Psychology of Wars: When Intra- and Inter-Communal Tension Drivers Collide with Psychological Instincts

A Meeting of Minds: Freud and Einstein on War, Peace, and the Human Condition

In 1932, two of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century—Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud—engaged in a remarkable intellectual exchange on one of humanity’s oldest dilemmas: the scourge of war. Initiated under the auspices of the League of Nations’ International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, their correspondence remains a timeless exploration of human aggression, civilization, and the elusive pursuit of peace.

Einstein, the physicist who unlocked the mysteries of the cosmos, chose Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, to reflect with him on a deceptively simple but profoundly complex question: “Is there any way to deliver mankind from the menace of war?” Their exchange came at a pivotal moment in history—Europe was still healing from the horrors of World War I, yet ominously drifting toward another global conflict. What emerged from their letters was not only an incisive diagnosis of the causes of war but also a sobering reflection on the limitations of human civilization in restraining violence.

Einstein’s Vision: Global Governance as a Cure for Chaos

Einstein framed war as the outcome of unregulated power contests between nation-states. His solution was structural: he proposed the creation of a supranational “legislative and judicial body” empowered to mediate international disputes and enforce peaceful resolutions. However, he acknowledged a significant barrier—nation-states would need to relinquish part of their sovereignty to this global institution, a concession not easily won.

Einstein’s approach mirrors current calls for stronger global governance, conflict-resolution mechanisms, and multilateral cooperation—particularly relevant in today’s increasingly fragmented world order.

Freud’s Insight: The Inner Battlefield of Human Nature

Freud, on the other hand, looked inward. He rooted war in the innate psychological forces that govern human behavior—specifically the death instinct (Thanatos), which he believed drives self-destruction and aggression. According to Freud, civilization suppresses these destructive urges through laws, norms, and moral values, but during times of crisis or collective stress, these instincts resurface and often find expression in acts of war.

Freud saw war as a manifestation of both internal (psychological) and external (communal) conflicts. While he doubted the possibility of eradicating war completely—given its bio-psychological roots—he emphasized the importance of intellectual development, emotional education, and the cultivation of empathy through intercommunal ties. For Freud, only by strengthening these socio-cultural connectors can we hope to manage our darker instincts.

From Global Theory to Local Realities: Lebanon’s Mirror

The Einstein-Freud exchange offers a compelling framework for understanding Lebanon’s own struggles with civil war, sectarianism, and chronic instability.

• Einstein’s structural remedy—a call for robust, impartial governance—is reflected in Lebanon’s ongoing demand for judicial reform, power-sharing, and regional frameworks capable of diffusing sectarian tensions and reducing foreign interference.

• Freud’s psychological diagnosis is equally relevant: Lebanon’s cycles of violence are fueled not only by political and economic factors but by inherited trauma, historical grievances, and the transmission of fear and hatred across generations.

To break this cycle, Lebanon must invest in transgenerational healing. This includes:

• Promoting intercommunal dialogue and social cohesion programs;

• Combating hate speech and sectarian narratives;

• Embedding trauma-informed education in schools and media;

• Empowering community-based peacebuilding rooted in empathy, storytelling, and shared cultural practices.

Bridging the Divide: The Dual Path Forward

The Einstein-Freud correspondence, published by the League of Nations in 1933 under the title Why War?, highlighted a crucial lesson: peace cannot be achieved through intellectual discourse alone. It demands both systemic transformation and individual healing.

In Lebanon’s context, this means recognizing that neither constitutional reforms nor political pacts will succeed without addressing the psychological scars and emotional wounds of war. As Einstein called for institutions to prevent conflict, and Freud for a revolution in human consciousness, Lebanon needs both.

Together, their legacy reminds us that the road to peace lies at the intersection of governance and the human psyche. Understanding—and acting on—both dimensions is essential for breaking the cycles of violence and forging a sustainable future.

Sources:

A Letter from Freud to Einstein: why war?

https://archive.org/details/freud-einstein-1933-war

The Freud-Einstein Correspondence of 1932: Theories of War