February, 12th, 2009
last updated September, 3rd, 2010

Viewed 487 Times

Social Essays:

War

by Chris Sunami

1. Dream War

   Why does the the idea of war have such a powerful hold over the human imagination? What about war could possibly make it seem appealing?
   
   There are two major answers to this question.
   
   1. The Noble War:
      In the dawn of human history, war was conducted in a very different manner. In that context, war consisted of hand-to-hand combat between the young men of two different tribes. It was conducted according to strict rules of honor, never involved civilians, and ended after a minimum of deaths on both sides. The purpose of such wars was to keep the tribes from becoming indolent and lazy during times of plenty. By testing themselves against each other, the young men would develop themselves to peaks of strength, intelligence, courage, skill and virtue. Those who survived on the side of the victors would have their pick of wives from both their own tribe and the conquered tribe, and would thus establish hearty bloodlines to improve the fitness of the human race.
      
      It is debatable, of course, whether war actually was conducted in such a manner in any time or place, yet it is that model of warfare that plays out inside the head of every boy or young man who dreams of entering the armed services. It is such a deep and basic part of our common social legacy that even committed pacifists can feel the pull of the "noble war," which is also the portrait of war sold to those at home by their warfaring governments.
      
      In truth, of course, modern warfare bears almost no resemblance to this primal vision. In modern war, weapons of mass destruction kill civilians and soldiers alike, and at a distance, in a bloody and largely honorless spectacle of destruction. Yet that vision of war, as true and inescapeable as it may be, is never quite able to defeat the image of the noble war that lives on inside our collective subconscious.
      
      
   2. The Dream War
      The other major source of positive thoughts about war is buried even deeper in our psyches. It exists at the level of primal symbols and archetypes utilized by myths, fairy tales and dream narratives.
      The best way to understand this is through the common dream of being chased by, or fighting against a horde of faceless monsters. Those dream-creatures are representations of pure evil, at least as we experience them. By destroying them, we gain a psychological victory for our ego over the chaotic and disturbing elements of our subconscious.
      
      The same basic effect is at work when we enjoy myths and legends that play out these same psychological archetypes. Such stories can be more fantastic, with the hero fighting off evil demons and monsters, or they can be more realistic, with the creatures replaced by human beings, who are nonetheless still representatives of pure evil.
      
      This last scenario becomes problematic, however, in that it encourages us to view our adversaries as evil and inhuman. Accordingly, we view whatever death and destruction we bring to our enemies as the same kind of uncomplicated triumph of good that it represents in our dreams and our myths. In reality, however, those that we kill are not abstract symbols, but real flesh-and-blood human beings with the same kinds of hope and dreams as we.
      
      When we let go of that realization, and tag some adversarial group as intrinsically monstrous --whether that be Nazis, terrorists, Arabs, blacks, whites, Ku Klux Klan members, or whatever --we are falling into the same nightmare world as inhabited by school shooters, who are unable to distinguish between their own classmates and the dark imaginings of their dreams.
      

2. Eliminating War

   War is a direct and inevitable result of two ideological trends: Materialism and anti-Individualism (Conformity). Wherever these two ideologies coexist, war is sure to follow.
   
   The causality is easy to trace:
   
   Materialism:
   When one Materialist society comes in conflict with another, the only way to resolve that conflict is in a Material fashion --through one society expressing physical dominance over the other. Therefore, war is the natural Materialist response to an ideological threat.
   
   For example, when the United States of America was attacked (physically and ideologically) on September 11, 2001, the response was to marshal a display of overwhelming physical force --the so-called “shock-and-awe” offensive.
   
   Conformism:
   Conformism creates another kind of motivation for war. Because of the natural individuality of human beings, a conformist society will have a continual need to repress, expel and destroy deviant internal elements in order to retain its uniformity. However, such methods may eventually prove insufficient, at which point, the conformist society will “project” its own unacceptable negative traits onto a foreign population. The outbreak of war, under such conditions, channels internal conflicts and hostilities into an external conflict, thus creating unity at home at the price of bloodshed abroad.
   
   Often, in a war between two conformist societies, both are actually externalizing a largely internal conflict. This is the same process described by African philosopher Franz Fanon as “objectification of the Other” and is closely analogous to the ancient Biblical practice of “scapegoating,” where the entire community’s sins would be invested into a goat, which would subsequently be driven into the wilderness.
   
   Although the terrorist Osama Bin Laden has directed attacks on many different nations around the world, it is likely that his real objective is much closer to home --to replace the relatively moderate, secularized governments of putatively Islamic nations like Egypt, Turkey and his native Saudi Arabia with more extremist, conformist Islamic theocracies.
   
   In response, the willingness of the American public to substitute one villain (Saddam Hussein) for another (Bin Laden) suggests that the true goal, from a psychological standpoint, was to respond to internal doubts, not external threats.
   
   Can war be stopped?
   
   To paraphrase Plato, every evil is the result of the dysfunctional pursuit of some good and useful end. The overall goals of the societies above are beneficial. In the case of the Materialist societies, the aim is to determine the superior worldview. In the case of the Conformist society, the aim is create unity and strength at home. If these goals can be met in a more effective and less destructive manner, then war will lose much of its powerful appeal. In general, what is needed is
   
   • a compelling and convincing way to for ideologies to prove their superiority, without relying on physical dominance
     
   • a way to create strong and unified communities without conformity
   
   If those two conditions can be met, then war can be stopped.
   
   Substitutes For War
   
   So are there superiority-proving substitutes for war? Some possible answers:
   
   
   • The Olympics
     One of the most promising alternatives to war, the Olympics has probably played a role in defusing world hostilities at points during its tenure. However, the results are too ambiguous, the events too arbitrary, and the relationship of the athletes to the ideology of the nation they represent too tenuous to make this a true testing ground for rival worldviews.
     
     
   • The World Cup
     Another leading athletic candidate, the World Cup has an advantage over the Olympics in providing a single uncontested winner, but falls prey to many of the other Olympic disadvantages. In addition, the World Cup is nearly ignored by America, the most significant modern nation.
     
     
   • Trade Wars
     This is a workable solution in theory, but in practice trade imbalances are too often backed up by military force to make this a real alternative to war.
     
     
   • Cold War
     A cold war is simply a situation where two nations are too evenly matched to risk an open confrontation --a postponement of the problem of war, rather than a solution to it.
     
     
   • Culture Wars
     The influence of popular culture is often underestimated. American pop culture played a substantial role in establishing America as a dominant force in the world, and is often cited by other countries as an example of American “imperialism.” However, the results of the culture wars are ambiguous. Does American pop culture dominate because of its quality, or because of American marketing and merchandizing power? If it is the latter, than the culture wars are really just a part of the trade wars, and thus implicated as a shadow counterpart to the “hot wars” of Materialism domination.
     
     However, there have been other culture wars than those of modern times, and two in particular prove instructive. During the days of the expansion of the Roman Empire, the Romans amassed a large army that allowed them to physically dominate their opponents. But a major portion of their successful assimilation of conquered nations was their sophisticated and advanced culture of art and technology. The conquered peoples were so impressed by Roman culture that they were eager for the chance to become Roman citizens, and thus unlikely to rebel.
     
     An even more interesting example of the use of culture was during the successive Chinese dynasties that followed Confucian philosophy. Confucian culture was peaceful, and so the Chinese empire was continually conquered and re-conquered by warlike barbarian tribes. But the Confucian aesthetic was so advanced that each new wave of invaders would quickly become assimilated into the preexisting Chinese culture.
     
     In the case of the Romans, an advanced culture aided the cause of the conquerors. In the case of the Chinese, the culture was even stronger --it was able to overcome superior military strength, so that the conquered people emerged the victors.
     
     This outlines the way for one worldview to conquer another without war or use of force --through the creation of a clearly and unmistakably superior culture and aesthetic.
     
     Interestingly enough, this also provides an avenue towards eliminating the second cause of war. If a society is invested deeply enough in the arts, than artistic production can be an avenue towards expressing and channeling individual difference, as an alternative to suppressing it or projecting it onto a foreign population.