The Causes And The Elimination Of War Essay Sample

A. In the 20th Century, there have been many explanations for the causes or warfare, such that it is a biological or psychological instinct, a cultural invention, or a political and historic necessity of states acting in their own rational self-interests. Sigmund Freud theorized that the human psyche was split between Eros and Thantos, the love instinct and the death instinct, and that the latter was responsible for war and aggression. Thantos also used reason and the intellect to invent ever more expensive technologies of death and destruction, but Freud hoped that Eros and the intellect could unite to overcome Thantos, so his solution was basically ‘make love, not war’ (Class 2a Notes). Konrad Lorenz was a Darwinist who regarded human beings as aggressive apes at heart, and thought that warfare played an evolutionary role in destroying populations that were unfit for survival. He agreed with Freud that new inventions and technology had made warfare irrational and hoped that humanity would use its reasons and intelligence to overcome these more primitive drives and instincts (Class 2b Notes). From an anthropological perspective, Margaret Mead found that warfare was cultural rather than genetic or biological, and identified some smaller, more isolated societies like the Eskimos and Lepshas that literally had no concept of warfare. This proved that humanity could learn to evolve away from warfare by changing its culture and institutions (Class 3a Notes). Historian and political scientist Michael Howard pointed out that states and empires made war, and did so for practical, strategic reasons such as the acquisition of territory and resources. Human reason also creates ideologies and propaganda that justify and promote warfare, and the only practical way he saw of eliminating it was by the development of a general, worldwide sense of revulsion against war as a solution to human problems (Class 3b Notes).
B. Margaret Mead and other anthropologists have certainly proven than human cultures have always existed that have no concept of warfare as an organized activity, or have made it a very restricted and limited activity. That seems to be proven, and I am more convinced by Michael Howard’s point that war is political, economic and strategic in origin, at least at the level of modern states and empires. They go to war and form military alliances because they have some ration plan for gaining territory, resources or advantages over rival powers.
C. Since 1945, there has been one region of the world that has substantially eliminated warfare from its midst, and that has been Europe, thanks to the creation of the European Union. In this region, where the worst wars in history have been fought over the centuries, the nation-states agreed to cede some of their sovereignty to a supra-national body and not to fight wars against each other again. Therefore the only way to end warfare everywhere in the world would be if all other nations followed the same policy, which is in essential agreement with Michael Howard’s point.
D. War and society are related in many ways, particularly as the decision to go to war is indeed in the hands of the ruling elites, as Michael Howard notes, but the costs are mostly paid by the common people. They may not even be enthusiastic for war, but the use of propaganda and the mass media to cause them to rally around the flag, glamorize the nation and nationalist feelings, create ready-made heroes and martyrs while demonizing enemies, and even invoke God’s will on a regular basis (Class 4a Notes). Every nation is history has done exactly the same things, including the proclamation that their cause is just and holy and God really is on their side. War can indeed create a sense of national unity and purpose, and also divert attention away from domestic problems, particularly if the poor and the working class are discontented or upset that they are not receiving a large enough share of the economic pie (Class 5a Notes). Of course, the profits or warfare accrue mostly to the political and economic elites—as long as they win—but the most clever rulers will also insure that at least some crumbs from the table will also reach the power classes.
WORKS CITED