That's the question Barbara Ehrenreich tries to answer in her brilliant Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passion of War. Or, to put it more precisely, what predisposes the human species to get caught up in war fever?
Her answer, to simplify, is that it comes from the fact that we are the only species to have gone from being mainly prey to almost entirely predator. "Here is what we might call the missing link within the theory of human evolution itself: how a poor, shivering creature grew to unquestioned dominance. Before and well into the age of hunting, there must have been a long, dark era of fear when the careless and stragglers were routinely picked off, when disease or any temporary weakness could turn man into meat." (P. 45)
The point at which the roles began to turn, Ehrenreich reports, citing William H. McNeil among others, is when humanities and humans started to act as a group, making noise, throwing sticks and stones and otherwise acting together. "As any demagogue knows, a crowd is most likely to bond into a purposeful entity when it has an enemy to face. Millennia of terror seems to have left us with another 'Darwinian algorithm': that in the face of danger, we need to cleave together, becoming a new, many-headed creature larger than our individual selves." (p. 82)
Further,: "The transformation from prey to predator, in which the weak rise up against the strong, is the central 'story' in early human narrative. Some residual anxiety seems to draw us back to it again and again. We recount it as myth and reenact it as ritual, as if we could never be sufficiently assured that it has, indeed, occurred." (p. 82)
And humans continue to promote this anxiety culturally - through stories of beasts "coming to get them" if they're bad, through horror movies, through Roman 'games' plus the human child is for a very long time just as vulnerable as our early ancestors.
The hunting that occurred, as we got to the top of the food chain, was primarily a large group activity - herds that occurred in great numbers were driven off cliffs, into bogs or human-made traps, a task that would require every member of the tribe to participate. It was only perhaps as recently as 15,000-10,000 years ago, with the combined effects of climate change and, probably, human predation, that animal numbers fell to such a point that a few mobile, adult individuals would travel, perhaps long distances, to stalk and spear game.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bob A. Booey
Ehrenreich is a good writer, but I don't get any sense of her overarching cultural theory of why we go to war from what you write here. The anthropological explanation doesn't seem like an explanation at all -- why did Native Americans or other early cultures view war as a game, prestigious or religious?
I suppose it's probably a richer read than the old school primate studies like Lorenz's work on aggression, but I think this sort of work can't be attempted without some background in psychology and biology.
Great topic, though, Natalie.
It's not merely a philosophical or cultural issue.
That is all.
2 - Natalie
Well, to grossly simplify, she's saying, I think, that humans' joint responses of fear and euphoria in ganging together in self-defence that was built into our biology through hundreds of millennia as prey, is open to exploitation by the meme, or pattern, of warfare which successfully propogates itself through societies (without of course any consciousness behind it), despite its harmful nature.
3 - Nancy
Haven't read Ehrenreich's book, but from the analysis above, I infer that she never addresses the very important, if not all-important, issue of gender & war. If not, then she's completely out on a limb as far as speculation about war & its causes is concerned.
War is caused by testosterone. War is a male thing almost entirely. Multiple studies over the years - centuries even - have shown that women very, very rarely engage in war in its classic sense, i.e. with killing, aggression, destruction, et al. It's not in their natures. Women are almost entirely the victims of war, but almost never the instigators or perpetrators. War is a game of ego, or "whose dick is bigger", or "it's mine" that men play almost exclusively. When faced with a problem of limited resources, women tend to get together to work out how to increase the resources; men on the other hand, like dogs with a bone, tend to decide it's all or nothing.
Further proof: look at all the world leaders today. How many are women? Less than 5 out of almost 200 present at last week's meeting in NYC. How many 'big' world powers are headed by women? Zero. Absolute zero.
Throughout history, how many wars have been started/proclaimed by a woman? I know of only one, by Boadicea, against the Romans, in retaliation for extreme provocation (rape). None of the current wars on this earth have been declared by, started by, or are participated in generally by women. War is a male game.
As a woman, I refuse to take credit or share blame (depending on your POV) for something that I & my fellow women have little or no control of, power over, & participation in. Let those who actually engage in it shoulder the blame entirely: men.
4 - Bob A. Booey
But Natalie, where does warfare come from and why does it propagate throughout societies? Does Ehrenreich have a theory for that?
The gender explanation is one feminists have talked about for a while, but it's a fuzzy explanation as well.
Nancy, Helen of Troy, although she was only an object of possession and not making the decision to fight :)
That is all.
5 - MCH
Dittos, Nancy. Sometimes wars are caused by phony patriots who need to makeup for their past cowardice during their own time of service, when instead of entering combat they chose to desert instead.
6 - Nancy
Bob - being a pawn/possession is not the same as being the actual instigator/declarer of war. Helen was in the position of the bone; are you saying that in the example of the dogfight for the bone, the BONE was the villain?
MCH - yup; some are just aching to be "War President" just like daddy. In any event, I'm not accepting blame or sharing blame for myself or my half of the species that has virtually no say & never had any when it comes to power & war. Basta!
7 - Bob A. Booey
I would have boned Helen.
That is all.
8 - Shark
Nancy beat me to it, but to further simplify:
Q: What causes war?
A: Testosterone
Q: How can we stop it?
A: *Death camps for all males.
* I'm open to other suggestions.
PS: Wouldn't Cain and Abel be considered the first humans to go to war?
[Shark furiously flipping through his Bible looking to see where their wives came from...]
9 - Natalie
She does address the gender issue, although I haven't gone into it at length here. (But see the paragraph about: As encounters with wild animals (both game and predators) became less central to human survival, so, potentially, did adult males become less central to the survival of women and children. In their engaging study of warfare among southwestern American Indians, anthropologists Clifton B. Kroeber and Bernard L. Fontana propose that war may indeed have arisen to fill the void.
But Ehrenreich does specifically say that the gender explanation is not a complete one: of course many women do fight in wars, but much more, many women have been caught up in and supported "war fever" on the home front (eg the suffragettes who went around in WWI handing out white feathers to men not in uniform.
I'm well aware of the lack on women leaders, see eg. my post here on the very subject, but there is no lack of women voters. We cannot be exonerated by our gender.
10 - Natalie
As for where war comes from, as the above suggests, Ehrenreich says it started when the decline in animal populations left lots of males unemployed and of little or no importance or use to their societies. Thus the pattern, or meme, of war developed, and if you follow the line of considering memes as biological-type identities, it has been propogating itself ever since.
11 - Bob A. Booey
So war's a game? I still don't follow. They had to find something to occupy themselves -- it doesn't explain why they resorted to mass slaughter.
That is all.
12 - Nancy
It's a "my dick is bigger than yours" game. If I have to explain further, you still won't get it. Just like military rank: women in groups don't tend to jockey for position/rank the way men do. They tend (mind you, I use the word "tend", because there are ALWAYS exceptions; I'm talking majority instances, here) to work cooperatively, and worry about who's on top later. Men on the other hand, almost immediately establish a pecker order, a chain of command. THEN they get to work. Rank is more important to them than results, or rather, they can't seem to get results without having to first establish rank, who gives orders to whom.
13 - Bob A. Booey
I actually find the whole male/female dichotomy kind of troubling here.
Any good feminist or gender theorist would tell you that you're essentializing traditional Victorian stereotypes about men and women: men - warlike, savage, competitive, acquisitive; women - docile, submissive, peaceful, forgiving.
These are the very same stereotypes that keep women out of power politically and economically.
If you're serious about criticizing gender inequality, I don't think these war/peace stereotypes are helpful either because they reinforce those notions.
That is all.
14 - Nancy
Like it or not, I'm just citing statistics. Give me better ones, if I'm wrong.
15 - Natalie
Why mass slaughter? Well Ehrenreich says that (fairly obviously) hunting and war require about the same skill set (in fact she discusses how war tactics for many centuries were based on hunting tactics). She says that it could have been something else - painting and dance competitions, or cooking competitions, but once the war meme became well established in some societies, it forced others to follow suit, for reasons of survival. Not that she's in any way saying it always has to be this way.
16 - Nancy
There's also the machismo factor: hunting/war are far more macho than cooking or dancing. Consider the county fair: having been in plenty, I can tell you that competition is "fierce" among those submitting entries for their pies, cakes, etc. - but it doesn't get violent, nor does it depend on physical or sexual prowess, it depends on skill, and either gender can submit the winning entry. Hunting & war, on the other hand, require a degree of physical strength & capacity for violence that most women do not have.
17 - DrPat
In primitive societies, hunting and war were both expressed by dance, Natalie -- it was the growth of technology that moved war from mostly-display competitions (like your country fair, Nancy) to mass killings.
There is a very visual presentation of this in the mini-series Shaka Zulu, in which the surprised opponents of Shaka's warriors are speared as they make their display. [ASIN B00006JDQO]
18 - Nancy
That was an excellent series, BTW, IMO, altho (as always w/historical presentations) jazzed up for public consumption, as if his total real history wasn't dramatic enough.
19 - Natalie
But Dr Pat there is substantial evidence of war from the Mesolithic, across most of the Eurasian landmass, so traditional explanations such as the growing wealth and complexities of societies as the "cause" of war don't hold water.
20 - MCH
"...hunting/war are far more macho than cooking or dancing."
- Nancy
Although there are at least two guys who'd rather cook or dance than enlist...Dave Nalle and Bobby (RJ) Elliott.
21 - Nancy
Good for them. At least they have sense, then.
22 - Bob A. Booey
Who would kick the most ass in a fight among all the regular contributors to this site?
I think Olsen might be able to rumble since he kicked a dog dead once. To be fair, as he tells the story, the dog attacked his leg from behind and he just reacted.
Dave Nalle can't fight, but I'd take him over RJ or Senator Barger, because he's angrier than they are.
That is all.
23 - Nancy
Well...I could probably out-pie or cake anybody else on this website, but I hardly think cinnamon/cardamom pound cake at close quarters would be fair, especially when it's still warm & the spices were freshly hand-ground....
24 - Duane
Natalie: .. traditional explanations such as the growing wealth and complexities of societies as the "cause" of war don't hold water.
Stating the obvious, it seems likely that the male physiology has resulted via natural selection as a response to evolutionary pressures to survive and procreate. This involves the anatomy and wiring in the brain, which, last I read, has been shown to differ on average from the female brain. A segregation of behaviors follows, and feeds back to maintain the segregation. I have to conclude that territoriality and aggression are the natural consequences of evolution.
It's an obvious corollary that men, almost exclusively, start wars.
But, men also started civilization. An unfortunate by-product of civilization is technological advance, which finds its way into the conduct of war.
However, I challenge anyone to claim that, absent testosterone, humans would have advanced beyond our tree-dwelling ancestors.
25 - Natalie Bennett
Except that wars only started, as far as we know, about 15,000 years ago, i.e. no time at all in evolutionary terms, so that theory holds little water. And hunting up until about that point was not usually as we understand it, with maybe a couple of blokes stalking an antelope, but rather a whole tribe driving, say, a herd of horses over a cliff by the use of noise and fright tactics.