Fortitude in War
The Editorial Board does not hold itself responsible for the opinions of contributors Vol. I. No. 3 JULY 1940 Price lOd. (1/- Post Free)
- Author:
CRICHTON-MILLER, M.A., M.D., F.R.C.P.
Fortitude can be a great virtue. It can also be an innate quality. In so far as xt is innate, it is a fortunate attribute, and in so far as a man lacks innate fortitude, the more is he to be commended for displaying whatever fortitude he can achieve. ^ is easier to observe this in adolescents than in adults. Among them the differences are more marked as between the ” quitters ” and the ” stickers “. The reason for this is that only in maturity do we reach our high-water mark of acquired fortitude, whereas our innate capacity for endurance shows itself in conduct from earliest years.
To some, then, fortitude is a gift of the gods; to others, a moral achievement. If we analyse the different challenges that demand fortitude, we see that they can he roughly classified in two ways. First there is endurance in regard to a painful experience, as opposed to fortitude in anticipating any such experience?the grit of the soldier in desperate fighting as opposed to the calm of a civil population in anticipation of invasion. This difference turns largely on the conceptual factor? that is, our inherent capacity of imagination. There are those who are self-possessed Until the machine-gun opens fire, but no longer; whereas others build up reputations as “jitter-bugs ” until a bomb lands in their immediate neighbourhood, after which they assume a totally different personality?or so it seems to observers. The first ?r?up react with apprehension to the objective menace; the second react to it with fortitude, although they wilted in the face of the imagined danger.
The second way in which we can classify fortitude is according to the nature of the challenge?whether material or moral. Some men will stand shell fire heroically, and yet be unable to appear at a public function without some form of chemical reassurance, generally alcohol. Others will stand obloquy and ostracism for political 0r religious opinions, and then be unable to endure the dentist’s minor torments. ^ Woman left a ball, and sobbed herself to sleep because her frock had appeared drab a?d out of fashion, causing her intense mortification. Yet this same woman not so ?ng after refused an anaesthetic for a fairly difficult confinement and astonished 0ctors and nurses by her powers of silent endurance. In short, what is appropriately CaHed ” animal courage ” bears very little relation to social courage.
This question of animal courage brings us back to the factor of inheritance.
ls closely associated with aggressivity, and aggressivity is of all character traits It the one which is most closely based upon hormonic (or ” glandular “) balance. As proof of this we have only to consider the reduction in aggressivity which is unfailingly achieved by castration in most bisexual species. Hence we find, as we would expect, that the human subject displays fortitude when the glands of aggression are well developed and functioning healthily. These are mainly the adrenals and orchitic glands. But aggressivity has its counterpart in submissiveness, which it is now fashionable to equate with masochism, as it is to equate aggressivity with sadism. This tendency is unfortunate, and leads to inaccuracy and superficial thinking. Just as aggressivity has its biological basis in glandular activity, so also has submissive- ness. And just as aggressivity contributes to fortitude, so also does submissiveness.
In the last few weeks there must have been thousands of cases where a man was displaying aggression and fortitude in the front line, while his wife in flight and carrying an infant was displaying submissiveness and fortitude in no less measure. We thus see that there is an intimate connection between the physiology of the body and the degree of fortitude expressed in behaviour. But this physiology is itself susceptible to the action of many agents, bacterial or chemical. Thus the virus of influenza is recognized as having a particularly detrimental effect on the adrenal glands. Many a doctor has heard from a man in his prime the complaint which runs something like this: ” I suppose I’ve got over that attack of ‘flu that I had three weeks ago. But you know my nerves are all to pieces still. I don’t know what it is, but I seem afraid of all sorts of things that normally mean nothing to me. I’m afraid of the News Bulletin on the wireless; I can’t trust myself to make a sudden decision in my business; I wake in the night hearing imaginary burglars?I suppose I shall recover my nerve ? ” This indicates the way in which a bacterial poison can under- mine the organic basis of courage and self-confidence. Of chemical agents the best known and the most ancient is alcohol. We talk of the ” Dutch courage ” derived from alcohol. All we really indicate by that is a condition of mental blur in which we discriminate less accurately between safety and danger. But the most modern chemical to be used to promote courage is Benzedrine. This is a very valuable and very dangerous drug. Its action is somewhat obscure, but in general it seems to stimulate the adrenals and at the same time to promote sugar metabolism. Evidence is accumulating that a large proportion of German troops and aviators are sent into action under the influence of Benzedrine. Unquestionably it has an action on behaviour which is comparable in its specific character to the action of such alkaloids as Hyoscine, Morphine, Cannabis Indica or Datura?in other words it produces a particular effect on behaviour, and it does so without incurring any very appreciable reaction after the effects have worn off. It will probably become usual to use this drug for prize-fighters, professional footballers, athletes, examination candidates and racehorses. Such reflections help us to bear in mind that character always has a basis that is ultimately chemical. But that is in no way equivalent to stating that personality is limited by its chemical components. Far from it. The unique quality of mankind is the capacity to make a choice and pursue a purpose that transcend mere physiological resources.
This brings us to the purely psychological aspects of fortitude. First of all, let us consider habit formation. Consider two children of the same age, say two boys of seven years. The one has been taught to swim and is thoroughly at home in the Water; the other has been taught to climb trees and displays agility and self-assurance even on top-most branches. Transpose the boys, and you will probably observe that the tree-boy cries when he is urged to throw himself into the water, while the swimmer will be afraid to trust himself to stout branches, despite your assurance that they are safe. In fact, what appears to be great courage resolves itself largely into a question of self-confidence based upon previous experience?in other words, the difference between the known and the unknown.
A different aspect of habit formation presents itself in connection with what Psychologists call ” patterns of infantile behaviour “. The simplest example is that of the child who is given a sweet to bribe him to stop crying. This procedure establishes a pattern of behaviour which may be formulated thus:?” By exploiting Pain or frustration, I shall obtain gratification.” In short, it is training the child to be a ” quitter “. The reverse procedure is to offer the bribe only if and when the child exercises self-control. Theoretically this is the correct way to foster endurance, for the formula then becomes:?” By exercising as much self-control as * can, I shall obtain gratification.” Thus we can train the child to be a ” sticker fiut in point of practice the method is dangerous; it can very easily be overdone, and unduly self-controlled children often turn out to be rather unhappy and very ^troverted adults, simply because they were denied tenderness when they were entitled to it. One of the results of mistaken management in childhood is to drive the child from reality into a phantasy escape. Peter Pan would have been less concerned with his phantasies of Captain Hook, and more disposed to return with ^endy to reality, if he had experienced more orthodox maternal tenderness in his early days. In other words, the imaginative child, deprived of tenderness in the aPpropriate phase, does not develop fortitude in the face of reality but rather a compensatory valour in phantasy. Now this contrast between fortitude in phantasy and fortitude in reality runs all through character and conduct. The blusterer cannot lay claim to fortitude in reality, and it is only in relation to reality that fortitude counts. The dreamer is not courageous until he has learned to ” … Dream, and not make dreams his master “, or as Francis Thompson puts it: ” Learn to dream when thou dost wake.” For, after all, fortitude is, in its essence, the negation ?f escape from life. Temptations to escape beset every one of us all through our Hves, particularly in that state of sophistication which we are pleased to designate as c^ilisation. We escape from effort because sloth no longer implies starvation; We escape from danger because we have contrived so many?if deceptive?safety-first devices; we escape from reality into a make-believe world of mechanized entertain- ment, where we can comfortably indulge in ‘’ Dreams of the unfulfill’d and unpossest.’’ So we see that fortitude has many roots in the individual personality. But it Would be a mistake to ignore the social sources of fortitude. Leadership and social contagion can count for much. These operate by suggestion, and the transmission r?m the leader to his subordinates, or from the group to the individual, of a common and transcending purpose. The best examples of the former mechanism comprise exploits of native levies or troops of primitive peoples led by Europeans. In such cases the troops are rarely in a position to choose their own purpose on any grounds of knowledge or reason. They simply accept the inspiring example of the leader as sufficient motive for courageous conduct. But leadership counts at every level of human development. No human group is so individualised as to be insusceptible to the effects of powerful leadership. Middleton Murry says of this phenomenon: ” The only sort of miracle that has meaning for grown men?the miracle whereby a hero creates heroes.” History will tell in ages to come of the heroic defence of Verdun in the Great War. It is impossible to believe that the men of the Maginot Line were essentially different. But in 1940 there was no one to rally his men with the grim challenge: ” Debout les morts ! “
When the individual derives his courage from the group in which he finds himself, rather than from the leader, the process is one of social identification. The forces of mob contagion can be so powerful as to make savage brutes out of decent men, and heroes out of shivering weaklings. All revolutions in general tend to be manifesta- tions of social conflict between those who are defending their vested interests and those who have everything to gain and nothing but their lives to lose. It is therefore easy to understand that the fortitude of the former group is much more personal and rational, while that of the revolutionaries is more social and passionate. As far as one can learn from observers’ reports, the populace of Barcelona, who were very inadequately protected from air attack, developed a high degree of fortitude on a basis of common social experience.
It has been said by Harold Nicholson that the Germans possess every form of courage except civic courage. Accepting this as a correct estimate, it means that the national temperament and upbringing make for fortitude; that as a people they are suggestible, and therefore easily led by an aggressive leader, and also intensely susceptible to mob influences. R. L. Stevenson says of such folk that they are ” not led so much by any desire of applause as by a positive need for countenance But the psychological aspect of fortitude, whether personal or social, does not take us far enough. It stops short of any consideration of values. For psychology in so far as it claims to be scientific, only tells us the mechanisms whereby a man’s conduct is courageous or otherwise. Professor Macmurray has said: “Scientific psychology is the science of human behaviour in so far as it is instinctive, habitual or unconscious. There cannot be a science of human behaviour in so far as it is conscious and intentional.” This means that human choice may be casually determined, or may be free and deliberate. One man ” sticks ” because his temperament imposes it upon him: another man ” sticks ” because he has consciously chosen his purpose.
One man “quits ” because his early upbringing has predisposed him to do so; another man ” quits ” because he has never accepted a value higher than self-interest. The highest form of fortitude from the ethical point of view is that which has the least temperamental basis, which has developed in spite of adverse upbringing, and which is most independent of social influences. In short, he is the greatest hero who was cast in the mould of a coward. For such a one must have accepted as his purpose in life a role for which he was fitted neither by nature nor nurture. And what matters to us as a nation at this crisis is not how well or how ill our children have been bred and brought up, but how to transform the material available from mediocrities into heroes. Clearly we must exploit leadership and social influences to the utmost, avoiding only any form of deception. But that is not enough. There must be a general revaluation on a great scale?personal revaluation, whereby individuals discard the old values of self-interest and narcissan security, to adopt new values that can promote fortitude in the highest degree. We are not agreed about these values. Some would say the supreme values for which we are fighting are freedom, justice and good faith. Some would say that we are fighting for a new order m the civilised world. Some would claim that we are fighting to promote the Kingdom of God. But whether we accept new values that are merely political, or mainly ideological or frankly religious, the consideration that counts is whether a man’s values are sufficiently dominating to neutralise completely all personal con- siderations that would otherwise limit his fortitude.
And what are the criteria of such fortitude ? First the hero must be able to: ” … meet with triumph and disaster, And treat those two imposters just the same.”
Then he must be able to wait?suspense, uncertainty, unemployment, immobility? aU the minor calls for fortitude?none of these things should take from him ” Courage and gaiety and the quiet mind “. And when he has learnt ” from fears to vanquish fears “5 he should be ready to meet the supreme and ultimate test. For the hero? whatever be the sources of his fortitude?is the man who, in the last resort, answers Unreservedly the call to make the supreme sacrifice: ” Die for none other way canst live.” S
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.