Although human history has traversed various stages and evolutionary processes, a persistent “survival mode” has endured in a straight line. While communities characterized by solidarity, sharing, and a communal spirit lived in peace, the door to war —or more precisely, to acts of ruthlessness— was opened when those who had advanced in agriculture and production were plundered by peoples of nomadic culture, as described in Ibn Khaldun’s *Muqaddimah*. This sociological structure has undergone changes through various historical processes. Nomadism has since given way to the spread of colonialist practices —and, for a time, the enslavement of human beings— by nations possessing advanced technology and military might; practices that far exceed the actual survival needs of communities. Instances where the people of one nation went to war against another due to the impulsive rage of kings—resulting in mass casualties among both soldiers and civilians—have left a shameful mark on humanity’s record.
In political psychology, the distinctions between “us” and “them” (in-group and out-group) —manifesting as othering, dehumanization, and demonization— explain how societal leaders instill a lack of conscience in people’s minds. Consequently, brainwashed individuals become capable of slaughtering neighbors with whom they had lived side-by-side until just recently; they cease to view these neighbors as human beings —in other words, they silence the voice of their own conscience. According to scientists studying this field, a person cannot kill another as long as they perceive that individual as a fellow human being. Therefore, what leaders who beat the drums of war are doing is precisely this act of “dehumanization” and the effort to prove that the intended targets have no right to life. Unfortunately, such brainwashing has historically proven highly effective; driven by the instinct for survival, members of the group defined as “us” fall under the spell of their leaders’ rhetoric of othering and vilification.
Moreover, when this attitude —which sidelines humanity and conscience— spreads from the ruling class to the masses, it becomes impossible for conscientious individuals to oppose it or to adopt a stance contrary to the prevailing mood. In this context, whenever art and literature produce works that challenge or dissent from the collective psyche, they should be perceived as the voice of the societal conscience, even when subjected to pressure. Ultimately, humanity and conscience are concepts that must be defined and understood in relation to one another. The consequences of a humanity that ignores its conscience are plain for all to see in the societies of today. The pretexts for modern wars—conflicts that grind up human beings —regardless of age or gender— show a tendency to expand beyond even the traditional drivers of religion and ethnicity. The events unfolding between Russia and Ukraine —nations sharing the same religion, race, and even culture— stand as proof of the extremes to which a lack of conscience can lead. Russians and Ukrainians, who until recently lived intertwined lives within similar sociocultural environments, are now capable of killing one another with savage brutality. Here, the effects of brainwashing transform the situation into a scenario where a survival instinct —encapsulated by the thought “if I don’t kill, I will be killed”— leads to a state of humanity stripped of conscience. Unless the intellectual framework shaping humanity’s survival mode is altered, this discord between conscience and the lack thereof seems destined to persist.