The Roots of War by Barbara Ehrenreich - Essay Example

Barbara Ehrenreich’s essay The Roots of War is the search for the possible ways of uprooting this phenomenon from the human society. Ehrenreich discusses the history of the phenomenon and argues that there seems to be no logical or biological explanation of human inclination towards wars. Yet, for some incomprehensible reasons people have been at war during the period of all the known history, at all the stages of their development. The thesis is not formulated in one sentence. It becomes clear from the whole second paragraph where Ehrenreich considers war as a complex phenomenon, as a collective activity, which makes the warlike instinct insufficient for explanation of why wars take place. The essay is intended for general public. The Roots of War is an anti-war essay written in a pathetic and rather naive manner. Ehrenreich’s argumentation seems to carry conviction only at first sight. Her first claim is that there are only three types of creatures that engage in war, these being humans, chimpanzees and ants. However, as I read this I remembered documentaries at Discovery dealing with the animal world. For instance, lemurs also have wars, though they do not kill each other but scare their enemies away by the smell on their tails. Other animals have one-to-one wars for the territory and female species. It is spring now, and one can hear the evidence of cats’ war. Animals fight for possession. The strongest gets the best territory, the best females and the best posterity. Those wars are often very cruel. So, among some representatives of the cat family a new male-animal that gets the power kills all the cubs of the previous leader. Certainly, these are not broad-scale war campaigns like those of humans, yet these are wars. Thus the roots of war lie in the struggle for power and possession. The second claim which causes objections is that people seem to reveal no warlike instincts, and so it is not clear why people fight. There are two sides of the medal. In general, people do not want to die, so they avoid participation in wars using all possible means. That is why people are ready to shoot off their index fingers or feign insanity. The state has to train soldiers and teach them to kill. The state has to suggest some noble ideas about the necessity of war. Then they speak of democracy and freedom, equity and the like. In fact, the pursued targets are far from those stated. As a rule, states are involved into wars for economic reasons (like the USA in Iraq), and sometimes, for political reasons to turn attention from domestic scandals (like the USA in Kosovo). War is a need of small economic and political elite. But these people have power to influence the minds and rule destinies of whole states. On the other hand, there are peoples for which war is the way of life. An acquaintance of my parents, who has been to Israel recently, states that it is impossible to stop the war there, while then they will have to work, and they are not accustomed to it. The same can be said about the situation in the Caucasus and some regions of Africa. War really becomes the cause of war in some cases. There is, yet, a third side of the issue, which throws light at the sense of wars on a universal scale. Wars cause development of the human society. This fact is overlooked by the participants of the anti-war movement. If God created the world as it is with all its wars, there must be some final purpose in every process taking place. This idea was expressed by Aristotle already. It is supported by Taoists. Some Christian fanatics may cry of the divine punishment for our sins. Yet, if you look at the result of most wars you will see that it was development of humanity. Almost each war brought new social orders or economic breakthroughs of the world’s countries. The World Wars I and II did not break out “for no good reason,” as Ehrenreich puts it. The German people needed those wars to break through the economic and political stagnation in their country. Both of them resulted in the change of the world’s political map, technological development, and changes in the psychology of the humanity. The cold war taking place between the two Great Powers also led to arm races and technological development. Most of the Hi-Tech innovations we use today appeared as findings of military researches. Finally, one may give an explanation of war from the esoteric teaching of the human creature development. It says that in the process of their development all the humans go trough four castes: peasant, merchants, warriors and sages. War is a necessary condition for the acquiring of the warrior skills. Philosophy provides us with explanations much deeper and clearer than those of anti-war fighters. In paragraph 6 Ehrenreich develops an argument that war is closely connected with the social and political structures. On the one hand, the structure of a state may cause wars, on the other, wars shape human societies. On the one hand, war requires the presence of two factors: trained soldiers and resources to arm and feed them. Patriarchal societies like those of medieval Europe and Japan, with their knights and samurai, were living by war. On the other hand, methods of fighting at war have influence on social structures. So the phalanx formation of the ancient Greeks led to the emergence of democracy, while the mass and gun-wielding armies of the seventeenth century resulted in the formation of the modern nation-state with its bureaucratic apparatus and tax collection. The comparison is reasonable. It can be continued. Chingiz khan united Mongol tribes under his commandment. The military rules were very strict. The great khan introduced and promoted collective responsibility. Soldiers were divided into tens and hundreds. If one of the ten retreated during the battle, all the ten would be put to death. If ten retreated, the whole hundred would be executed. Soldiers preferred to die in the battle. This way Chingiz khan created an invincible army and integrated the state. In this particular case the structure of the army and methods of fighting did play their role in the structure of the state. Yet, Ehrenreich seems to develop the wrong cause-and-effect relation. War methods may cause state structures only in case a state is a military one, like those of Sparta or Mongolia. But the development of states and war methods are mutually interconnected and relate to the global process of the humanity development. When a state sacrifices the needs of its people in the name of war, it takes place because the elite are not really interested in the life of the common people. They pursue their own interests. Meanwhile, some universal laws of the development demand this price to be paid for the sake of the overall development. Ehrenreich’s purpose is to show that war causes war, having its impact on the very structure of the societies and thus on the minds of people. Yet, it is not clear what can be done about it. In fact, this comparison only supports the above stated idea of the war serving as the means of development. Historians view the state as the achievement of humanity, as the highest stage of its social development. Ehrenreich’s argument about war shaping human societies serves as the evidence in favor of treating war as a developmental factor. Ehrenreich’s intention to contribute to anti-war movement and awareness is noble but vain and naive. War cannot be stopped until the humanity reaches quite different stage of its spiritual development. The author is right as to the necessity to uproot the very notion of war. Yet, this cannot be done by the means of the struggle against war. In a film Secret dealing with the power of human thought scientists explain that the world is what we think about it. They remark that war can never be stopped until it is discussed and fought against. Instead, we should strive for peace and harmony, and permit ourselves to live in peace. St. Teresa, they argue, knew this rule. That is why she would have never gone to the meeting against war, but that for peace. The humanity is addicted to wars, while it hasn’t reached the stage when war is not necessary. If one wants to change the world, he must preach love and compassion like Buddha or Christ did. Barbara Ehrenreich realizes it. Barbara Ehrenreich’s intentions are good. Yet, The Roots of War, aimed for the general public, can cause the inverse effect, making people pessimistic or aggressively-active about war. Ehrenreich’s idea of externalizing the war hits the target. But are all people able to analyze it properly and get the message? Read More