The Psychological and Cultural Influences on Warfare Throughout United States history, warfare has been a prevalent means of success and achievement. In fact, the United States’ military spending in 2012 provided 39% of the global military expenditure, followed distantly by China at 9.5% as well as other developed countries at lower percentages (Shah). To date, the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq have cost the U.S. $4.4 trillion (“Economic Costs”). For some, this may seem like routine: an unavoidable cost of being a developed country. However, others believe that war is not a necessary method for existence in the modern world. The latter approach is exactly what Margaret Mead discusses in her essay entitled, “Warfare: An Invention
…show more content…
James discusses this theory in his essay, “The Moral Equivalent of War.” Warfare is so prevalent because it has intense and positive psychological effects, both on an individual level as well as a societal level. Socially, war brings up a certain sense of unity, binding people together to face a collective threat. James refers to this as discipline, which is that sense of cohesion with goals that reflect the entirety of the community (James 26). The war effort is inspiring and allows citizens to indulge in behaviors like honorability, selflessness, and service toward the greater good. Individually, war “redeems life from flat degeneration” (James 20). In other words, people feel like they have a purpose and gives meaning to their everyday lives. War also enables individuals to express qualities such as discipline, valor, selflessness, and self-sacrifice (James 26). As Mead stated, humans need to express their competitiveness. In James’ view, this is a positive influence on society and allows communities to form against a mutual threat. Although James appears to believe that war is based on our biological needs, there are others that disagree with this …show more content…
In an article written by reporter Steve Connor, Fry and Soderberg introduce the idea that certain tribes of hunter-gatherers find war to be a foreign invention to them. Fry and Soderberg studied 184 lethal incidents occurring within the hunter-gatherer societies and found that only a small section of the violence was an actual act of war, while the other portion was one person against another (Connor). These individually-based acts of violence were usually built on a foundation of grudges, stealing, and women (Connor). This meant that the vicious acts were based almost entirely on individual issues. 55% of the deaths involved one person killing another and group conflicts were usually feuds between families and killing dealing with revenge, both of which, as Fry and Soderberg stated, did not deal with the concept of war (Connor). Mead also discusses this idea with the example of the Eskimo people. Because Eskimos had no permanent possessions or social classes, there was a lot less stress in the society (Mead 277). Even though they lived in conditions where warfare would have certainly thrived otherwise, it was their culture that kept this behavior from occurring (Mead 278). Culture, in fact, is another leading factor in
James discusses this theory in his essay, “The Moral Equivalent of War.” Warfare is so prevalent because it has intense and positive psychological effects, both on an individual level as well as a societal level. Socially, war brings up a certain sense of unity, binding people together to face a collective threat. James refers to this as discipline, which is that sense of cohesion with goals that reflect the entirety of the community (James 26). The war effort is inspiring and allows citizens to indulge in behaviors like honorability, selflessness, and service toward the greater good. Individually, war “redeems life from flat degeneration” (James 20). In other words, people feel like they have a purpose and gives meaning to their everyday lives. War also enables individuals to express qualities such as discipline, valor, selflessness, and self-sacrifice (James 26). As Mead stated, humans need to express their competitiveness. In James’ view, this is a positive influence on society and allows communities to form against a mutual threat. Although James appears to believe that war is based on our biological needs, there are others that disagree with this …show more content…
In an article written by reporter Steve Connor, Fry and Soderberg introduce the idea that certain tribes of hunter-gatherers find war to be a foreign invention to them. Fry and Soderberg studied 184 lethal incidents occurring within the hunter-gatherer societies and found that only a small section of the violence was an actual act of war, while the other portion was one person against another (Connor). These individually-based acts of violence were usually built on a foundation of grudges, stealing, and women (Connor). This meant that the vicious acts were based almost entirely on individual issues. 55% of the deaths involved one person killing another and group conflicts were usually feuds between families and killing dealing with revenge, both of which, as Fry and Soderberg stated, did not deal with the concept of war (Connor). Mead also discusses this idea with the example of the Eskimo people. Because Eskimos had no permanent possessions or social classes, there was a lot less stress in the society (Mead 277). Even though they lived in conditions where warfare would have certainly thrived otherwise, it was their culture that kept this behavior from occurring (Mead 278). Culture, in fact, is another leading factor in