ABSTRACT
It is often contended that psychoanalysts can only speak authoritatively of their work in the consulting room and of individual psychology. Socio-political phenomena should therefore be left to specialists in other spheres, economists, sociologists, politicians and, in the area of war, even generals. But I contend that psychoanalysis has as its field the manifold aspects of the human mind and its activities and that therefore the exploration of its social aspects is a legitimate field of psychoanalytic inquiry. Moreover, I think that psychoanalysis has a unique contribution to make to the understanding of these phenomena; in particular, because of our experience of the conflicts between constructive and destructive attitudes in the individual we are able to shed light on some of the destructive forces we have to deal with socially. I will therefore begin by discussing the nature and development of ambivalence as we have learned to understand it in psychoanalysis and then make some remarks about the knowledge we have acquired in the study of groups. Finally, I will apply such considerations to the wider area of the handling of aggression in social situations and its mishandling in our failure to prevent wars and above all to make the world safe from nuclear catastrophe.
