---

Book Review

By:  Ken O’Donnell

 

On Killing: The Psychological Cost
of Learning to Kill in War & Society

 

 

          In 1995 Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (US Army, ret.) penned an original work on a subject that deserves in depth study and contemplation.  His book entitled On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society delves into the impact taking the life of another human being has on the psyche of a man not normally predisposed to such acts.  Bookshelves are full of works delving into the criminal mind and exploring the science (or conjecture) behind the motivations of what our society considers the most egregious act a man can commit upon another – the act of taking the life of another human being.  But few works explore what effect the taking of a life has on well adjusted, reasonable, and otherwise peaceable men.

 

          Col. Grossman, currently Professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University, provides a unique insight into the minds of stable, healthy individuals who were called upon under circumstances of military service to take the life of another.  First person narratives of veterans describing their private accounts of taking a life and it’s after effects on their psyche punctuate the entire book, and if nothing else, makes this volume a worthwhile read.  The book posits several theories, some of which I agree with, and some I find questionable.

 

          4 options, not 2.  The fight or flight options, as they have been commonly termed, describe the response available to a man (or woman) when faced with a perilous encounter.  Col. Grossman disagrees, and states we actually have four choices.  In addition to those two, he suggests we also may either posture or submit.  Upon reflection, four options more accurately encompass threat response behavior.  These latter two are clearly neither flee nor attack responses, yet they are very real alternatives, observable both in the animal kingdom and in man’s social construct.  Any attempt to pigeonhole threat response behavior into only two fight/flight choices ignores the reality of human social interaction.

 

We commonly observe animals of the same species posture and submit, especially the social pack animals, where conflicts serve to establish a ranking rather than turn the animal into a meal or, for some other such cause, eliminate it.  In fact these very characteristics motivated men to domesticate the social pack animals and include them in family life.  The traits and attributes that enable a dog to submit to a human master endear it to us and make this bond possible.  I have observed my two Jack Russell terriers go thru this posture/submit cycle countless times both with each other, and other dogs they meet.  Rarely does the fight/flight behavior occur with another dog.  But when contact with a prey animal occurs the fight response is, well, instinctual – they are terriers after all.

 

Recognize Posturing, an essential skill.  Relevant to our studies of human behavior, our fellow man will and does prey within the species.  Serious practitioners should consider the ability to identify posturing behavior in others an essential skill.  Anyone who has social contact has experience recognizing the posture/submit responses – high school cliques, work relationships, and family interactions.  This form of human communication is for the most part non-verbal; most human communication is.  Body language conveys intentions and motivations candidly.  In fact when we discover a malevolent man who has learned to veil his true character his acquaintances express shock.  Serial killers are often described as having the ability to project themselves as kind, well-adjusted men who, through an ability to deftly navigate social norms, won the trust of their victim before striking.

 

During an encounter with an individual using instrumental violence to prey on another, the goal of the violence is to establish a position of strength for the aggressor, and produce a submission response from the target of the attack.  The aggressor using violence as a tool desires not to provoke a fight response, nor to force the victim to flee, but rather hold his prey captive and use violence so he can exert his will upon another.  Recognizing the behavior that indicates posturing early allows the targeted victim more response time, and more response options.  In addition, predators acting in groups have an established pack order, and noticing the cues displayed within that group can enable an observer to recognize its leaders and its followers.

 

The practitioner must keep in mind that although the aggressor is using violence as a tool to gain submission, the aggressor can quickly move into an expressively violent actor, and the motivation for violence becomes personalized.  His prey will influence this shift through how he responds to the aggressor.  Role playing and simunition exercises permit the student to practice interacting with an aggressor and learn effective ways of dealing with the situation.  Conversely, the aggressor using violence expressively is looking for a fight, and is unlikely to be influenced by any response from the victim other than one that interferes upon his ability to carry out his plan.

 

There are several conclusions of Col. Grossman’s that I disagree with.  One section of the book address a combat engagement continuum where the degree of proximity a soldier has to his enemy when he takes his life determines the impact to the psyche of the soldier.  He concludes when a sniper takes a life it has a relatively low impact on the soldier due to the long distance.  I believe he has made an error in judgment, and illustrates his misunderstanding of the nature of that kind of engagement.  Lack of proximity does not correlate to lack of intimacy.

 

He describes this type of warfare as detached and disengaged.  On the contrary, the sniper has chosen a specific human target, often observes it for a period of time (sometimes quite lengthy), and decides at a time of his choosing when he will end his life.  As his own life usually faces no immediate or direct threat from his target, he cannot justify his actions as necessary to his safety or survival (kill or be killed).  These factors cause the taking of a life in such fashion to have a deep impact on the psyche of most men.  As they developed, military sniper selection schools recognized it and make attempts to determine through psychological evaluation the character traits in men that provide the stability and moral fiber necessary to effectively perform in this role.  It appears Col. Grossman does not fully appreciate this manner of killing, or he would not have dismissed its impact so casually.  

 

Additionally, he makes an observation concerning the history of America’s soldier and his willingness to directly engage another man in mortal combat.  He compares data such as effective hits rates (hits to rounds fired) and the personal accounts of leaders to bolster his conclusions.  He observes that men are more willing to directly engage the enemy when operating in teams, such as crew served weapons, or when they cannot visualize their opponent, such as artillery batteries and bomber groups.  He also concludes that hit ratios have increased in modern time as a result of improved training.

 

While these may be true statements, the manner in which he supports this argument contains flaws.  He has taken to comparing men from several different wars, over 2 centuries, and disparate backgrounds without allowing for the differences in the sample population.  We cannot simply compare an army with say, a larger draft population, to one from another time with a higher volunteer force without making an allowance for that difference.  Col. Grossman makes no effort to recognize these variations.  He uses his observations to form conclusions about why the modern soldier is more effective, but more poignantly why the earlier soldier was not.  Perhaps his conclusions are correct, perhaps they aren’t; I find his methodology of collecting and analyzing supporting data fundamentally flawed, and therefore his conclusions become mere conjecture and opinion rather than the authoritative final word he portrays.

 

This is a worthwhile read, if for none other reason than it captures and records ordinary men speaking in anonymous candor about the act of taking another life.  He presents a multi-dimensional threat response reaction as opposed to the two-dimensional traditionally presented.  And he breaks new ground on work needing much more study.  Considering the increase in the self-defense movement, more men and women will find themselves having crossed the taboo of taking a life.  Those professionals who treat people seeking help in the form of counseling are well advised to become educated on the impacts the taking of human life has on the well-adjusted, peaceable citizen.