The Seville Statement

 

 

  • Audience: This learning module was created for students aged 16 - 18 but it can easily be adapted for use with volunteers preparing to work overseas. Younger students could also learn much from this activity if adequately prepared by their teacher.

  • Objectives: To help young people examine assumptions about violence and human nature; to practice peer teaching and consensus-building.

  • Materials: Copies of the four excerpts from The Seville Statement on Violence for each group; 20 blank cards or slips of paper for each group. (The complete text of the Seville Statement appears at the end of this activity, for teachers who wish to refer to it.)

 
 
 

 

Procedure

Step 1
Young people form groups of four, and each person in the small group is given a different excerpt from The Seville Statement on Violence. It can be explained that the Seville Statement is a statement on violence and human nature. It was written by a group of twenty scholars -- biologists, psychologists, neurophysiologists, anthropologists, geneticists -- from 12 different countries.

Step 2
Everyone who has Excerpt 1 then joins together to form a new group. Everyone with Excerpt 2 forms another group, and so on. In these groups, participants carefully read their excerpts, making sure that they fully understand it; dictionaries or encyclopaedias may be consulted if necessary.

Step 3
Students then return to their original group of four. They take turns explaining to the members of the original group in their own words what their portion of the Statement says. They are responsible for answering questions from the small group and for making sure everyone fully understands that excerpt.

Step 4
Each student takes five blank cards or slips of paper. In silence, they write five different reactions they had to the Seville Statement, each one on a different piece of paper. A reaction may be simply a word ('skeptical'), a phrase ('Interesting--I'd like to know more'), a question ('Why don't more people know about this paper?'), or a more involved thought requiring a sentence or two ('if violence is not biological, then it should be possible to do something about it. Schools should find a way to address social violence.')


Step 5
All the reactions are collected by one person in the small group, and dealt out at random as if they are playing cards. Students look at their cards. They place any cards that they themselves wrote, or any with which they disagree, face down in the centre of the table. They can pick up any of the discarded reactions to add to those they are holding. The aim is to end up holding three reaction cards that they themselves did not write, but with which they can agree.

Step 6
Once this is done, they report to each other in the small group on the three reactions they are holding, and why they have chosen them.

Step 7
Finally, the class comes together to discuss any further thoughts on the Seville Statement and its implications.

 

 
 

 
 
 

 

Variation

During Step 6, students attempt to write a composite reaction to the Seville Statement that all four can agree on.

 

 
 

 
 
 

 

Follow-up

Students may wish to interview others in school, in a youth group, parents, or community members to see how widespread is the notion that violence is simply part of human nature. What may be appropriate ways of changing this attitude?

 
 

 
 
 

 

In the Curriculum

The activity develops skills in reading comprehension, paraphrasing, making summaries, presenting information clearly, examining other perspectives and building consensus. It can be used in a biology class on inherited traits, or in a psychology class.

 
 

 

 
 
 

 

The Seville Statement on Violence (1)

Excerpt 1
It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors. Although fighting occurs widely throughout animal species, only a few cases of destructive intra-species fighting between organized groups have ever been reported… and none of these involve the use of tools designed to be weapons. Normal predatory feeding upon other species cannot be equated with intra-species violence. Warfare is a peculiarly human phenomenon and does not occur in other animals.

Summary 1
It is untrue to say that we have inherited the tendency to make war from the animals we evolved from. Very few species fight among themselves, and none use weapons. Only humans make war.

Excerpt 2
It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature. While genes are involved at all levels of nervous system function, they provide a developmental potential that can be actualised only in conjunction with the ecological and social environment. While individuals vary in their predispositions to be affected by their experience, it is the interaction between their genetic endowment and conditions of nurturance that determines their personalities. Except for rare pathologies, the genes do not produce individuals necessarily predisposed to violence. Neither do they determine the opposite. While genes are co-involved in establishing our behavioural capacities, they do not by themselves specify the outcome.

Summary 2
It is untrue to say that human genes produce violent behaviour. Genes do not cause people to be either violent or peaceful. They provide the potential for behaviour; but how a person actually acts is shaped by their environment and the way that they are raised.

 
 

 
 
 

 

The Seville Statement on Violence (2)

Excerpt 3
It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a 'violent brain'. While we do have the neural apparatus to act violently, it is not automatically activated by internal or external stimuli. Like higher primates and unlike other animals, or higher neural processes filter such stimuli before they can be acted upon. How we act is shaped by how we have been conditioned and socialised. There is nothing in our neurophysiology that compels us to react violently.

Summary 3
It is not true to say that there is something in the human brain that causes people to act violently. We have the potential to act violently, but whether we do or not depends on how we have been brought up, and what kind of society we live in.


Excerpt 4
It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation… Modern war involves institutional use of personal characteristics such as obedience, suggestibility, and idealism; social skills such as language; and rational considerations such as cost-calculation, planning, and information processing. The technology of modern war has exaggerated traits associated with violence both in the training of actual combatants and in the preparation of support for war in the general population. As a result of this exaggeration, such traits are often mistaken to be the causes rather than the consequences of the process.

Summary 4
War is not caused by some instinct. The violent behaviours of people in war situations are something they have learned though training; they are not in-born. Such behaviours are a result of war, not the cause.

 
 
 
 
 

 

The Seville Statement on Violence

Believing that it is our responsibility to address from our particular disciplines the most dangerous and destructive activities of our species, violence and war; recognising that science is a human cultural product which cannot be definitive or all-encompassing; and gratefully acknowledging the support of the authorities of Seville and representatives of Spanish UNESCO; we, the undersigned scholars from around the world and from relevant sciences, have met and arrived at the following Statement on Violence. In it, we challenge a number of alleged biological findings that have been used, even by some in our disciplines, to justify violence and war. Because the alleged findings have contributed to an atmosphere of pessimism in our time, we submit that the open, considered rejection of these mis-statements can contribute significantly to the International Year of Peace.

Misuse of scientific theories and data to justify violence and war is not new but has been made since the advent of modern science. For example, the theory of evolution has been used to justify not only war, but also genocide, colonialism and suppression of the weak.

We state our position in the form of five propositions. We are aware that there are many other issues about violence and war that could be fruitfully addressed from the standpoint of our disciplines, but we restrict ourselves here to what we consider a most important first step.

It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors. Although fighting occurs widely throughout animal species, only a few cases of destructive intra-species fighting between organised groups have ever been reported among naturally living species, and none of these involve the use of tools designed to be weapons. Normal predatory feeding upon other species cannot be equated with intra-species violence. Warfare is a peculiarly human phenomenon and does not occur in other animals.

The fact that warfare has changed so radically over time indicates that it is a product of culture. Its biological connection is primarily through language which makes possible the coordination of groups, the transmission of technology, and the use of tools. War is biologically possible, but it is not inevitable, as evidenced by its variation in occurrence and nature over time and space. There are cultures which have not engaged in war for centuries, and there are cultures which have engaged in war frequently at some times and not at others.

It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature. While genes are involved at all levels of nervous system function, they provide a developmental potential that can be actualised only in conjunction with the ecological and social environment. While individuals vary in their predispositions to be affected by their experience, it is the interaction between their genetic endowment and conditions of nurturance that determines their personalities. Except for rare pathologies, the genes do not produce individuals necessarily predisposed to violence. Neither do they determine the opposite. While genes are co-involved in establishing our behavioural capacities, they do not by themselves specify the outcome.

It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour. In all well-studied species, status within the group is achieved by the ability to cooperate and to fulfil social functions relevant to the structure of that group. 'Dominance' involves social bondings and affiliations; it is not simply a matter of the possession and use of superior physical power, although it does involve aggressive behaviours. Where genetic selection for aggressive behaviour has been artificially instituted in animals, it has rapidly succeeded in producing hyper-aggressive individuals; this indicates that aggression was not maximally selected under natural conditions. When such experimentally-created hyper-aggressive animals are present in a social group, they either disrupt its social structure or are driven out. Violence is neither in our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes.

It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation. The emergence of modern warfare has been a journey from the primacy of emotional and motivational factors, sometimes called 'instincts', to the primacy of cognitive factors. Modern war involves institutional use of personal characteristics such as obedience, suggestibility, and idealism; social skills such as language; and rational considerations such as cost-calculation, planning, and information processing. The technology of modern war has exaggerated traits associated with violence both in the training of actual combatants and in the preparation of support for war in the general population. As a result of this exaggeration, such traits are often mistaken to be the causes rather than the consequences of the process.

We conclude that biology does not condemn humanity to war, and that humanity can be freed from the bondage of biological pessimism and empowered with confidence to undertake the transformative tasks needed in this International Year of Peace and in the years to come. Although these tasks are mainly institutional and collective, they also rest upon the consciousness of individual participants for whom pessimism and optimism are crucial factors. Just as 'wars begin in the minds of men', peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us.


Editor's Note: The Seville Statement on Violence was drafted by an international committee of 20 scholars at the 6th International Colloquium on Brain and Aggression held at the University of Seville, Spain, in May 1986, with support form the Spanish Commission for UNESCO. The Statement's purpose is to dispel the widespread belief that human beings are inevitably disposed to war as a result of innate, biologically determined aggressive traits.

UNESCO adopted the Seville Statement at its 25th General Conference Session in Paris, October 17-November 16, 1989. The Statement has been formally endorsed by scientific organisations and published in journals around the world. UNESCO is preparing a brochure to be used in teaching young people about the Statement.

In August 1987 the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association voted to endorse the Seville Statement. The Board of Scientific Affairs emphasised that this is not a scientific statement on the issue of specific inherited behavioural traits. It is, rather, a social statement designed to eliminate unfounded stereotypic thinking on the inevitability of war.