Jane Addams

In “Personal Reactions During War”, Jane Addams explained that the principles of militarism are contrary to civility. She clearly states that she believes that, even though human beings are capable of great atrocities and violent actions, we are not inherently violent. Instead, in order to do a violent task, violence must be taught and pushed on an individual. She spoke of those who fought in war, explaining that they killed, but were not necessarily advocates of war. There had to be some influential, external stimulus to get a soldier to plunge his bayonet into the body of an enemy fighter.

“Was not war in the interest of democracy for the salvation of civilization a contradiction of terms (p.3)?” That is my favorite quote from this reading because it revisits the idea of previous pacifists and philosophers, in that violence can never beget peace. Addams was certainly a pacifist, one who felt that non-action was inappropriate. She explained that “quietism” accomplished nothing and that in order to get desirable results, one must use nonviolent action. I think by nonviolent action she meant the use of things like picketing, fasting, and protesting.

This reading was very interesting and complemented my feelings towards aggression by nature. I have always felt that humans mean well in most of what they do. We are not malicious by nature. Her use of evolution as an example of why war is not inherent in a species was very interesting. I have always enjoyed humanistic psychology’s belief that people are generally good. This theory is complemented by the thought that evolutionary forces have not made war an inborn process. I have come to believe that societal influence and power struggle have made war a social norm, and aggression an acceptable means to an end. We fight because in the minds of most people, violence is an appropriate way to get what you want, and punish those who have done you wrong.