War and peace in literature and society

Sociologists do not see war as something humanity is genetically programmed to do, but the result of social forces. Why do they believe this? What is the evidence? If war is not caused by biology, what are some of the social forces that sociologists argue have contributed to it? Illustrate your points with concrete examples from the readings.

According to Howard Zinn, there is no evidence that human beings are innately predisposed to war, biologically or sociologically. War is generated by the actions of governments, not individuals. Zinn justifies his contention by the fact that citizens must be urged through propaganda and monetary rewards to die for the state. This shows that all wars are innately unnatural and totalitarian, given that the state demands that citizens act against their personal interests, such as living to see their children grow up, to die for an abstract concept such as 'national security.' If all human beings stopped fighting, then wars would cease (Zinn 2007: 190).

However, Zinn's idealistic analysis is belied by the fact that quite often people do seem to eager to engage in warfare. The resources of the world are scarce, and out of a desire, however foolish, to improve their nation's standing and their personal standing, people will often use state-sanctioned violence to achieve their objectives. Rationally, if every soldier refused to fight for his or her government, war would cease, but fear that the enemy will not do so, combined with the desire for what might be gained if the enemy could be defeated, warfare continues. Even for citizens who are profoundly resistant to engaging in warfare, when faced with an aggressor, they may feel justified supporting war when their government resolves to arm itself.

There is an aspect of the infamous 'Prisoner's Dilemma' scenario in this: while it might be in two nations' mutual interest not to engage in war against one another, the fear that the other country will 'turn traitor' and betray the other by going to war causes one of the affected parties to engage in a first strike, in what it perceives as self-defense. The concept of self-defense is upheld even in the moral philosophy of the West. For example, according to Catholic doctrine, while Christianity is ostensibly a religion of peace, even an offensive war can be justified in defense of a moral objective, if the state has been injured. This is deemed analogous to the government punishing domestic criminals within its borders (McKenna 47). Other wars not clearly waged in practical self-defense, such as the Crusades, the wars of Manifest Destiny, and Hitler's expansion across Europe, have all been justified because of the presumed moral superiority of the aggressor vs. An immoral or primitive enemy that was a moral threat to the attacker.

The construction of morality thus is no bulwark against the existence of war. And while it is true that some societies do exist which are apparently cooperative and absent of war, for the most part these communities have tended to be small, and relatively isolated, and there is limited local competition for resources. Within our own world, even during times of peace, nations are still armed and preparing for war. Switzerland, a nation which has remained relatively apart from the conflicts that have embroiled the rest of Europe, has a highly trained citizen-army that is in a constant state of readiness.