Community psychology against militarism

The full costs of armed conflict are enormous and total world military expenditure is huge. Psychological theories and concepts to explain support for war and militarism at individual and group levels include: warfare as a masculine institution; social identity theory; nationalist versus internationalist attitudes; and the contact hypothesis. At a collective level militarism is legitimised. War and deadly weapons are portrayed in positive and unrealistic ways. Support for militarism permeates civic society and citizens are ‘cognitively disarmed’ about it and the role they play in supporting it. Psychologists have promoting militarism by working for the military and the changing nature of war and armaments, such as the use of drones, is providing further temptations to do so. Psychology has at best been ambivalent about militarism. Peace psychology has not taken an unambiguous position on it, often speaking of the absence of war in the absence of social justice as ‘negative peace’. The British Psychological Society is failing to recognise and oppose militarism. Community psychology should take a lead in arguing for a more clearly identified Psychology Against Militarism (PAM).