Group values vs. humanist values

For all of recorded history we have struggled with the conflict between our individual values and the values of the group(s) to which we belong. Possibly (or even probably) our need to "belong" to a group stems from our primate ancestry, but we have apparently always have lived, hunted and bred in groups. We have grouped for mutual protection and also for aggression against other groups. History is really about very little other than conflicts between groups and the conflicts between group values and individual human rights.

It's especially interesting that developmental psychology has paid so little attention to the stage of human development in which we are driven by our heritage to form and join groups. Everyone who has raised children has observed this stage, often in dismay, as the child that formerly belonged to the family group suddenly discovers the importance of peer groups. The young person's behavior changes radically as their allegiance, along with their behavioral values and ethics, shift to that of their new group. The new group, essentially peers and slightly older people, may have less mature and reasonable values than those of the family, but certainly has different allegiances, loyalties and conflicts. These peer group values become more important than the family values almost overnight.

We joke about the almost universal excuse "but so-and-so does it" or "all the kids dress that way/cut (or don't cut) their hair that way/wear pins (or bones) in their nose/get tattoos". It doesn't matter which group norm to which they are suddenly adhering. The norm primarily (or even only) exists in order to mark the new group as "different" from other groups, in other words, to help form the group's boundaries. So, naturally, it's different from the norms of the family. The importance of this stage is frequently under-rated. There is NOTHING more important to the young person in this stage than "belonging", and they are even sometimes willing to die to prove their right to be a member.

We don't seem to outgrow this stage, either. Groups continue to develop styles of dress or behavior that set them apart from other groups. Part of being a loyal group member is to disparage other groups, which of course sets the stage for escalations into violence. As human beings (as most of us are) we find it easy to accept individuals AS INDIVIDUALS. We do NOT find it easy to accept them as a member of a different group. We hate hurting or killing individuals. We seem to have no problem with hurting or killing group members. We wouldn't hesitate to assist or comfort a hurt individual, and also most of us wouldn't hesitate to machine-gun their group if it threatened the survival of ours. The "evils" of war are simply the result of the discrepancy between specific group values and individual, humanist ones.

Much of military (and some religious) indoctrination is designed specifically to insure that people who are inducted, sometimes involuntarily, into the group become loyal, full-fledged members, ready to fight and die for their new group. When religions or political groups do this, we call it "brainwashing". When the military does it, we call it "boot camp".

My point is only that group membership and conflict seem to be a universal and basic human trait, which means that no matter how we try to change things, conflict and war will continue, and no matter how much as individuals we deplore that fact, as group members we will continue to support it.