March 16, 2011
War and Civilization:
Is War What Makes Us Human?
Miguel Angel Centeno
Professor of Sociology and International Affairs,
Princeton University
Claire Jacobus, Introducer, and Miquel Angel Centeno, Speaker
Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of the 69th Year
President Bob Varrin called the meeting to order at 10:15am. Don Edwards led the invocation. It was announced that Guy Dean would have ties and scarves in the back after the meeting. Lanny Jones’ guest was Aiden Doyle. Attendance was 92.
Claire Jacobus introduced Miguel Centeno, who holds a dual professorship at Princeton in sociology and international affairs. He is a founding member of the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies. He is currently working on a book expected to be published in 2013 on the subject of “War and Society.” Prior to his academic career, he worked in advertising and marketing to the Hispanic community.
I’m sure we would all agree that one of the best things about Old Guard is the regular appearance of an idea or a phrase that illustrates a point with blinding clarity. For me, it was when our speaker said, and I quote, “you may be an Egyptian, but at least you’re not a lizard.” That line, which he borrowed from a space invasion movie, refers to one of the most significant contributions that warfare makes to society, namely “sense of we.” So how did “we” get here?
Humans stood up and stopped dragging knuckles 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, but it has been only since about 10,000 BC that the archeological record reveals warfare. Burial sites contained larger numbers of people with smashed skulls, axes embedded in rib cages, and the like. And interestingly, the appearance of “death by violence” coincided with the development of sedentary agriculture, settlements, and division of labor within societies…in other words, with civilization came ubiquitous and, generally speaking, permanent warfare.
Professor Centeno characterized violence as being of two types: impulsive and instrumental. Impulsive violence is the drunken thug or the soccer hooligan. “Instrumental” violence has a specific goal. Human beings are unique among species in their use of such “planned” violence.
A great puzzle of warfare is why it exists. Virtually all writing about warfare refers to its extraordinarily high individual costs in terms of confusion, loneliness, exhaustion, fear of death or mutilation, and disgust with the blood and guts and sanitation issues. Yet 100 million men took up arms in World War II. Are there that many psychos out there? No, in fact Professor Centeno believes that warfare occurs as largely rational response to perceived threat. The perception may be irrational, but the response, he maintains, is rational.
To deal with perceived threats, society has developed what might be called a “protection racket.” You get a satisfactory collective society, but sometimes you have to fight for it.
He argued that, counter-intuitively, war produces democracy. If people are to fight, they demand a voice. He quotes a Swedish saying, “one rifle, one vote.” War, he argued, produces societal benefits such as education and medical care, all in the name of “higher quality cannon fodder.”
And most importantly, warfare produces “community.” That “sense of we” that fuels the value equation that can send millions to their deaths in disciplined mass warfare.
He concluded by saying that the wars of the early 21st century are the residue of 500 years of “western” success in war. “We are really, really good killers,” he says. So good, in fact, that we can no longer use some of the killing tools (think nukes) we have invented.
In the question period, Professor Centeno was asked if armed conflict might be replaced with “economic warfare,” specifically referring to China and India? The professor argued that competition without violence cannot accurately be called warfare, one can see from the question how important a role perceived threat plays (and has played) during 12,000 years of human history.
Respectfully submitted,
Owen G. Leach
Claire Jacobus introduced Miguel Centeno, who holds a dual professorship at Princeton in sociology and international affairs. He is a founding member of the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies. He is currently working on a book expected to be published in 2013 on the subject of “War and Society.” Prior to his academic career, he worked in advertising and marketing to the Hispanic community.
I’m sure we would all agree that one of the best things about Old Guard is the regular appearance of an idea or a phrase that illustrates a point with blinding clarity. For me, it was when our speaker said, and I quote, “you may be an Egyptian, but at least you’re not a lizard.” That line, which he borrowed from a space invasion movie, refers to one of the most significant contributions that warfare makes to society, namely “sense of we.” So how did “we” get here?
Humans stood up and stopped dragging knuckles 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, but it has been only since about 10,000 BC that the archeological record reveals warfare. Burial sites contained larger numbers of people with smashed skulls, axes embedded in rib cages, and the like. And interestingly, the appearance of “death by violence” coincided with the development of sedentary agriculture, settlements, and division of labor within societies…in other words, with civilization came ubiquitous and, generally speaking, permanent warfare.
Professor Centeno characterized violence as being of two types: impulsive and instrumental. Impulsive violence is the drunken thug or the soccer hooligan. “Instrumental” violence has a specific goal. Human beings are unique among species in their use of such “planned” violence.
A great puzzle of warfare is why it exists. Virtually all writing about warfare refers to its extraordinarily high individual costs in terms of confusion, loneliness, exhaustion, fear of death or mutilation, and disgust with the blood and guts and sanitation issues. Yet 100 million men took up arms in World War II. Are there that many psychos out there? No, in fact Professor Centeno believes that warfare occurs as largely rational response to perceived threat. The perception may be irrational, but the response, he maintains, is rational.
To deal with perceived threats, society has developed what might be called a “protection racket.” You get a satisfactory collective society, but sometimes you have to fight for it.
He argued that, counter-intuitively, war produces democracy. If people are to fight, they demand a voice. He quotes a Swedish saying, “one rifle, one vote.” War, he argued, produces societal benefits such as education and medical care, all in the name of “higher quality cannon fodder.”
And most importantly, warfare produces “community.” That “sense of we” that fuels the value equation that can send millions to their deaths in disciplined mass warfare.
He concluded by saying that the wars of the early 21st century are the residue of 500 years of “western” success in war. “We are really, really good killers,” he says. So good, in fact, that we can no longer use some of the killing tools (think nukes) we have invented.
In the question period, Professor Centeno was asked if armed conflict might be replaced with “economic warfare,” specifically referring to China and India? The professor argued that competition without violence cannot accurately be called warfare, one can see from the question how important a role perceived threat plays (and has played) during 12,000 years of human history.
Respectfully submitted,
Owen G. Leach