Critique of The Seville Statement on Violence

Because the Seville Statement on Violence (1990; reprinted in this issue) reads like a "Mom and Apple Pie" statement (A. R. Pacht, personal communication, September 1991), psychologists probably read it and its endorsement by the American Psychological Association (APA) with little reaction or critical analysis. However, to those working from an evolutionary perspective in psychology the Statement is rather ominous.

Superficially, the Seville Statement on Violence appears to be a reasoned scientific statement refuting other scientists' work, which its authors believed to be in error. However, it was written in the language of sociopolitical activism, not that of science. For example, the Statement uses the term "scientifically incorrect,"¹ a term which is rarely found in scientific journals; it is the language of political correctness. The Statement accuses evolutionary scientists of "misstatements," a political euphemism for lies. It describes "alleged biological finding"; alleged is a legal term used in court. Indeed, the Seville Statement reads like the trial of a theoretical orientation, and its flavor is like a statement of religious belief. The purpose of the Statement is expressed in the language of activism: "empowered," "transformative tasks," "inventing peace," "collective," "freed from...bondage," "consciousness." A newsletter published by the organization promoting the Seville Statement describes itself as a "Support Network." An exegesis of the Statement, published by UNESCO, made a distinction "between violence and struggle," legitimizing the latter (Adams, 1991, pp. 36-37)-struggle being violence by an oppressed people, such as African National Congress members in South Africa.

The Seville Statement imputes beliefs to an unspecified group of scientists and then rebuts these beliefs. The authors have created a straw scientist and then demolished it. Fox (1988) has called the Statement a "shop worn denunciation of ideas that no one ever really had in the first place" (p. 4). For example, the Statement states that "biological findings have been used to . . . justify violence and war." Is there a reputable, contemporary scientist who uses "the theory of evolution" to "justify not only war, but also genocide, colonialism, and suppression of the weak"? Is there any discipline in which the consensus is "that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors"? The Statement implies that evolutionary scientists believe in genetic determinism (which they do not) and then rejects this as if it were refuting the consensus of a field--"classic example of disingenuous draftsmanship" (Somit, 1990, p. 555). The SSV accuses evolutionary scientists of believing that: "humans have a 'violent brain,'" "our neurophysiology...compels us to react violently," "war is caused by 'instinct'"; "biology condemns humanity to war"; and "in the course of human evolution...aggression was...maximally selected." Again, these statements do not reflect the consensus of the evolutionary field. A more representative statement by an evolutionary psychologist is "empirically, most personality traits such as...aggression...appear to show moderate heritability" (Buss, 1984, p. 1139).

The Seville Statement suggests that evolutionary scientists believe in the naturalistic fallacy-that what is should be (thereby justifying the status quo). This calumny is so common that many evolutionary scientists include a disclaimer rejecting it in every work that touches on a sensitive topic.² They are painfully aware of the potential for misuse of their work and do what they can to prevent this from happening (e.g., Wilson, 1978, p. 267).

The Seville Statement claims that the work of evolutionary scientists has induced pessimism in the public. I have been unable to find any evidence that supports or rejects this hypothesis. Although the Statement does not openly state that a criterion for judging scientific findings is its effect on the public, it has taken the first step onto that slippery slope. Pursuing this line of reasoning, let us suppose that a field "contributed to an atmosphere of pessimism in our time." Should it then be rejected and its workers discredited because it shatters illusions?

The authors of the Seville Statement on Violence presented themselves as being in the field they criticized- human evolution. However, most of the signatories lack citations in the germinal literature in this field and in the 1980-1984 Science and 1981-1985 Social Science Citation Indexes.

The signatories were trapped in the dualistic ideation that separates biology from culture, as if culture could exist without human beings, who are quite biological. They were engaged in intellectual denial and magical thinking, apparently believing that by defining warfare as an exclusively "personal," "social," and "rational" process, they could eliminate it by simply teaching peace and strongly believing that peace is possible (Adams, 1991, P 11)

A major effort of the organization promoting the Statement appears to be the refutation of the Nazi ideology that Adams ( 1991, p. 17) believed made World War II possible. The Seville Statement on Violence might have been somewhat useful in dealing with that problem then (P.L. van den Berghe, personal communication, 1991), but it is currently a potentially harmful anachronism.

The Seville Statement was written within the tradition of humbling science and using it to pursue political objectives. This is not in any society's interests (e.g., this was the attitude toward science in the former Soviet Union). When done in a scientific spirit and manner, criticism of theoretical perspective and its research is essential. The Statement does not criticize in this spirit and manner; instead its probable effect will be to stifle rather than improve human evolutionary research and researchers (e.g., Munro, l 990). Who will read and be most influenced by the Seville Statement? The general public? Highly improbable. It will be read largely by scientists, scholars, students, and funding organizations. What is its most likely effect-"to dispel the widespread belief that human beings are inevitably disposed to war as a result of innate, biologically determined aggressive traits"? Also improbable. The Statement is likely to cast a shadow of scientific and social disrepute on work done on war and violence from an evolutionary perspective (Hamilton, 1991).

What is ironic about the Statement is that its authors seem to be much more biologically pessimistic about humanity than are evolutionary scientists. The signatories of the Statement seem to have believed that if research on the causes of violence and wars included biological and evolutionary factors, we would become hopelessly passive. However, a more complete knowledge of the evolutionary, biological origins of human nature would allow us to more scientifically study war so as to prevent it.

The APA has a responsibility to speak out from its areas of expertise on the important issues of our time. However, it should prevent its cachet from being captured by special interest groups seeking to limit research, scientific dialogue, and theoretical work that contradicts their view of human nature and their social and political agendas. The APA should consult with psychologists knowledgeable in the areas covered by a statement being considered for endorsement and should publish the statement in the American Psychologist before endorsement. In endorsing the SSV, the APA's Board of Scientific Affairs "emphasized that this is not a scientific statement." What then is a document whose main body begins with five propositions stating: It is scientifically incorrect? The Seville Statement on Violence is a scientific statement³ driven by ideology and fear, and an inaccurate and misleading one. The SSV has been criticized by social scientists working from an evolutionary perspective (e.g. Fox, 1988; Somit, 1990). Endorsing statements that are not based on solid science can alienate scientists (and practitioners). This is an issue of concern in psychology. Is it any wonder that as Ross Stagner (1991) said in his letter on the SSV: "nobody listens" to psychologists, especially politicians and policy makers--a complaint that has been heard in this journal. The endorsement of the Seville Statement on Violence by the American Psychological Association can diminish APA's reputation; especially as the kind of politically-correct thinking and activism that the SSV exemplifies continues to be discredited. This endorsement discredits psychology, both as a discipline and as a profession. It discredits psychologists, both as scientists and practitioners.

Footnotes:

1. (All quotes are from the SSV and the APA's Editor's Note unless otherwise attributed).
2. Even a person with the unchallengeable credentials of a co-chair of the Society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologist of the American Anthropological Association--Mildred Dickemann (Personal Communication, June 14, 1994)--felt the need to make such a disclaimer.
3. The first sentence of the commentary on the SSV states: "The Seville Statement on Violence is a scientific statement...based on the latest scientific evidence..." (Adams, 1991, p. 7). The SSV authors describe themselves as being ...from relevant sciences."

REFERENCES

Adams, D. (1991). (Editor and Commentator). The Seville Statement on Violence, Preparing the Ground for the Constructing of Peace. Paris, UNESCO.

American Psychological Association. (1990). The Seville Statement on Violence. American Psychologist, 45(10), 1167-1168.

Buss, D. M. (1984). Evolutionary Biology and Personality Psychology: Toward a Conception of Human Nature and Individual Differences. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1135-1147.

Fox, R. (1988). On the Seville Statement on Violence. Human Ethology Newsletter, 5(5), 4.

Hamilton, W. D. (1991). Thoughts on the Purpose and Future of HBES. Human Behavior and Evolution Society Newsletter, 1(3), 5-6.

Munro, D. A. (1990). On Ethology's Future. Human Ethology Newsletter, 5(16), 3.

Somit, A. (1990). Humans, Chimps, and Bonobos: Biological Basis of Aggression, War, and Peacemaking. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34(3), 553-582.

Stagner, R. (1991). Comment on the Seville Statement. American Psychologist, 46(5), 543.

Wilson, E. O. (1978). For Sociobiology. In Arthur L. Caplan (ed.), The Sociobiology Debate: Readings on Ethical and Scientific Issues. New York, Harper & Row.