Origins of War: Classical Sociological Theory Explained

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 has 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 texts 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 accounts of the human condition. Enlightenment thinkers sought to make sense of the human condition by applying reason alone to the problem. In doing so, myriad theorists and scholars 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—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.

In the end, it is quite likely that the answers will lead inevitably back to the question of God, as things often do when one begins to take on the biggest and most puzzling of all questions. 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 examines the question from the standpoint of the classical theorists and offers a personal assessment of their contributions.

The Origins of War in Classical Theory

The origins of war have been a topic of great interest to scholars and theorists for centuries. Like Darwin's theory on the origins of species, the 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 approach it rather indirectly, but depending on their outlook and the extent to which they embrace the ideals and beliefs of the Enlightenment era, these theorists tend to hold that war can be avoided so long as certain rational steps and systems are implemented and maintained. Hobbes is a notable exception. The main issue for theorists like Auguste Comte, therefore, was to identify 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).

Other classical theorists have argued that war is an inescapable part of human nature, that it is part of the human condition: the contrast between Hobbes and Locke comes to mind. 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 resolved (p. 243). The classical theorists, in other words, had a great many ideas but were short on any explanation as simple and as sound as the age-old theory—accepted for centuries—that humankind was quite simply in a fallen state.

Others believed that war could be eliminated through rational reconstruction of society. Rousseau, the Romantic theorist, brought Enlightenment philosophy into the theoretical dawn of Romanticism with a revolutionary approach to life, as expressed in his Social Contract. Rousseau believed that man was born free yet lived in chains—the chains of intellectual and social oppression brought about by old-world systems responsible for instilling guilt and sin. He felt that the only reason people warred was that they were taught to war, and that if left alone to be free they would gravitate toward their perfect natural state. This was the essence of naturalism, and it rejected the idea that any kind of 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 practice in the West have shown that man's natural state is no more pristine or free from conflict than man at any other time or place in history. The problem appears to be within us—not the result of a system or culture. War has been a part of society and culture the world over for all of recorded time. Surely, for this reason, the Fall—if only as an allegory—makes at least some sense in explaining the human condition.

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on War and the State

Bonald and other French conservatives objected to the rationalism of the Enlightenment: "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 tradition, family, and established institutions. 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 found. It was only when theorists broke with the past and rejected its teachings that the question became far 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 did not cling to past traditions but instead 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. He believed that the only way to escape this condition is through the creation of a strong central authority capable of enforcing peace and protecting individuals from one another—a argument laid out 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' notion 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 holds a monopoly on the use of force, allowing 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 power and control over the working class.

Locke believed that the state of nature is characterized by peace and mutual cooperation, though disputes can arise over property. He held that a social contract between individuals and the state can ensure peace and prevent war. Rousseau, for his part, believed that war results from 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 territorial expansion, which would ultimately lead to peace.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the origins of war have been interpreted differently by the major 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 toward creating a more peaceful and just world.

The French conservative sociological school, along with theorists such as 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 sociology, particularly in the study of social order, solidarity, and social progress. However, Comte's positivism—which emphasized scientific methods and was rooted in a bias against the past—overlooked dimensions of human experience that do not reduce to empirical data. Durkheim's emphasis on social solidarity and shared values as the foundation of society, by contrast, has endured as an influential framework for understanding social norms and institutions.

Overall, the tendency here is to lean toward the conservative school that respected the traditions of the past—for it was in those traditions that continuity, consistency, identity, and a shared sense of place and purpose could be found. Rousseau saw tradition as a chain—but perhaps that was only because he wished to be free to live without the moral accountability that a shared community necessarily entails. The evidence of history suggests that when those shared traditions dissolve, conflict does not diminish; it multiplies.

References

Ritzer, G. (2008). Sociological theory. McGraw-Hill.

Ritzer, G., & Stepnisky, J. (2018). Classical sociological theory (10th ed.). Sage Publications.

Simmons, T. (2013). Revitalizing the classics: What past social theorists can teach us today. Fernwood Publishing.