To define an enemy image, psychosocial and conflict scholar Louis Oppenheimer leans on political scientist Janice Gross Stein. He describes it as “a set of beliefs or assumptions about an individual or a group and is considered a natural reaction to the process of identity formation by individuals and groups”¹.

In addition, Oppenheimer recognizes that an enemy image is “a specific form of a negative stereotype”².

It Is All About Identity…

Along the same line, Adriano Zamperini et al. as well as Kurt Jacobsen argue that the psychological construction of enemy images is intimately interwoven with the processes of individual and group identity formation, perception and group processes³.

Indeed, psychopolitical and conflict scholar Louis Kriesberg et al. put forward that

“[i]dentity is conceived of as more than a psychological sense of self; it encompasses a sense that one is safe in the world physically, psychologically, socially, even spiritually”⁴.

What is more, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a group of psychologists, interestingly remarks that “[o]ne of the most significant psychological causes [of conflict] is the exaggerated image of the enemy resulting from fear of the unknown, and an exaggeration of negative characteristics of the adversary”⁵.

…and That Is Why We Need Psychodynamics

Importantly, such insights contribute to the logic as to why studying psychodynamic processes must take a more prominent place in conflict research.

Following psychodynamic scholar Richard Kilburg’s definition, psychodynamics “can be defined as unconscious patterns of behavior, thoughts, emotions, conflicts, defenses, and relationships that influence how individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities adapt to the circumstances, predicaments, and environments of their lives”⁶. It includes furthermore two main strands of theories, i.e. object relations theory and theory of conflict.

In a nutshell, psychodynamics envisages internal motivating forces that result in enmification, i.e. the formation of enemy images⁷.

To delineate the field of psychodynamics within the context of this article, psychologist Stevan Hobfoll et al. strongly receive my support for their argument. It says that “most people are more likely to need support and provision of resources to ease the transition to normalcy, rather than traditional diagnosis and clinical treatment”⁸.

A Bit More Theory

By cause of the principle of non-sameness, psychoanalyst Vamik Volkan contends that international relationships are more preoccupied with an enemy than with an ally⁹.

Intriguingly, he explains that

“[w]hile on a conscious level we insist we are not the same as the enemy, on an unconscious level we are compelled to be the same as the enemy, at least in the areas where they absorb our projections”¹⁰.

In psychoanalytical terms, this mechanism is referred to as symbiosis. That is, we seek to remain different from our perceived enemies. Clearly, these reflections have a dualistic ring to them.

Within the field of psychoanalysis, the theory of object relations, according to Volkan, proclaims that children make sense of their social environment by establishing relationships with objects, mainly their parents, and, thereby, creating self- and object images¹¹.

In the case that they are unable to integrate self- or object images into their concept of self, they “externalize his or her unintegrated self-and object images into other persons, or animate or inanimate objects”¹².

This process of externalization explains how positive and negative unintegrated self- and other images are stored into “reservoirs of permanent externalization”¹³.

Eventually, these unintegrated images develop into images of ‘them’, into enemy images or into images of ‘us’, portraying a feeling of ‘we-ness’.

Psychodynamic Processes in Greater Detail

Volkan now builds on the process of externalization to define the idea of projective identification. The latter concept suggests that, if an event is perceived as a threat to one’s safety, the respective person looks for an external object onto which he or she can project its blame for the experienced emotional discomfort that was initially induced by that perceived threat¹⁴.

It is the same mechanism that explicates the construction of enemy images in adult life. Moreover, it gave incentive to Volkan to acknowledge the important role of the psychoanalytical concept of regression in enemy imagery formation.

Projective identification is hereby being continuously reintroduced as a coping strategy. Volkan observes that, when regression occurs, “the libido and aggression become fused in many individuals and in societies in general”¹⁵. As a result, these instinctive drives are often transformed in acts of violence through dehumanization processes.

Another important concept within the process of enmification is rigidification, which is psychoanalytically closely related to externalization¹⁶. Zamperini et al. argue that “rigidifcation builds a protective wall to defend against attacks to the subjective or collective sense of identity”¹⁷.

On group level, however, Volkan calls upon the concept of purification when referring to externalization within the context of large-group identity¹⁸.

Intertwining Psychodynamics and Group Conflict…

These psychodynamic processes help to explain how social processes and, in particular, traumatic experiences create the image of an enemy. This, in turn, leads to dehumanization of the enemy¹⁹.

Importantly, social scholar Michelle Gawerc contends that how “people react is greatly motivated by one’s frame/perception”²⁰. Gawerc furthermore counts on social scientists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s social construction theory to underpin her claim that a dualistic framework of the externalized perceived reality perpetuates enmification.

Zamperini et al. strikingly assert that

“the collective violence towards the hostile group is made possible and justified through specific psychological delegitimization processes”²¹, of which “dehumanization is probably the most extreme and effective strategy of delegitimization”²².

…to Serve Humanity

In conclusion, the compelling importance of deepening our understanding of psychodynamic processes in inter-group conflict is aptly resonated by psychologist Michael Salzman. Specifically, he calls attention to the idea that “if we can interfere with the processes of dehumanization we may prevent killing and atrocity”²³.

In other words, if I manage to see a stranger through a compassionate, human lens, the reason for the existence of violence may have lost its grounds altogether.

[1] Oppenheimer, L. (2006). The Development of Enemy Images: A Theoretical Contribution. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 12(3), p.271.

[2] Oppenheimer (2006), p.269.

[3] Zamperini, A., Andrighetto, L. and Menegatto, M. (2012). The Deconstruction of Enemy Images for a Nonkilling Society. In: Nonkilling Pyschology, eds. D.Christie and Pim, J.E., Honolulu, HI: Creative Commons, Center for Global Nonkilling, pp.322. & Jacobsen, K. (2013). Why Freud matters: Psychoanalysis and international relations revisited. International Relations, 27(4), p.398.

[4] Kriesberg, L, Northrup, T. and Thorson, S. (1989). Intractable Conflicts and their Transformation, Syracuse University Press, pp.64. See also Hobfoll, S.E. et al. (2007). Five Essential Elements of Immediate and Mid–Term Mass Trauma Intervention: Empirical Evidence. Psychiatry, 70(4), p.288.

[5] Nin, A. and White, R.K. (2002). ENEMY IMAGES: A Resource Manual on Reducing Enmity, p.47–48. Published by Psychologists for Social Responsibility and available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.464.5755.

[6] Kilburg, R.R. (2004). When Shadows Fall: Using Psychodynamic Approaches in Executive Coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(4), p.249.

[7] Oppenheimer (2006), p.271.

[8] Hobfoll (2007), p.285.

[9] Volkan, V.D. (1998). Ethnicity and Nationalism: A Psychoanalytic Perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(1), p.50–51.

[10] See Ellis, A., Abrams, M., Abrams, L. D., Nussbaum, A., and Frey, R. J. (2009). Psychoanalysis in theory and practice. In: Personality theories: Critical perspectives, (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009), pp. 138.

[11] Volkan, V.D. (1985). The need to have enemies and allies: A developmental approach. Political Psychology, 6(2), 219–247.

[12] Volkan, V.D. (2009). Large-Group identity, international relations and psychoanalysis. International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 18(4), p.209.

[13] Volkan (2013). Enemies on the Couch. Pitchstone Publishing, pp.216.

[14] Volkan (1985).

[15] Volkan, V.D. (2001). Transgenerational Transmissions and Chosen Traumas: An Aspect of Large-Group Identity. Group Analysis, 34(1), p.15.

[16] Kriesberg (1989), pp.70–74.

[17] Zamperini (2012), pp.326.

[18] Volkan (2013), pp.138.

[19] See for example Zamperini (2012), pp.325. referring to Sigmund Freud and Vamik Volkan for the individual level and also Zamperini (2012), pp.328–329. for group level.

[20] Gawerc, M.I. (2006). Peace-Building: Theoretical and Concrete Perspectives. Peace & Change, 31(4), p.453–454.

[21] Zamperini (2012), pp.330.

[22] Zamperini (2012), idem.

[23] Salzman, M. B. (2012). Dehumanization as a Prerequisite of Atrocity and Killing. In: Nonkilling Pyschology, eds. D.Christie and Pim, J.E., Honolulu, HI: Creative Commons, Center for Global Nonkilling, pp.109.

Back to Articles