Why Do People War with One Another Answers in Sociology

Origins of War

Introduction

The origins of war—are they inherent within the human condition? Are they part of the human personality, the human spirit, the inner turmoil and conflict in the psyche or soul? Why do people fight? Why does conflict exist in society? These questions and those like them get to the heart of the human condition and have been asked by philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, politicians, theologians, and anyone who ever bothered to consider the many conflicts and violent altercations between individuals, groups, and nations throughout history. For many centuries in the West it was well understood that the cause of violence and war was related to the spiritual fall of humankind—indeed, this was the viewpoint of the conservative French sociological theorists who objected to the Enlightenment. These conservatives held fast to the traditional Fall story related in the religious books of Judaism and Christianity. With the Enlightenment, however, modern society broke with the past and sought to create new explanations that dispensed with faith-based explanations for the human condition; Enlightenment thinkers sought to make sense of the human condition by applying reason and only reason to the problem. In doing so, myriad theorists and scholars have put forth explanations and cosmologies to explain the problem of man, the problem of pain, the problem of violence, and the problem of war. The three main ethical theories essentially summarize the whole of them—i.e., virtue ethics, deontology (duty ethics), and consequentialism (i.e., utilitarianism and egoism). Yet, oddly enough, as Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018) point out, ethics and morality have not been a major focus for sociologists. Could that be changing? Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018) add that “whereas only a decade or so ago many sociologists might have been embarrassed if not vexed to discuss ‘ethics’ and ‘morality,’ the increasing amorality and immorality of the public and private sectors of our society may be tacitly leading or forcing us back to fundamental inquiries, such as the moral basis of modern society, ideal and actual” (p. 157). It may be, therefore, that ethics and sociological theory should be better integrated if the big questions, like what are the origins of war, are to be answered. Yet, in the end, it is quite likely that the answers will lead inevitably back to the question of God, as things do when one begins to take on the biggest and most puzzling of all questions. Of course, not all will agree with that—but there is enough historical and literary evidence available to support the claim, nonetheless (for instance, Dostoevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor” dilemma). This paper will examine the question from the standpoint of the classical theorists and provide my own views on the matter.

The Origins

The origins of war have been a topic of great interest to scholars and theorists for centuries. Like Darwin’s origins of the species of man theory, origins of war have usually been linked to the problem of conflict in society—at least, that is how sociologists have tended to approach it. Not all of them have approached the issue directly. In fact, most of them approach it rather indirectly, but depending on their outlook and to what extent they embrace the ideals and beliefs (i.e., rationalism) of the Enlightenment era, these same theorists tend to hold that war can be avoided so long as certain rational steps and systems are implemented and maintained. (Hobbes is an exception). The main issue for theorists like Auguste Comte, therefore, was to hit upon the laws of social life. Ritzer (2008) notes that “a number of classical theorists (especially Spencer and Durkheim) shared Comte’s interest in the discovery of the laws of social life” (p. 18). It was their aim to view society and social interaction through the scientific lens of rationalism and the Enlightenment viewpoint—a viewpoint severed from the past, from the Age of Faith, from the time when science meant more than mere empiricism (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2018, p. 41).

Of course, other classical theorists have argued that war is an inescapable part of human nature, that it is part of the human condition: Hobbes vs. Locke comes to mind, for example. As Ritzer (2008) notes, “the Hobbesian problem of order—what prevents a social war of all against all” was one that many theorists tried to solve—yet even by the time of the structural functionalist theorists it had not been solved (p. 243). The classical theorists, in other words, had a lot of ideas but they were short on any explanation as simple and as sound as the age-old (and accepted for centuries) theory that humankind was quite simply in a fallen state.

Yet, others believe that it could be eliminated through rational reconstruction of society. Rousseau, the Romantic theorist (if he could be called that) brought Enlightenment philosophy into the theoretical dawn of Romanticism with a revolutionary approach to life ala his Social Contract. Rousseau believed that man was born free yet lived in chains—the chains of intellectual and social oppression brought about by the old world systems responsible for teaching people about guilt and sin and all the rest. Rousseau felt that the only reason people warred was that they were taught to war, and that if they were simply left alone to be free—like Emile—they would gravitate towards their perfect natural state. This was the essence of naturalism—and it eschewed the idea that a fall had ever taken place. Looking back, the idea seems quaint and naïve—as the French conservative sociological theorists held it to be. Decades if not centuries of naturalism in veritable practice in the West have shown sure enough that man’s natural state is no more pristine or free from conflict than man at any other time or place in human history. The problem appears to be within us—not the result of a system or culture. After all, war has been a part of society and culture the world over for all time. Why? Surely, for this reason, the fall—if only as an allegory—makes at least some sense in explaining the human condition. Something had to have happened. Darwin suggests otherwise, but not everyone is inclined to believe that Darwin is the final word on the matter.

Bonald, for instance, objected to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, as did the conservatives of the time: “The conservatives turned away from what they considered the ‘naïve’ rationalism of the Enlightenment. They not only recognized the irrational aspects of social life but also assigned them positive value. Thus, they regarded such phenomena as tradition, imagination, emotionalism, and religion as useful and necessary components of social life” (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2018, p. 42). The conservatives felt that maintaining social order depended upon maintaining the social fabric by adhering to all of the above—tradition, family, and so on. Classical French sociological theory stemmed from this conservative reaction. As a result, “society was seen as having an existence of its own with its own laws of development and deep roots in the past” (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2018, p. 43). So long as theorists believed in the utility of the traditions and forms of the past, the answer to the question about the origins of conflict and war could be readily and easily found. It was only when theorists broke with the past, rejected its teachings, and thus looked at the field anew that the question became somewhat more problematic.

One of the most influential classical theorists on the origins of war is Thomas Hobbes, who argued that war is a natural state of mankind. Hobbes was one who did not cling to the past traditions, so to speak, but rather pushed forward within a rationalist framework. According to Hobbes, in the absence of a strong central authority, individuals are naturally selfish and will pursue their own interests, leading to a state of perpetual war. Hobbes believed that the only way to escape this state of war is through the creation of a strong central authority that can enforce peace and protect individuals from each other. Hobbes wrote about this in his classic work Leviathan.

In classical sociological theory, the idea of the Leviathan has been influential in the study of the state and political power. Hobbes' idea that the state is necessary to protect individuals from each other has been echoed by other classical theorists, such as Max Weber and Karl Marx. Weber argued that the state is a legitimate source of authority because it has a monopoly on the use of force, which allows it to enforce laws and maintain social order (Simmons, 2013). Marx, on the other hand, argued that the state is a tool of the ruling class, used to maintain their power and control over the working class.

Locke believed that the state of nature is characterized by peace and mutual cooperation, but disputes can arise over property. He believed that a social contract between individuals and the state can ensure peace and prevent war.

Rousseau believed that war is a result of the competition between states and the desire for power and glory. He argued that the state should prioritize the well-being of its citizens over power and expansion, which would ultimately lead to peace.

And then there is Auguste Comte, the French philosopher who is considered one of the founding fathers of sociology. He is best known for developing the concept of positivism, which emphasizes the use of scientific methods to study and understand society. For Comte, if only the right methods and empirical approaches were used, humankind could be distilled down to its essence and the marbles could all be lined up to show what it was that led people to fight, to war, and to engage in violence.

Comte did not write extensively on the origins of war, but his ideas on social progress are relevant to this topic. He believed that society progresses through three stages: the theological stage, the metaphysical stage, and the positive stage. In the theological stage, people explain the natural world through supernatural beings and beliefs. In the metaphysical stage, people begin to reject supernatural explanations and look for rational and scientific explanations. In the positive stage, people use scientific methods to understand the natural and social world. Comte believed that the Enlightenment era was the step in the right direction—away from the hocus pocus of the past. Of course, we today are now centuries removed from the Enlightenment and the “hocus pocus” of the past—and we are more violent and war-hungry than ever, it seems. Something, I would argue, has been left off the sociological map of the Enlightenment theorists. Perhaps what Comte believed was progression was actually regression.

Comte believed that war was a result of the metaphysical stage, in which people still believed in abstract ideas and theories rather than relying on scientific methods to understand the world. I would not disagree with this, as it lines up perfectly with what the French conservative school believed: war is metaphysical at root—for war is ultimately religious and spiritual. But Comte believed that as society progressed to the positive stage, war would become less common, as people would rely on reason and evidence to resolve disputes rather than resorting to violence. The problem I see is that Comte ignored the spiritual side of humankind. One can read a book like Spirit of the Rainforest about the Yanomamo in the Amazon to see whether this is a wise thing to do.

The French conservative school of sociological thought was much more in tune with irrational man. Indeed, the Romantic era that followed and was a reaction to the Enlightenment emphasized irrational man, feeling, passion, and the like. These are all elements of people, of being human, and therefore they are elements of society and social interaction. The grand drama of human interaction cannot and should not be reduced to an empirical balance sheet of data. Human beings are more than that, and the French conservative school seems to have had the best sense of this.

Yet other theorists had other ideas: Herbert Spencer, for instance, believed that society and human behavior could be understood through the principles of evolution and natural selection (Ritzer, 2008). He argued that societies, like organisms, evolve and adapt to their environment through a process of natural selection. Spencer did not write extensively on the origins of war, but if one follows his evolutionary logic it stands to reason that he believed that war was a natural and inevitable part of human society, rooted in the instinctual drive for self-preservation and the competition for resources.

Emile Durkheim, on the other hand, believed that society was held together by shared values and norms, rather than by individual self-interest. He argued that society could only function if individuals had a strong sense of collective identity and social solidarity. Durkheim did not write extensively on the origins of war, either, but he viewed conflict as a product of social disintegration, in which individuals became disconnected from their society and its values. He believed that conflict could be prevented through the development of a strong sense of social solidarity and shared values.

Of course, Durkheim’s view makes sense: the more that people share, the more likely they are to work together. There may be small conflicts along the way, but on the whole they will be spared major wars. The problem today is that people have so little in common and share so little. People have become tribalistic. Some believe in this, others believe in that; there is no common ground anymore. In the Middle Ages people at least shared a single belief system on the whole; after all, Europe was known as Christendom. Today, Christendom is a distant memory. America is divided into factions, and Europe is an amalgamation of peoples and beliefs. Unity is nowhere to be found, and so division reigns. Durkheim’s views are helpful and insightful in this regard.

Then there is Marx, who saw war as a product of capitalism, which he believed was a system that thrived on competition and exploitation. According to Marx, capitalist states engaged in wars to secure resources, markets, and cheap labor, perpetuating a cycle of violence and exploitation. Marx believed that the only way to eliminate war was through the establishment of a socialist society that would eliminate the structural causes of conflict and exploitation. Weber’s problem with Marxian theory was that it was “seen as tracing all historical developments to economic bases and viewing all contemporaneous structures as erected on an economic base” (Ritzer, 2008, p. 27). Weber argued that the state is the ultimate source of power and that its legitimacy is based on its ability to protect its citizens from external threats.