What to Know Before You Go

What to Know Before You Go: 10 Questions to Ask Before, and During, a Mission

Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D

The attached paper is the pre-conference discussion draft that will be presented at the Stability Operations & State-Building: Continuities & Contingencies Conference at Austin Peay State University on February 13-15th, 2008. The editors of the Small Wars Journal have graciously agree to post it so that people will have an opportunity to read it before the conference.

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that warfare and "peace building" are forms of communicative action in Habermas' sense of the term. Drawing on Canadian Communications Theory, Symbolic Anthropology and the work of Bronislaw Malinowski, this paper examines three main areas of military operations in terms of communicative action – communication about global policy, communication in the operational environment, and communication in terms of narrative-mythic structures – and uses them to pose specific operational questions.

Just wanted to thank you for posting it :wry:. Comments, criticism, etc. all welcome. This is the pre-conference draft and the final version isn't due until after the conference.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWJED

communicative action in Habermas' sense of the term.

---

As a Spinozist and continental rationalist, I'll refrain from comment since I'm biased agianst Habermas' theory of communicative action.
(I think it's fairly obvious that his argument that the growth of a commercial mass media, has resulted in a situation in which media has become more of a commodity – something to be consumed – rather than a tool for public discourse is no longer relevant in a world where the mainstream media reports on the "blogosphere.")

Hi RA,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

(I think it's fairly obvious that his argument that the growth of a commercial mass media, has resulted in a situation in which media has become more of a commodity – something to be consumed – rather than a tool for public discourse is no longer relevant in a world where the mainstream media reports on the "blogosphere.")

---

Oh, I agree with that - even worse is his two volume monstrosity (which I read - twice :(). Still, the basic concept is , I think, a useful one. At any rate, I'd be interested to see what you think about it.

Marc

When I first read the 28 articles I found the article on cultural narratives woefully lacking in detail, so overall I'd say that your paper is very worthwhile. It is also very good. I was especially fond of the section on creating new shared narratives. I thought it was very practical and useful.

I'll make a couple of suggestions for additions, based on some comments that I've read here from other council members. (They may be beyond the scope of your paper.) Some people are much more committed to the American narrative than others: particularly the Bible. Can they be effective? Do you have any advice for these individuals or their commanders?

While you discussed the pace of social engineering etc, I sometimes get the feeling that there are many - and the president might be one of them - who feel that counterinsurgency techniques are a way of imposing an American narrative on other cultures. (Gates recent comments suggest we're developing what I call "COIN arrogance.") Most people realize that we can't create another America, but the idea that we can make other cultures much more like ours seems to be common. (I read comments like, "It may not look exactly like our American democracy, but I am convinced that Iraq will be a democracy.") I wonder if it would be useful for you to be more explicit about the challenges/limitations of trying to impose/introduce our narratives on other societies.

Again, I found your article very good and useful, but the more I think about it, the more I hate the title. "What to know" implies a didactic approach and you use a Socratic one. "Before you go" implies some time limitations and there really aren't any; people need to think about the questions before, during and after your mission. Finally, your title is very plain spoken. Your piece is very academic - which is fine since you're an academic - but why be misleading?

Believe it or not, I am working on something that covers some of the same ground, from a much more prescriptive, didactic COIN POV. My synapses aren't used to the high intellectual standards demanded by the Journal, but if I ever get it to the point where it might be worthy of discussion, can I e-mail you a draft for your comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Just wanted to thank you for posting it :wry:. Comments, criticism, etc. all welcome. This is the pre-conference draft and the final version isn't due until after the conference.

Marc

---

I am not sure criticism will be welcome. From reading this through once I think it took 32 pages to say what could have been done in 5.

I am also somewhat troubled by the choice of complex languages and ideas. It is my experience that assuming a reader knows what "Habermas' theory of communicative action" inoculates you from criticism since few are prepared to stand up and say "i don't get it" for fear of looking ignorant.

Well, I may have left school at 16 and only been an NCO, but I don't get it. I am not sure this paper helps our understanding of the problem. If some one can simplify this paper to make it more accessible, I'd be very grateful.

Hi RA,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

When I first read the 28 articles I found the article on cultural narratives woefully lacking in detail, so overall I'd say that your paper is very worthwhile. It is also very good. I was especially fond of the section on creating new shared narratives. I thought it was very practical and useful.

---

Thanks - I'd found most of the discussion on narratives limited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

I'll make a couple of suggestions for additions, based on some comments that I've read here from other council members. (They may be beyond the scope of your paper.) Some people are much more committed to the American narrative than others: particularly the Bible. Can they be effective? Do you have any advice for these individuals or their commanders?

---

That's a tough one and, yes, it is beyond the scope of the paper. On the whole, and without really trying to think it through, I think that the most powerful American narrative is the Declaration of Independence. The Bible comes in a poor second by comparison in terms of universal appeal (the reasoning and evidence behind that is somewhat complex).

On pragmatic advice I'd prefer to work with someone else to come up with that but, in general, I'd have to say that recognize you are controlled by narratives and that others are as well. Listen to what they say carefully and and then ask them to explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

While you discussed the pace of social engineering etc, I sometimes get the feeling that there are many - and the president might be one of them - who feel that counterinsurgency techniques are a way of imposing an American narrative on other cultures. (Gates recent comments suggest we're developing what I call "COIN arrogance.") Most people realize that we can't create another America, but the idea that we can make other cultures much more like ours seems to be common. (I read comments like, "It may not look exactly like our American democracy, but I am convinced that Iraq will be a democracy.") I wonder if it would be useful for you to be more explicit about the challenges/limitations of trying to impose/introduce our narratives on other societies.

---

I thought about that, but there is a danger that it would be taken as deterministic, and it isn't. We all engage in cultural and social engineering every day and the cumulative effects are what we see reflected in our societies. In the case of state building, the process is just accelerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

Finally, your title is very plain spoken. Your piece is very academic - which is fine since you're an academic - but why be misleading?

---

Well, first because I actually think it is fairly plain spoken - yeah, I'm that much of an academic :wry:. Second, I don't think it is misleading per se because, following along the Socratic line, what you have to know is he questions not the answers (they would be nice, but let's get real about it ;)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

Believe it or not, I am working on something that covers some of the same ground, from a much more prescriptive, didactic COIN POV. My synapses aren't used to the high intellectual standards demanded by the Journal, but if I ever get it to the point where it might be worthy of discussion, can I e-mail you a draft for your comments?

---

Sure, fire away, and thanks for the comments.

Marc

Hi Wilf,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I am not sure criticism will be welcome. From reading this through once I think it took 32 pages to say what could have been done in 5.

---

Criticism is always welcome - even if I don't like it ;). On the page length, yeah, you are right although I think 8 pages would be more like it (more later).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I am also somewhat troubled by the choice of complex languages and ideas. It is my experience that assuming a reader knows what "Habermas' theory of communicative action" inoculates you from criticism since few are prepared to stand up and say "i don't get it" for fear of looking ignorant.

---

Hmmm, good point and it's a part of academic writing that I think has been ingrained in me. The language is complex because I try and use it in a very precise manner, which was not easy. The ideas are complex because I think the reality is complex and we have gotten into too much drek by assuming that things will be easy.

The final reason, and it gets back to your comment on the length,was that the conference itself is billed as "academic" and that is the genre. Okay, that's a cop out in some ways despite the fact it's true ;). Let me put it this way - I tried to aim the language, and paper, at a very specific audience using the language and form I did to start a discussion. If somebody doesn't know about Habermas, that's cool - you don't have to and, o be quite honest, I wasted too much time learning his stuff.

Forgive me, but I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here. What in the frak is wrong with saying you don't know something? There is something really wrong with any culture that requires people to act as if they know and, in reality, don't. Honestly, it really burns my bu&& :mad:! I see it in too many of my students and colleagues and, while I actually do understand where it comes from (and I could explain it in excruciating academic detail), I think it is one of the stupidest things we, as a species, have come up with!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Well, I may have left school at 16 and only been an NCO, but I don't get it. I am not sure this paper helps our understanding of the problem. If some one can simplify this paper to make it more accessible, I'd be very grateful.

---

Wilf, thank you! BTW, my grandfather left school after grade 3 (around 8) and was an NCO. My father-in-law never graduated from high school and was an NCO. They were two of the smartest people I ever knew. Tell you what, why don't you shot me off an email and we'll see if between us we can come up with a version you think is accessible.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Forgive me, but I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here. What in the frak is wrong with saying you don't know something? There is something really wrong with any culture that requires people to act as if they know and, in reality, don't. Honestly, it really burns my bu&& :mad:! I see it in too many of my students and colleagues and, while I actually do understand where it comes from (and I could explain it in excruciating academic detail), I think it is one of the stupidest things we, as a species, have come up with!

---

a. It is a real pleasure to inhabit a board such as this, and with men this polite and smart.

b. Rant away Bro! I hear you. If we can make this idea of yours simpler and more accessible, I'm in.

...so, two questions.

A. Is your paper military thought? Is it something done by armed forces to aid in the defeat of another armed force?

B. Can the concepts that underpin it, be usefully abstracted into simple statements that aid in the better understanding of the idea?

In my humble opinion, I'd say the paper is an introduction into how societys are built, structured and evolve, for soldiers who are asked to reengineer societies. In my opinion, on a meta level, it strongly implies that societies are so fricken complicated that maybe soldiers shouldn't be asked to reengineer them - which you picked up on - by that is somewhat irrelevant since soldiers are being asked to reengineer them regardless of what I may think.

I would think one way to simplify it would be to strip down some of the background intellectual framework. By that I mean prune down the anthro explanations of societies. It might be possible to direct some of that information into footnotes, referring interested folks to the primary sources if they want to get more. I know there's always that temptation to get sucked into the nuts and bolts of the framework, but is it really necessary to get your point across?

I also think the amount of framework might end up obscuring the main point of the article. You've got lots of background, but some of that space might be better used showing people just how to go about answering those questions. Historical examples, and a notional situation or two, might be just the thing for that. We were talking some time back about an idea where you'd take a situation and show it from a variety of cultural aspects so that a trainee could see how others might view a common "reality." That might work well for this idea.

I think it might be useful to read the description of the conference Marc's paper is designed for. I agree his paper is very deep at times, but I think that's what the conference is looking for. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure Marc can really help going deeply intellectual even if forced to crawl over broken glass buck naked in the freezing rain. ;)

That said, here's the description of the conference:

Quote:

---

During the course of the conference, we will look at theoretical, intellectual, and moral foundations of state-building as derived from the Age of Enlightenment, ethical norms, and religious values from various societies. We will hear success stories from the past and consider possible models for the future. Additionally, we will examine contemporary practices as related to us by serving military officers. Our speakers will include prominent authors, academics, Department of the Army officials, and representatives of non-governmental organizations. Our goal will be to draw together ideas that will enable the best possible practices for the future.

Military forces around the globe have long recognized that there are principles of war that, if followed, can enhance the likelihood of success on the battlefield. Conversely, it seems there should be principles of state-building that, if followed, can enhance the likelihood of “winning the peace.” Each of the presenters will be asked to nominate ten such principles, and the combined list will be submitted to moderated discussion groups composed of the conference participants. These discussion groups will be charged with the responsibility of distilling the list to a core set of about ten principles.

---

The highlights are mine. Sounds a bit colonial even with the “various societies” tossed in. Maybe they'll look at the socio-political-economic structures of the target territories, but I doubt the targets will take primacy over our “superior” systems. Maybe I'm wrong...

Yeah, I know the conference brief is heavy on academic stuff. My comments are intended more for any attempt to shift the paper to a broader audience.

Hi Wilf,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

A. Is your paper military thought? Is it something done by armed forces to aid in the defeat of another armed force?

---

Okay, I will to admit to taking an almost evil glee in playing Socrates, but I'll have to answer your question with another question: "Is Al Qaeda a military in the sense of 'armed forces'?". I have no doubt that they are an "opponent" in the sense that they are "one group [trying to] chang[e] another groups’ perceptions of reality to align with the wishes, desires, preconceptions and perceptions of the first group", but are they "military"?

There's been a lot of discussion on taxonomies of conflict on the board: 4GW, 5GW, COIN, Conventional", Hybrid, etc. What most of them fail to do is really take Clausewitz seriously because, if you do, you inevitably end up with warfare (in any and all forms) as a subset of political (and communicative) action. In fact, if you follow along with the logic of it, all violence falls under this heading regardless of what it is called.

Now that, per se, doesn't really help most militaries in and of itself :wry:. What might do so is to start thinking about how "violence" is defined in various cultures and between them n both nation states and trans-national organizations. Hmmm, let me see if I can come up with an example. If "Warfare" is defined by a strict definition, say the maneuvering of infantry, cavalry and artillery to cut off supply lines, then anything that doesn't fall into that definition becomes "unconventional" and something that isn't "right and proper" for the military to deal with, even if it still involves the organized application of violence; it may even be defined as "illegal".

I would suggest that we need to be aware of this, and how the definition of what is "warfare" inevitably changes over time (and why), and that that is part of the broader category of "military thought". So, a long and involved answer but, yes, I would classify the paper as "military thought" - or at least within shouting distance of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

B. Can the concepts that underpin it, be usefully abstracted into simple statements that aid in the better understanding of the idea?

---

Now that is the $64,000 ($64,375.04 CDN) question. I know that I could do it, but I also know that with how I write it would come out sounding a bit like Zen koans. I don't have a good enough gasp of that particular audience and I would have to be an idiot to think that I did :wry: (referring to previous rant.....:D).

Marc

Hi RA,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

In my humble opinion, I'd say the paper is an introduction into how societys are built, structured and evolve, for soldiers who are asked to reengineer societies.

---

Yup; and you can add into that how societies create interactive systems that help them co-define "reality".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

In my opinion, on a meta level, it strongly implies that societies are so fricken complicated that maybe soldiers shouldn't be asked to reengineer them - which you picked up on - by that is somewhat irrelevant since soldiers are being asked to reengineer them regardless of what I may think.

---

I'm not going to make any statements about "should" here since, as you noted, it is irrelevant; soldiers are being asked to re-engineer societies. At the same time, we all engage in such engineering all the time - for example, every time I choose to help an ex-student to find a job I am engaged in social engineering (bypassing the formal HR systems by putting them in touch with my network contacts). That choice reinforces a general social trend towards a reciprocity system of organization that is, in general, completely opposed to the formal social institutions.

If we all do it anyway, then it is, IMHO, useful to know what we are actually doing and how it applies when we are interacting with other cultures and societies.

On a completely different note, one of the mental "flips" I was doing while writing the paper was to ask myself if Al Qaeda could use it - did it apply to them. If it didn't, then I had failed since I would consider hat to be a sign that I was caught up in my own academic narratives that didn't have as broad an application as I thought they did. When I ran through it with the mindset of an AQ planner, it worked quite nicely...

Something to think about.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

I would think one way to simplify it would be to strip down some of the background intellectual framework.

---

I actually agree with Steve here--and I am an academic, and of the kind that attends the sort of conference in question.

Having read the paper over several times, I'm not at all convinced that Malinowski (in particular) and some of the broader theoretical contextualization (in general) adds more to the analysis in substantive insight than it takes away in distracting from the central points. I often found that I wished there was further discussion of the why/where/how tos of each of the 10 questions.

I think that we academics use theoretical jargon the way military folks use acronyms--it is partly to transmit complex ideas in a parsimonious way, and it is partly a tribal ritual intended to demarcate in- and out-groups ;)

---

BTW Marc, I'm not convinced that conflict is always linked to the primary failure of social institutions. Assuming that the ability to organize and project violence for the purposes of maintaining security or enhancing communal power is also rooted in institutions, it might also signal the excessive "success" of some (over others).

Also, while I think you are right to assert the importance of justice in successful, stable conflict resolutions, I'm not sure I agree that "Finding a “story” that matches what all stakeholders can view as “just” is crucial to building a lasting peace" .. it may be enough that the parties view the outcome as "just enough" or "not too unjust" balanced against the costs of war (this is only a slightly tweak on your argument here--another advantage of jettisoning some of the theoretical contextualization or shifting it into footnotes is that it would allow you to pursue these issues more fully).

Hi Rex,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I actually agree with Steve here--and I am an academic, and of the kind that attends the sort of conference in question.

---

I'm sort of in a 6 of one, half dozen of the other mind about this. I think it would definitely be useful but I'm not sure it this is the right venue for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Having read the paper over several times, I'm not at all convinced that Malinowski (in particular) and some of the broader theoretical contextualization (in general) adds more to the analysis in substantive insight than it takes away in distracting from the central points. I often found that I wished there was further discussion of the why/where/how tos of each of the 10 questions.

---

That was the sticking section for a lot of people who commented on the first draft of the paper. There were three main reasons for keeping the Malinowski stuff in there:

1. establish a common ground between cultures/societies that is different from the individualistic one inherent in Maslow's hierarchy (i.e. basic needs for a culture rather than an individual);
2. establish a context for talking about distinctions between "culture" and "society"; and
3. establish a taxonomy for figuring out required vs. desired changes in social institutions.

I would have liked to go into more detail in the specifics, but that gets us into some real problems. First was length; I had to establish the common ground before I could do any analysis and the analysis, especially using cases, would be quite long. Second was audience; I made a choice, and I may well have made the wrong one :wry:, that it was better to get that common ground out of the way first in this paper and then expand on it later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I think that we academics use theoretical jargon the way military folks use acronyms--it is partly to transmit complex ideas in a parsimonious way, and it is partly a tribal ritual intended to demarcate in- and out-groups ;)

---

Oh, yes, that is so true :wry:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

BTW Marc, I'm not convinced that conflict is always linked to the primary failure of social institutions. Assuming that the ability to organize and project violence for the purposes of maintaining security or enhancing communal power is also rooted in institutions, it might also signal the excessive "success" of some (over others).

---

I don't think that I said that - I believe what I said was that it is always so linked in the case of failing and failed states. Conflict, or at least controlled and "rules governed" conflict ("conventional" in the sense of being governed by some type of convention) may very well be a major part of intra and inter-social systems. That's certainly not a "failure" for those systems. What I was trying to get at was that such "conventions" may be viewed as failures by other actors in the inter-social systems who will then construct those "conventions" as "failed", and that those doing the constructing are often based out of totally different cultural institutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Also, while I think you are right to assert the importance of justice in successful, stable conflict resolutions, I'm not sure I agree that "Finding a “story” that matches what all stakeholders can view as “just” is crucial to building a lasting peace" .. it may be enough that the parties view the outcome as "just enough" or "not too unjust" balanced against the costs of war (this is only a slightly tweak on your argument here--another advantage of jettisoning some of the theoretical contextualization or shifting it into footnotes is that it would allow you to pursue these issues more fully).

---

Aargh! Good point, and I'll have to rewrite that part. You're absolutely right; I was trying to get at "satisficing" behaviour rather than absolute agreement.

On shifting more of the theory into footnotes, I'm already at 134 and, even for me, that is a lot :wry:. Part of that is the referencing system (I hate that style!). Still and all, I was seriously thinking about moving a lot of the Malinowski material into an appendix, but that didn't meet the genre requirements <sigh>.

I think I am going to have to expand this into a larger work with a lot more examples....

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

There's been a lot of discussion on taxonomies of conflict on the board: 4GW, 5GW, COIN, Conventional", Hybrid, etc. What most of them fail to do is really take Clausewitz seriously because, if you do, you inevitably end up with warfare (in any and all forms) as a subset of political (and communicative) action. In fact, if you follow along with the logic of it, all violence falls under this heading regardless of what it is called.

---

Exactly! Which is why I've been thinking you can talk about war within a terrain (land, air, sea, surf and even cyber), but conflict on that terrain is a continuum between minimal conflict or a "peaceful" existence and catastrophic civilization ending conflict. At some point you switch from all is fun and happy to people running around with automatic weapons.

Other generational/taxonomical models are both to restrictive or unable to fully envelope the concept. In such cases the ontological process is to reduce the specificity of the definition which in a perverse turn makes it more accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

There's been a lot of discussion on taxonomies of conflict on the board: 4GW, 5GW, COIN, Conventional", Hybrid, etc. What most of them fail to do is really take Clausewitz seriously because, if you do, you inevitably end up with warfare (in any and all forms) as a subset of political (and communicative) action. In fact, if you follow along with the logic of it, all violence falls under this heading regardless of what it is called.

Now that, per se, doesn't really help most militaries in and of itself :wry:. What might do so is to start thinking about how "violence" is defined in various cultures and between them n both nation states and trans-national organizations. Hmmm, let me see if I can come up with an example. If "Warfare" is defined by a strict definition, say the maneuvering of infantry, cavalry and artillery to cut off supply lines, then anything that doesn't fall into that definition becomes "unconventional" and something that isn't "right and proper" for the military to deal with, even if it still involves the organized application of violence; it may even be defined as "illegal".

---

Selil's response to Marc's point, wherein he called on ontology, has gotten me to thinking (which is always a very dangerous thing, as my undergraduate Metaphysics professor used to tell me rather routinely:D). We seem to take for granted that war or, to use a less loaded word, conflict is a subset of politics. This sets up a temporal or logical continuum which implies that political organization is prior to conflict. We seem not to have gotten too far by accepting this point of view.

I think that perhaps we might view organizing as a polis as a response to conflict--in other words, politics is a continuation of warfare by other means.. Since the choice of organization is unlikely to satisfy everyone invovled, the process of choosing to avoid cvonflict will create new coinflict, which makes it appear that war follows from political action rather than the other way round.

Perhaps old dead Karl just got it bass-ackwards. Someone might propose that we may be dealing with something that looks suspiciously like a chicken and egg question here. However, I think it is not such. Humans were social before they were civilized and, as a result of being "social," were engaged in conflict before they were political.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Okay, I will to admit to taking an almost evil glee in playing Socrates, but I'll have to answer your question with another question: "Is Al Qaeda a military in the sense of 'armed forces'?". I have no doubt that they are an "opponent" in the sense that they are "one group [trying to] chang[e] another groups’ perceptions of reality to align with the wishes, desires, preconceptions and perceptions of the first group", but are they "military"?

---

Well playing Socrates is cool. Playing with Socrates may be problematic!

A Military force is, to my mind defined by action, so when AQ is defending a cave of conducting an ambush, they are a military force requiring military action against them. When they are planting bombs on the subway, they are criminals, requiring Police to counter them.

I don't agree with the idea that one group is trying to change another's perception of reality. I see the purpose of armed action as being to break the will of another, so that he will not resist change. He can have a very accurate perception of what that change may be. EG: You can no longer be a Nazi or support Hezbollah. The only message you are trying to get across is that to do so, will lead to your harm.

What changes peoples perception is - as you suggest - a narrative. That narrative is, I beleive the product of political action. - and only possible once military defeat has taken place.

...and as a novelist, I am extremely interested in narrative and archetypes. Blackfoot is Missing was written using classical myth story structure and archetypes. - BUT... I don't see these narratives as part of military thought, except the military action, as an extension of politics, should not undermine them. - which is what happens with Haditha, Abu Graib, and quite a few others.

Hi Wayne,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

We seem to take for granted that war or, to use a less loaded word, conflict is a subset of politics. This sets up a temporal or logical continuum which implies that political organization is prior to conflict. We seem not to have gotten too far by accepting this point of view.

---

Hmm. Okay, I'll bite - what's your definition of politics? From your comments on "civilization" and "polis", I've got a guess, but I'd rather not guess ;).

Marc

WM might be on to something ...

Hi Wilf,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

A Military force is, to my mind defined by action, so when AQ is defending a cave of conducting an ambush, they are a military force requiring military action against them. When they are planting bombs on the subway, they are criminals, requiring Police to counter them.

---

Okay, if we go by that definition, the Special Forces troops engaged in behind the lines actions are criminals, as are partisans. I could also argue, again based on your definition, that George Washington was a criminal as were all of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence. The point I'm trying to make here is that "actions" are not a thing in and of themselves - they take place in a context of meaning (a point, I should note, that is recognized in most of the English derived legal systems). If we judge solely by actions, then there is no difference between "killing" and "murder".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I don't agree with the idea that one group is trying to change another's perception of reality. I see the purpose of armed action as being to break the will of another, so that he will not resist change. He can have a very accurate perception of what that change may be. EG: You can no longer be a Nazi or support Hezbollah. The only message you are trying to get across is that to do so, will lead to your harm.

---

It strikes me that you are actually making my point for me :wry:. I never said that kinetic operations must be a "reasoned debate" :cool:. "Break the will of another"? What is that but soften them up to accept your "solution".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

What changes peoples perception is - as you suggest - a narrative. That narrative is, I beleive the product of political action. - and only possible once military defeat has taken place.

---

Hmmm, I think I'm going to disagree that a military defeat is a necessary condition here. As examples, I'll cite Vietnam and Pyrrhus, but there ae others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

...and as a novelist, I am extremely interested in narrative and archetypes. Blackfoot is Missing was written using classical myth story structure and archetypes. - BUT... I don't see these narratives as part of military thought, except the military action, as an extension of politics, should not undermine them. - which is what happens with Haditha, Abu Graib, and quite a few others.

---

Your point about undermining narratives is well taken, and it's a good one. Personally, I would argue that the entire concept of "conventional" (as in "conventional warfare") is a narrative, as is rule of law, human rights, etc., etc. (including academic theories :D). I think a lot of these narratives underlie military thought. Hmmm, try this for an example - why doesn't the US toss a bunch of nukes into Waziristan? Now, before anyone freaks totally, let me point out that I am not suggesting this at all. I am using it as an example of an underlying (semi-conscious as it were) example of how our perceptions and emotions can be controlled by narratives. Why were nukes used the two times they were dropped and why is it almost impossible for us to even think about using them now?

Anyway, I'm off watching the US primaries. Some inetersting results coming out now.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Okay, if we go by that definition, the Special Forces troops engaged in behind the lines actions are criminals, as are partisans. I could also argue, again based on your definition, that George Washington was a criminal as were all of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence. The point I'm trying to make here is that "actions" are not a thing in and of themselves - they take place in a context of meaning (a point, I should note, that is recognized in most of the English derived legal systems). If we judge solely by actions, then there is no difference between "killing" and "murder".

---

Whoah there! I only said "Military Force" is defined by action. It is killing folks, frightening cats and breaking stuff. These are actions. The legitimacy of the action is defined by the intent and against whom it takes place. (GW being a terrorist is a whole other argument and as my family lost considerable wealth when we left the Americas, one I am willing to have!! :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

It strikes me that you are actually making my point for me :wry:. I never said that kinetic operations must be a "reasoned debate" :cool:. "Break the will of another"? What is that but soften them up to accept your "solution".

---

I may well be making your point, but I am using my understanding and language. I consider the "breaking of will" to be central tenet of military thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hmmm, I think I'm going to disagree that a military defeat is a necessary condition here. As examples, I'll cite Vietnam and Pyrrhus, but there ae others.

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the US Governments/Army's will to continue action broken by North Vietnams use of violence? What caused the US withdrawal and then failure to defend South Vietnam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Anyway, I'm off watching the US primaries. Some inetersting results coming out now.

Marc

---

Got that right. I see Obama got Utah and North Dakota. I guess the African American populations of those states must have turned out in force!!

water, so will I...

Consider that politics almost certainly evolved to preclude or ameliorate conflict and / or combat. Not a chicken egg, I think, rather an innate human foible controlled by a process developed for the express purpose which had other uses and thus expanded to the point the original purpose dropped in perceived importance.

Wilf's definition of bomb planters, as Marc correctly shows is not a given but is situation dependent. With respect to both the combat and political facets. The point, of course is that communication is always skewed by the situational factors.

Military defeat is rarely required for a cessation of conflict or combat. In all the history of the US, IIRC, only Germany and Japan in WW II qualify as true defeats (and there are some caveats on both those...). The Civil War, our only truly existential war after the Revolution IMO is an iffy case, none of the others even come close. There were operational wins but no true defeats of opponents. The point of all that is that just as conflict generates politics which may fail and lead to combat, war will revert to politics more often than it will achieve a military defeat. (Note to quibblers; that's a quick assessment on my part and based on recent history. I have no interest in researching back to the Napoleanic era or earlier but that statement is generally correct post WW II -- which is where we are).

War is the most stupid and unnecessary of all human endeavors -- but it is not going away because humans are fallible and malleable. It is well known that an adrenalin rush gives a human intense focus, drive, selective hearing and tunnel vision. Might the same thing occur to nations or groups -- thus precluding or, at a minimum, distorting, communication...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Military defeat is rarely required for a cessation of conflict or combat. In all the history of the US, IIRC, only Germany and Japan in WW II qualify as true defeats (and there are some caveats on both those...). The Civil War, our only truly existential war after the Revolution IMO is an iffy case, none of the others even come close.

---

AH! Sorry, I missed this in all the excitement. I am using military defeat to encompass the situation where one party withdraws from combat, because they do not believe their military is capable of achieving the aim they require.

I am not talking about whole sale surrender. The (P)IRA for example, negotiated the cease fire because they realised violence was getting them nowhere. The British Army/Government never offered to cease operations, and never stopped until a cease fire was in place.

Thanks for putting me straight Ken! Nothing like being forced to write clearly to improve ones thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Whoah there! I only said "Military Force" is defined by action. It is killing folks, frightening cats and breaking stuff. These are actions. The legitimacy of the action is defined by the intent and against whom it takes place. (GW being a terrorist is a whole other argument and as my family lost considerable wealth when we left the Americas, one I am willing to have!! :) )

---

Oh I am beginning to think that we need to have many pints to thrash this one out :D. Defining legitimacy by intent and target? That sounds way too much like "I just waned to scare him! I didn't know it was loaded!". If legitimacy is defined that way, then AQ is quite legitimate.

On GW, I don't know which of our families is better off - we lost a lot in that fracas as well and ended up in Canada. I suspect we would come down on the same side ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I may well be making your point, but I am using my understanding and language. I consider the "breaking of will" to be central tenet of military thought.

---

Okay, that's fine and I would agree that it certainly has been and is a central tenet of most military thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the US Governments/Army's will to continue action broken by North Vietnams use of violence? What caused the US withdrawal and then failure to defend South Vietnam?

---

Hmmm, I don't think so - I would suggest that the US people's will, not that of the military, was broken by the North Vietnamese. I used those two examples because they were both cases where all the battles were won by one side, but the war was lost - basically, the side that lost the war never really suffered a military defeat.

Got to admit, Wilf, this is fun - but a few pints would make it more so :D.

Marc

ps. Aargh! I missed Ken's post too! Oh, well, it's late and Obama is speaking.... I think it's time to crash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Oh I am beginning to think that we need to have many pints to thrash this one out :D. Defining legitimacy by intent and target? That sounds way too much like "I just waned to scare him! I didn't know it was loaded!". If legitimacy is defined that way, then AQ is quite legitimate..

---

I think that, TODAY, the intentional lethal targetting of civilians is never justified. It is one of my qualifiers for war crimes. So that's why I say intent and target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hmmm, I don't think so - I would suggest that the US people's will, not that of the military, was broken by the North Vietnamese. I used those two examples because they were both cases where all the battles were won by one side, but the war was lost - basically, the side that lost the war never really suffered a military defeat.

---

So someone's will was broken by military action. Some as in some part of Clausewitz trinity. This would suggest that part of the "narrative" has to be "we are winning." Of course most terrorism and insurgency comes from the narrative, of "we are oppressed, occupied, and/or victims."

This is where I become sceptical of the utility of a narrative, because they are so subjective and culture specific. EG: In Thailand most rural Thai/Lao men think all western woman love having sex, all the time, with anyone, because that's what it shows on TV and in movies.

Predictably I am also an effects/ information operations skeptic, for this same reason.

If what I can take from your paper is, "Do no harm to civilians, because it makes you look bad," then I can sign up for that and did so long ago. If we further suggest that you can ACT in a way that projects an image of what you want them to believe, I begin to scratch my head a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Got to admit, Wilf, this is fun - but a few pints would make it more so :D.

---

If I ever get north of the lower 48, or you ever get your ass to Tel-Aviv then pints of something it is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Wayne,



Hmm. Okay, I'll bite - what's your definition of politics? From your comments on "civilization" and "polis", I've got a guess, but I'd rather not guess ;).

Marc

---

Marc,

To get my definition of politics, I think you can combine the contents of Plato's Statesman and Hobbes Leviathian. (If you prefer to use Aristotle's Politics to Plato, that should not be too much of a problem. I personally do not see much different between the two of them as far as origin and purpose of politics goes.) BTW, I suspect that 'polite,' 'politics,' and 'police' are probably all derived from the same root, which does not seem too coincidental to me. Politics is a civilized attempt to control conflict. When it fails, folks return to their uncivilized roots and use "knuckles" to try to solve their problems.

Politics is what happens when folks attempt to get agreement in a group that, unlike a family, has little in common besides being humans (in other words, no strong kinship ties). Usually that attempt to get agreement focuses on what their needs and desires are and how best to fulfill them, especially in an environment that is marked by scarcity. By scarcity I mean that each cannot get everything he or she wants without depriving others of the ability to fulfill all of their wants and desires. If nothing else, time will always be scarce. The condition of scarcity is why I evoked Hobbes' rather than Locke's myth of the origin of the political body we usually call government. However, the story in Plato's Republic about the education and lifestyle of the Guardians (AKA Aristotle's "natural leaders") would serve just as well. I think Plato's demand that the Guardians' property be held communally says a lot about the source of conflict.

Hi Wayne,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

To get my definition of politics, I think you can combine the contents of Plato's Statesman and Hobbes Leviathian.... Politics is a civilized attempt to control conflict. When it fails, folks return to their uncivilized roots and use "knuckles" to try to solve their problems.

---

Hmmm, okay, that was pretty much what I thought. More on the phylogenic development later in the post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Politics is what happens when folks attempt to get agreement in a group that, unlike a family, has little in common besides being humans (in other words, no strong kinship ties). Usually that attempt to get agreement focuses on what their needs and desires are and how best to fulfill them, especially in an environment that is marked by scarcity. By scarcity I mean that each cannot get everything he or she wants without depriving others of the ability to fulfill all of their wants and desires. If nothing else, time will always be scarce. The condition of scarcity is why I evoked Hobbes' rather than Locke's myth of the origin of the political body we usually call government. However, the story in Plato's Republic about the education and lifestyle of the Guardians (AKA Aristotle's "natural leaders") would serve just as well. I think Plato's demand that the Guardians' property be held communally says a lot about the source of conflict.

---

Okay, have you noticed how this plays out as a line of evolution? Chaos -> kinship -> city/civilized? This is part of a narrative that comes out of European philosophy, theology and social theory; the idea that humans move in a linear fashion through particular stages or phases. Turgot used it in his Universal History, but that was just an updated version of Lucretius. The problem with it is that while it is a very compelling story, the archaeological data just doesn't support it.

First off, the "chaos" is hard to actually find. About the only ethnographic example we have is from the Anderman Islands, and that is more than somewhat suspect. If we go back into the archaeological record, we just don't find much to indicate systemic human vs. human conflict. Even Hobbes' characterization of life as "nasty, brutish and short" is wrong in pretty much all particulars. "nasty" is an aesthetic judgement as is "brutish", although that has implications of no arts which is clearly not the case with hunter gatherer groups. "short", well, what can I say but that the skeletal evidence from the early horticultural sites in the ME show that humans dropped several inches, suffered far more diseases (originally related to malnutrition such as rickets) and died on average about 15-20 years earlier than hunter gatherers.

Horticultural settlements appear to be a reaction to a climate shift about 10-12,000 years ago at least in the ME (there's some debate on that and a few pieces of evidence to suggest a much earlier date, but that could be a "winter quarters" arrangement). Within ~200 years, we start seeing differences in grave goods and in skeletal wear patterns which is usually taken as a sign of class differentiation. If Schmandt-Besserat is correct, then "civilization" was developed by accountants.

On your point about scarcity, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you - I would prefer to have the specific context defined better. There is some indication that kinship systems expanded out into para-kinship systems as a way of alleviating situational resource scarcity and that concepts of feud evolved out of this - call it "primitive contract law" if you like. We certainly see what I would call "politics" operating in these systems, as we have seen it operating in hunter-gatherer systems (e.g. the !Kung San). BTW, we are seeing exactly the same structure developing in North America - a collection of para-kinship systems operating to control access to scarce resources. Personally, I find the parallelism compelling, so I would place "politics" earlier than cities, "civilization", and police.

Marc

Hi Wilf,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I think that, TODAY, the intentional lethal targetting of civilians is never justified. It is one of my qualifiers for war crimes. So that's why I say intent and target.

---

Okay, I actually happen to agree with you that such targeting is beyond the pale. Still and all, that is a special case in the history of warfare. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the past (including WW II), so a modern convention cannot be used to create a model that covers warfare per se; which was one of my goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

So someone's will was broken by military action. Some as in some part of Clausewitz trinity. This would suggest that part of the "narrative" has to be "we are winning." Of course most terrorism and insurgency comes from the narrative, of "we are oppressed, occupied, and/or victims."

---

Sure, at second hand. I have no problem with the causal effects of targeted violence acting to break someone's will, only with restricting it to the opposing military force. We may be having a bit of a word problem here - I would include "breaking will" under the more general heading of "changing perceptions".

On where terrorist narratives come from, the one you mentioned is certainly a powerful situational one. But does it always apply? I don't think it does, and I can point to some examples (not many) - the 7/7 bombers, some of the radical student groups in the 1960's US, some of the radical ecological and animal rights groups (although you could argue that they transfered that narrative to the ecology or animals).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

This is where I become sceptical of the utility of a narrative, because they are so subjective and culture specific. EG: In Thailand most rural Thai/Lao men think all western woman love having sex, all the time, with anyone, because that's what it shows on TV and in movies.

---

I think we have to draw a distinction between a narrative and a character (stereotype). They certainly reinforce each other, but they aren't the same. Narratives are more process/outcomes oriented, while characters tend to be fairly static (okay, except when they are a recognized process character like the Hero, etc...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

If what I can take from your paper is, "Do no harm to civilians, because it makes you look bad," then I can sign up for that and did so long ago. If we further suggest that you can ACT in a way that projects an image of what you want them to believe, I begin to scratch my head a bit.

---

I think it's possible to do so, but also don't forget that a lot of the stuff in that paper isn't aimed at the opponent; it's aimed at the homeland population and global public opinion. Let's go back to the Vietnam example again; the war was lost because of politics in the US and globally. If that's the case, then not considering those populations is like a military force leaving both flanks open with neon signs saying "Hit Here".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

If I ever get north of the lower 48, or you ever get your ass to Tel-Aviv then pints of something it is!

---

Bangkok is more likely than Tel-Aviv, but you never know :wry:. Maybe we can split the difference and meet in Leipzig (I'll be there again summer of 09).

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Okay, have you noticed how this plays out as a line of evolution? Chaos -> kinship -> city/civilized? This is part of a narrative that comes out of European philosophy, theology and social theory; the idea that humans move in a linear fashion through particular stages or phases.

---

Your linear model is not what I had in mind. First of all, I did not start with chaos. I also never indicated a linear progression. In fact if you read my post on the Hybrid wars thread, you will note that I suggested a harmonic or oscillating motion between two poles as the more likely way of understanding what happens--it is a dialectic of sorts, but not Hegelian. That is, it moves from thesis to antithesis; however the denial of the antithesis does not necessarily yield a new thesis (through synthesis); instead it may return to the original thesis. About the best I am willing to countenance is a spiral development whose slope is probably very small. It is probably more like the M.C. Escher "waterfall" in the graphic piece found here

I mentioned Plato's Republic in my earlier post. Perhaps what is most striking about that work is the concluding myth of Er(10.614-10.621), in which Plato eschews linear progress with the discussion of reincarnation.

BTW, it is not just Western philosophy/theology that notes stages of development. If you think I am conflating staged development, which is descriptive, with progress, which is normative, rest assured that I am not. I read my Hume and G.E Moore quite closely.

Hi Wayne,

Not so much a conflation as an assumption of causation; it's partially built into Hobbes, which is why I was making the assumption. On oscillations, I have no problem with that as a metaphor. I'l pop over and read your post there.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wm

Politics is a civilized attempt to control conflict. When it fails, folks return to their uncivilized roots and use "knuckles" to try to solve their problems.

---

I strongly suspect that both politics and war are uncivilized and predate humanity. Gorillas have disputes over females and social mechanisms for resolving them. I strongly suspect that whether specific disputes are resolved by psychical force or negations depends on whether or not one gorilla is bigger than the other. They only negotiated when they were the same size. (As soon as one gorilla figured out would happen if he whacked the other over the head with a rock, he choose violence. When they both figured out how to use rocks, they both choose politics. When one figured out he could hide in a tree and ambush the other, it went back to violence, etc.. Thus, the importance of knowing how to fight, how to negotiate and having the biggest rock.)

Hey Doc,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Okay, I actually happen to agree with you that such targeting is beyond the pale. Still and all, that is a special case in the history of warfare. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the past (including WW II), so a modern convention cannot be used to create a model that covers warfare per se; which was one of my goals.

---

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea that model that covers warfare might not a base that describes the moral and legitimate basis for the use of violence. I would want to consider this in the context of other things like slavery, as being considered wrong in our current cultural context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Sure, at second hand. I have no problem with the causal effects of targeted violence acting to break someone's will, only with restricting it to the opposing military force. We may be having a bit of a word problem here - I would include "breaking will" under the more general heading of "changing perceptions".

---

Concur. The point being that violence, or the successful resistance against violence, creates the belief that you aim to benefit from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

On where terrorist narratives come from, the one you mentioned is certainly a powerful situational one. But does it always apply? I don't think it does, and I can point to some examples (not many) - the 7/7 bombers, some of the radical student groups in the 1960's US, some of the radical ecological and animal rights groups (although you could argue that they transfered that narrative to the ecology or animals).

---

The 7/7 boys saw themselves as victims, or aligned somehow with the oppressed. I think all violent radicals are driven by a very powerful internal narrative (or even dialogue!! :(). Culture has a massive part to play in this, and some cultures are very good at creating violent radicals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

I think we have to draw a distinction between a narrative and a character (stereotype). They certainly reinforce each other, but they aren't the same. Narratives are more process/outcomes oriented, while characters tend to be fairly static (okay, except when they are a recognized process character like the Hero, etc...).

---

Never thought my training as a novelist and screenwriter would be useful in military thought, but I agree. Using Vogler, or Campbell, as my starting point I would suggest that character arc is critical, as most people sees themselves as the hero. (which is why in Blackfoot my hero was described as boring and two dimensional!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

I think it's possible to do so, but also don't forget that a lot of the stuff in that paper isn't aimed at the opponent; it's aimed at the homeland population and global public opinion. Let's go back to the Vietnam example again; the war was lost because of politics in the US and globally. If that's the case, then not considering those populations is like a military force leaving both flanks open with neon signs saying "Hit Here".

---

Broadly I agree, and I think this is very important. Yes, you have to support the Trinity, BUT... if you start aiming action at your own population, my feeling is that you may be close to breaking the law, if you are a military organisation. - and Clausewitz rocks!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Bangkok is more likely than Tel-Aviv, but you never know :wry:. Maybe we can split the difference and meet in Leipzig (I'll be there again summer of 09).

---

I hear there are some places in Leipzig, that do good coffee and cream cheese bagels! - so I'm in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Hey Doc,

---

What's up, Wilf?

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...ny-debut-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea that model that covers warfare might not a base that describes the moral and legitimate basis for the use of violence. I would want to consider this in the context of other things like slavery, as being considered wrong in our current cultural context.

---

Back when I was talking my undergrad course in social theory, I came to the conclusion that there were too many unspoken and often unthought assumptions behind most of it. Being the annoying rabble rouser I am (or hopeless romantic as Stan says :D), I decided to see what would happen if I inverted basic cultural assumptions and looked at the theories that way. One of the key assumptions I would often invert was the belief in reincarnation (officially declared heretical at the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553 a.d.) and assume it was real. Absolutely fascinating results that render most of the inherent "obvious" morality in large amounts of Western social theory totally irrelevant at best, and "insane" at worst.

I tried to do the same sort of "inversion" when IO was writing this paper - not on reincarnation this time but, rather, on who was doing the state building "us" (broadly construed as the Anglo Culture Complex and the West) and AQ. What I wanted to see was whether or not the same questions would operate for AQ which, obviously, operates using a completely different set of grounds for their operational morality. If it did work for "them", then I could say that the "model" was able to cover a broader spectrum than that grounded solely in Western thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

The 7/7 boys saw themselves as victims, or aligned somehow with the oppressed. I think all violent radicals are driven by a very powerful internal narrative (or even dialogue!! :(). Culture has a massive part to play in this, and some cultures are very good at creating violent radicals.

---

Could be. I think a lot of it has to do with identity formation by (self-)adoption and internalization of character narratives - the character arc you mention. I remember chatting with a couple of colleagues about the idea that "identity" is really just stories that we tell about ourselves to ourselves and others... back to Shakespeare and "All the world's a stage...".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Broadly I agree, and I think this is very important. Yes, you have to support the Trinity, BUT... if you start aiming action at your own population, my feeling is that you may be close to breaking the law, if you are a military organisation. - and Clausewitz rocks!!

---

I'm not sure about that at all (i.e. breaking the law). First, military operations will have an informational effect on your own population. Second, people will talk with their families and friends about what's happening and, increasingly, we are also seeing embedded and semi-embedded journalists in military operations as well, so information will flow from the field to the home population. When you add in milblogging and other new media efforts, then the amount of information flowing to the home population gets pretty large.

But information is, to use Bateson's definition, "a difference that makes a difference", and this is where we start getting into "aiming action at your own population". I'm not advocating a propaganda effort; the politicians are already doing enough of that as is. What I am advocating is open, thoughtful and effective communications from the field along the lines suggested by Lt Gen Caldwell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I hear there are some places in Leipzig, that do good coffee and cream cheese bagels! - so I'm in.

---

Not to mention absolutely killer ice cream and great beer :D. Cool! I'll be there next year on the weekend of Trinity Sunday (my choir has been invited back for the third time to be Choir in Residence at the Thomaskirche).

Marc

Been trying to get my head around what I wanted to say but kids and all got me focusing on moslow's Hierarchy for real :rolleyes:

The one thing that always bothered me in school when discussing this was the fact that so much of what is assumed and accepted in the model is interchangeable due to human political and social development or lack thereof.

Everyone eats but how much and when and where, and what kind is all determined more by the decisions they make reference dieting or working out, etc. There is a sociopolitical element to almost all of the steps and the last one being the most dynamic.

Self - Actualization = what?

It changes for each person based on their situation=ok, but it changes for too many other reasons as well, who you are, where you're from, who you know, what you're told by whom, etc. To cap it all off western society seems to get a kick out of changing the rules for what actual = self-actualized, so no matter what one does we can always do better, and if there is no better ; well we'll make up what better should be.

Long and short it seems to me that we have a pretty difficult time selling a lot of our "learning" to these outside countries because they probably actually reflect the hierarchy more than we do .

Hi Ron,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

Been trying to get my head around what I wanted to say but kids and all got me focusing on moslow's Hierarchy for real :rolleyes:

---

Ah, yes, dear old Maslow - sigh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

The one thing that always bothered me in school when discussing this was the fact that so much of what is assumed and accepted in the model is interchangeable due to human political and social development or lack thereof.

Everyone eats but how much and when and where, and what kind is all determined more by the decisions they make reference dieting or working out, etc. There is a sociopolitical element to almost all of the steps and the last one being the most dynamic.

---

Yupper, and a lot of that is cultural. One of the things that has been bothering me about a lot of the state-building stuff is the uncritical assumption of individuality, aka the application of Maslow's Hierarchy where it shouldn't be applied. As you note

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

Self - Actualization = what?

---

For example, so much of the state-building literature makes the assumption that if there is a solid economic infrastructure, people will be too busy making money to revolt. Really? Self actualization through material wealth comes out of the Protestant Revolution (okay, it's actually from radical Calvinist theology; cf Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism), but what about other status/value chains? Just speaking personally, money isn't a major motivator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

It changes for each person based on their situation=ok, but it changes for too many other reasons as well, who you are, where you're from, who you know, what you're told by whom, etc. To cap it all off western society seems to get a kick out of changing the rules for what actual = self-actualized, so no matter what one does we can always do better, and if there is no better ; well we'll make up what better should be.

---

Marketing..... Seriously, in an economic system based on selling 1600 vairieties of ice cream that all taste like ____, you have to create fads which means you have to change what is de rigeur every season. When I reworked my Intro to Anthro course a couple of years ago, I described this as "the problem of plenty".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey

Long and short it seems to me that we have a pretty difficult time selling a lot of our "learning" to these outside countries because they probably actually reflect the hierarchy more than we do .

---

I'd disagree with that, but only in the sense that you are operating on totally different specifics of the hierarchy.

Marc