Cycles of War and Peace How Human Beings Work
The Persistent Allure of War
- May 6th, 2008War Has Always Been With Us . . .
This myth is called into question by Douglas P. Fry in his book Beyond War. Fry, an anthropologist, notes that many hunter-gatherer tribes, before the advent of farming communities, the rise of kings and nation states, did not actively make war. War appears to be a by-product of the civilized world and has become so common as to seem universal and inevitable. Yet there have always been people in the western world who chose not to make war. Among them are peace-loving groups like the Amish and the Quakers, and nation states like Switzerland and Sweden who have taught themselves to live without war for long periods of time.
Humans have always found good reasons to go to war, the most important of which is when an outside aggressor threatens the safety and security of its citizens. Much of the time, however, when nations and large groups go to war, their aims are not strictly defensive. Some other force calls people into war, even when going to war appears counter-productive or downright foolish.
What is it about war-making that draws us in? Why do so many of us return to war over and over again? The truth is that many human beings love war and cannot resist its siren call. It is that allure which accounts for the endurance of warfare over the centuries. Here is my list of factors that make up this compelling drive:
The Pay-Offs in War
- War makes us feel incredibly alive. It is living out on the edge of life and death and that is exhilarating to some who would make war.
- War calls us to be heroes, to risk everything and to sacrifice ourselves for something larger than ourselves, be it for love of family, country or simply ones fellow soldiers.
- The bonding of soldiers is battle may be the closest thing to real love that many men will ever know. Under fire, men (and now women), experience an intensity of love that is vastly beyond the humdrum routine of ordinary life.
- War can be astonishingly beautiful and full of breathtaking sights and sounds.
- To become a warrior and to use the force of arms against other people, especially if one feels powerless or victimized, is to instantly feel all-powerful. One becomes almost a god, capable of taking the most precious thing away from our enemies, life itself. This dynamic is true in all acts of violence, be they between individuals, groups or nations.
- War allows us to be morally superior. Our side is good and right. Our enemies are bad or evil, and hence they become objects and taking their lives is justified. Life becomes very simple and moral complexities are swept aside.
These are some of the factors that fuel the addiction to war and which keep it in place. It is, unfortunately, a Faustian bargain. By keeping this habit going, we threaten the survival of our species and perhaps the future of our planet as well.
Question:
What other ways might humans meet the deep needs that the drug of war supplies?
December 1st, 2008 at 7:22 am
Fry doesnt say, “that many hunter-gatherer tribes, before the advent of farming communities did not actively make war.”
what he says is that immediate-return/simple hunter-gatherers (99% of Homo existence) look to have made no war in the archaeological record and that sedentary (key word here) / complex hunter-gatherers had more propensity for warfare through fixed dependency on one area and fixed resource points. sedentary/complex hunter-gatherer adaptations didnt commonly come into existence until about 13,000 years ago.
and lets face it, the Amish, Quakers, Swiss and Sweden all benefited from colonial conquest and warfare over the past. these people sitting idly on the peripheries of western domination does not exempt them from benefiting in numerous direct and indirect ways (trade, markets, state protection, etc, etc.).
January 6th, 2009 at 12:09 am
[...] choose to end war, if and when we decided we didn’t want it anymore. I wrote about the payoffs as well as the huge and terrible costs of war and then raised the question, what do we really [...]
January 21st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
It does seem that aggression toward outsiders and preferential treatment of insiders is genetically ingrained. But we have options that previous cultures did not have, including the ability of people who would ordinarily be swept up in nationalist or religious crusades to communicate with their counterparts on the other side, in realtime and without fear. An Iranian kid can have an American pen pal, and today’s pen pals are in constant online communication. Our weapons can travel further, but so can our minds. We are no longer defined so exclusively by proximity and similarity. Our genes haven’t changed, we’ve just developed the ability to communicate above the default level for warring populations. That’s a game-changer, especially if war becomes so destructive and chaotic that it can’t be justified economically and can’t be regarded as a quest for justice.
Cynics will say, “You can’t get rid of war. We’re going to have to live with it, as we always have.” That option may no longer be viable. We put an end to stupidly catastrophic rationalizations, or we are run over by our own juggernauts. I prefer getting out of denial to hitting bottom, if hitting bottom means the loss of everything we live for.
Michael