Origins of War

Introduction

The origins of warare 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 humankindindeed, 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 themi.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 thatbut there is enough historical and literary evidence available to support the claim, nonetheless (for instance, Dostoevskys 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 Darwins origins of the species of man theory, origins of war have usually been linked to the problem of conflict in societyat 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 Comtes 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 viewpointa 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 orderwhat prevents a social war of all against all was one that many theorists tried to solveyet 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 ould 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 chainsthe 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 freelike Emilethey would gravitate towards their perfect natural state. This was the essence of naturalismand it eschewed the idea that a fall had ever taken place. Looking back, the idea seems quaint and naveas 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 mans 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 usnot 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,...…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.

My Observations

My observations are simply that sociological theory, insofar as it tries to make sense of society without respect to ethics and morality, without respect to the big questions such as whether we are here as a result of evolution or as a result of creation, will always fail to find an answer to the question about the origins of war and conflict. If we have evolved from the elements and from the slime, war seems inevitable. If we are fallen but made to be in the image of God, perhaps war is inevitable as well but maybe there remains the hope of redemption and perfection achieved through perseverance and the attainment of virtue. Perhaps there is something to what Durkheim saw, to what Weber saw, to what Marx saw, to what the French conservatives saw. Perhaps an empirical understanding is neither needed nor desirable. Perhaps, as Hamlet says, There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. The point is that sociological theory provides some good insights into human relations at the societal level. But a holistic approach should really be taken if one is to dive deeply into the problems people face. Empiricists might not like it, but there is something to be said for the literary, for the religious, for the past, and for what actually works.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the origins of war have been interpreted differently by different classical theorists. While some believe that war is an inherent part of human nature, others argue that it is a product of social and political structures that can be eliminated through rational reconstruction of society. While it is clear that war has been a persistent problem throughout human history, it is also true that there have been periods of relative peace and stability. It is therefore important to continue exploring the causes of war and to work towards creating a more peaceful and just world. The French conservative sociological school of thought, including Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim certainly provided valuable insights into the nature of society and its development. Their ideas have had a significant impact on the field of sociology, particularly in the study of social order, solidarity, and social progress. However, Comte's concept of positivism, which emphasized the importance of scientific methods in understanding society and overcoming outdated ways of thinking, was rooted in a bias against the past; while Durkheim's emphasis on social solidarity and shared values as the foundation of society has influenced the study of social norms and institutions. Overall, my tendency is to lean towards the conservative school that respected the traditions of the pastfor it was in those traditions that continuity, consistency, identity, and a shared sense of place and purpose could be found. Rousseau saw it as a chainbut perhaps that was only because he…