see the truth of the matter. He tried to save others and ended up sacrificing his own life.
The original author | Dexter Dias
Excerpts | Shen Chan
Edit | Shen Chan
Introduction Proofreading | Liu Baoqing