The Logics, Meanings, Function, or Non-Functions of War from an Anthropological Viewpoint - Essay Example

For example, in Yanomami territory, there lived uncontested Yanomani known as Moxateteu that had the highest population of illegal gold miners. The gold miners, who were illegally working in Yanomami, transmitted deadly diseases such as malaria and caused pollution in forests and rivers with mercury.

Ecological models illustrated that war had constructive feedback for smaller-scale communities by exercising a hidden role in intervening relationships with the surrounding. However, warfare was ethnographically considered to maintain a space between settlements and therefore, prevent the degradation of the resources. Lastly, the models of socio-culture developed the fact that some social organizations encouraged people to war as illustrated by (Lockard 944). The opposed constitution clan and linage groupings were practiced to create perennial tensions that might result in war. Nevertheless, the inadequacies of such models become very clear when clarifying the meanings and motivations that warriors gave to their acts.

Functions and Structures of Warfare

A functional and structuralism theory of warfare emphasized its responsibility in creating a basic aim and interest within a social group. In the presence of a common rival, the members of Yanomami and Dani alliances and confederations set aside their local differences and united for the common action against their enemies. Group harmony, continuity, and identity were, therefore, insured both by warfare, victory, and the funeral rituals that were connected to it. Moreover, Lockard pointed out that constant warfare in its ritual stage was mainly functional in the Yanomami, Masai, and even Dani social landscapes, which involved groups whose associates did not participate in specialized occupations and thus had no natural unity and gave no basic incentives for help (944).

Conclusion

The factors that led to war, according to the anthropological perspective, are based on individual motivations, socio-cultural purposes, biological predispositions, and causal significance in warfare. In the face of a common rival, the societal alliances and confederations set aside their local differences and united for the common action against their enemies. The opposed constitution clan and linage groupings were practiced to create perennial tensions that might result in war.