Introduction

In the early 1930’s, with fascism ascendant in Europe, renowned physicist Albert Einstein reflected on human nature and wanted to know if the ideal of eternal peace could ever be achieved. In search of an answer, he penned a letter to the father of psychoanalysis. 

Just months after the correspondence between Einstein and Freud, Hitler would become chancellor of Germany. [1]

Letter from Einstein to Freud 

In July of 1932, Albert Einstein, the renowned physicist who conceived of the theory of relativity, wrote a letter to Sigmund Freud in which he asked:

Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?

Einstein worried that, despite it being widely understood that advancements in science meant modern war could end civilization, attempts to permanently put an end to its occurrence had fallen flat. 

It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to mean a matter of life and death for civilization as we know it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.

In a display of humility by the man whose name is today synonymous with genius, Einstein states that, while his daily intellectual pursuits as a physicist help shed light on the operations of celestial bodies, they do not provide him with special insights into the minds of humans, and he must therefore turn to the famed psychologist for an answer to his present question.

[T]he normal objective of my thought affords no insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus, in the enquiry now proposed, I can do little more than seek to clarify the question at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions, enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man's instinctive life to bear upon the problem.

Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein.

A Global Body Is Needed to Maintain Peace

Einstein thought the solution to the problem of war to be, in the abstract, quite simple: establish an international body that would broker international disputes. 

As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e. administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to accept its judgments unreservedly and to carry out every measure the tribunal deems necessary for the execution of its decrees.

But he quickly presents a challenge such an international institution would face: how would it enforce its rulings?

But here, at the outset, I come up against a difficulty …. law and might inevitably go hand in hand, and juridical decisions approach more nearly the ideal justice demanded by the community (in whose name and interests these verdicts are pronounced) in so far as the community has effective power to compel respect of its juridical ideal. But at present we are far from possessing any supranational organization competent to render verdicts of incontestable authority and enforce absolute submission to the execution of its verdicts. 

Einstein suggests that the only way such an institution could work would be the surrender of national sovereignty: war can only be put to a permanent end if the world’s nations are willing to accept the legitimacy of such a supranational organization. [2]

Thus I am led to my first axiom: the quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action, its sovereignty that is to say, and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security.

The “Governing Class” and Arms Dealers Are Impediments to a Global Peacekeeping Authority

Einstein suggests that psychological factors inhibit the creation of a supranational organization with the power to maintain peace.  

The ill-success, despite their obvious sincerity, of all the efforts made during the last decade to reach this goal leaves us no room to doubt that strong psychological factors are at work, which paralyse these efforts.

Among the impediments to what he views as the only path to permanent peace is the desire for power amongst the “governing classes” of the world’s nations. 

Some of these factors are not far to seek. The craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty.

He further points the finger at weapons manufacturers and contractors who, indifferent to the tragedies of war, see international conflict as an economic opportunity. 

This political power-hunger is wont to batten on the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have specially in mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority.

The Masses Are Rallied To Support War Via Propaganda

Einstein then poses a question to Freud: how is it possible for the governing class and the narrow segment of the population that stands to gain economically from war to rally the masses who stand to lose from war to support military conflict? 

But recognition of this obvious fact [that governing classes seek to preserve national sovereignty and that some gain economically from war] is merely the first step towards an appreciation of the actual state of affairs. Another question follows hard upon it: how is it possible for this small clique to bend the will of the majority, who stand to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions? (In speaking of the majority, I do not exclude soldiers of every rank who have chosen war as their profession, in the belief that they are serving to defend the highest interests of their race, and that attack is often the best method of defence.)

Einstein provides what he believes to be a partial answer. He suggests that the ruling class is able to do so through their control of the media, schools, and the Church, which inculcate nationalist sentiments and rally support for detrimental wars.

An obvious answer to this question would seem to be that the minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.

Pro-War Propaganda Exploits a Dormant “Lust for Hatred and Destruction”

But Einstein suggests that this is only a partial answer to his question of how the ruling minority riles up the majority who stand to lose from war. And he poses a further question: how is it that these institutions – the media, schools, and the Church – can be used so effectively to serve the ends of the minority? 

Yet even this answer does not provide a complete solution. Another question arises from it: How is it these devices succeed so well in rousing men to such wild enthusiasm, even to sacrifice their lives?

His theorized answer invokes human nature and gets into matters of psychology: he suggests that humans hold within them a dormant “lust for hatred and destruction” which is capitalized on by this ruling minority through the organizations it controls.

Only one answer is possible. Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction. In normal times this passion exists in a latent state, it emerges only in unusual circumstances; but it is a comparatively easy task to call it into play and raise it to the power of a collective psychosis. Here lies, perhaps, the crux of all the complex of factors we are considering, an enigma that only the expert in the lore of human instincts can resolve.

Einstein makes clear that he believes this psychosis afflicts not only “the so-called uncultured masses,” but often affects the “Intelligentzia” much more severely.

I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called "Intelligentzia" that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw, but encounters it in its easiest, synthetic form upon the printed page.

Returning then to the matter posed at the outset of the letter – can war be put to end? – Einstein presents Freud with a question: can the innate lust for hatred and destruction he speculates exists in all men be overcome? 

Is it possible to control man's mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness?  

Response by Freud to Einstein

Agrees that a Global Authority is Needed to Ensure Peace

In his response to Einstein, Freud agrees with Einstein that the only way to bring about lasting peace is the creation of a global authority that has the final say in conflicts. 

There is but one sure way of ending war and that is the establishment, by common consent, of a central control which shall have the last word in every conflict of interests.

He argues that, for his proposed global authority to successfully maintain perpetual peace it must be vested with both the judicial authority to issue rulings on global conflicts and the executive authority to enforce its rulings.

For this, two things are needed: first, the creation of such a supreme court of judicature; secondly, its investment with adequate executive force. Unless this second requirement be fulfilled, the first is unavailing.

The League of Nations Cannot Ensure Peace Because It Lacks The Power To Enforce Its Rulings

Freud then turns to what he believes to be an inadequacy of the League of Nations, a predecessor to today’s United Nations: its lack of executive power. 

Obviously the League of Nations, acting as a Supreme Court, fulfils the first condition; it does not fulfil the second. It has no force at its disposal and can only get it if the members of the new body, its constituent nations, furnish it. And, as things are, this is a forlorn hope.

Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud.

Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud.

Agrees With Einstein on Existence of Innate Human Lust for Destructive Behavior

The father of psychoanalysis then turns to Einstein’s theory of an innate human impulse for destruction and the physicist’s alarm at the ease with which men – even intellectuals – can be rallied to support war.  

He agrees with Einstein’s theory of an innate human tendency towards destructive behavior. 

I entirely agree with you. I believe in the existence of this instinct and have been recently at pains to study its manifestations. ….With the least of speculative efforts we are led to conclude that this instinct functions in every living being, striving to work its ruin and reduce life to its primal state of inert matter. Indeed it might well be called the "death-instinct."

Summary

Einstein argued that the only path to permanent peace is the establishment of a supranational peacekeeping authority with a mandate to adjudicate international disputes. However, he argued that ruling elites in each nation benefit from the current state of world affairs and are therefore an impediment to the formation of such an organization. He also argued that weapons manufacturers who benefit financially from war are an obstacle to the formation of such a peacekeeping organization. He then asked how this minority which stands to benefit from war is able to rally the mass of people who stand to lose from war to support the conflict. Einstein argued that this is done through the ruling classes’ control of the media, the education system, and sometimes the Church. He then asked why this pro-war propaganda is effective and suggested the following answer: that within all men exists a dormant “lust for hatred and destruction” which is capitalized on by the ruling classes through the institutions they control. 

Freud agreed with Einstein that only the creation of a global authority with the final say in conflicts could put an end to war. And he agreed with Einstein’s theory that humans hold within them a dormant “lust for hatred and destruction,” which Freud referred to as a “death instinct.”

Less than a year after the correspondence between Einstein and Freud, Hitler would become chancellor of Germany.

 

Written By: Aiden Singh Published: June 2, 2020

Footnotes

[1] Einstein penned his letter to Freud in July of 1932. Freud replied 2 months later. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933.

[2] Einstein acknowledges that wars are not only fought between nations but also within them (i.e. civil wars). 

I have so far been speaking only of wars between nations; what are known as international conflicts. But I am well aware that the aggressive instinct operates under other forms and in other circumstances. (I am thinking of civil wars, for instance, due in earlier days to religious zeal, but nowadays to social factors; or, again, the persecution of racial minorities). But my insistence on what is the most typical, most cruel and extravagant form of conflict between man and man was deliberate, for here we have the best occasion of discovering ways and means to render all armed conflicts impossible.

 

Sources

Einstein’s 1932 Letter to Freud. Published Online By UNESCO.

Freud’s Response To Einstein. Published Online By UNESCO.