warfare and devotion to the sacred ideal

I Just got this announcement on one of the email lists I'm on.

Quote:

---

THE PEACE EDUCATION CENTER invites you to attend a special colloquium
presented by
Richard A. Koenigsberg:

"warfare and devotion to the sacred ideal"

Wednesday, April 18 - 7:00-9:00pm

Teachers College, Columbia University
Room 179 Grace Dodge
(525 West 120th St. between Broadway and Amsterdam)

There is no charge for this special event, but space is limited. To hold your place, please send an email ASAP to:
PEC-Colloquium@ScholarlyCalls.com
<mailto:PEC-Colloquium@ScholarlyCalls.com>

If warfare and other forms of collective violence were viewed solely as a bad thing, achieving peace would not be difficult. But warfare often is conceived as a grand and noble enterprise. This colloquium will explore the relationship between violence and a group's attachment to its sacred ideals.

Bin Laden and other Islamic radicals often proclaim, "We love death the way you Americans love life"-implying that the United States is decadent and corrupt-lacking in spiritual values. September 11 provided the occasion for
Americans to recommit to their sacred ideals.

President George Bush declared after 9/11: "I see out of this evil will come good as youngsters all of a sudden understand the value of sacrifice." He calls freedom the "mightiest force in history." Waging war allows a nation to demonstrate the depth of its devotion to its sacred ideals.

Space is limited. To hold your place, please send an email ASAP to:
PEC-Colloquium@ScholarlyCalls.com
<mailto:PEC-Colloquium@ScholarlyCalls.com>


Perhaps the following idea has sustained the Iraqi war: "Do not imagine that the United States lacks sacred values. We too possess ideals for which we are willing to kill and die: As young people in the Middle-East martyr themselves for Allah, so young Americans sacrifice their lives for freedom and democracy."

Through lecture and intensive discussion, this colloquium seeks to move toward the possibility of peace-by exploring the sources of the human attachment to war.

Richard A. Koenigsberg holds a PhD in Social Psychology from the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research. He is the author of numerous books and papers including "Dying for One's Country: The Logic of War and Genocide." He lectures extensively on the sources of societal violence. In the fall he will embark on a college lecture tour on "Civilization and Self-Destruction." Please see:
http://www.programsthatmatter.com/pr...p?program_id=3

---

You might want to Google him and take a look at some of his writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

You might want to Google him and take a look at some of his writing.

---

He's a touch off the wall in some ways, at least from what I have read of his material online. I tossed the announcement up partially as an example of some of the "thinking" that seems to be going on in academia and, also, partly so that anyone in the area who wanted to go could.

Personally, I think his take on sacrifice is more than a little off - it reminds me of Henri Hubert on steroids - but that is probably to be expected. At any rate, the issue of sacrifice for one's society / culture is an important one.

Marc

Interesting - I would differ with him, substantially, especially since reading some of van der Dennen's stuff. I would say that the only reason we live in the paradigm we do now is BECAUSE of warfare, not DESPITE it.

But I think it is entirely possible for society to evolve characteristics that can later become threatening. A general nuke exchange wouldn't help humanity much, but eliminating a competing out-group can ensure your in-group's survival and increase cooperation within both groups, should the out-group survive and define a boundary.

There is some leadership theory that works in here, as well. Proponents of mono-culture and "unified, one-world governments" ignore an organizational dynamic where lots of small, competing groups create better and more solutions than one large "peaceful" group.

Hi 120,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

Interesting - I would differ with him, substantially, especially since reading some of van der Dennen's stuff. I would say that the only reason we live in the paradigm we do now is BECAUSE of warfare, not DESPITE it.

---

I'm not sure I'd agree with that position. I suspect it's a feedback loop but, then again, 've always had problems with the mono-causal arguments used by some of the socio-biologists :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

But I think it is entirely possible for society to evolve characteristics that can later become threatening. A general nuke exchange wouldn't help humanity much, but eliminating a competing out-group can ensure your in-group's survival and increase cooperation within both groups, should the out-group survive and define a boundary.

---

Now we are getting into the classic Prisoner's Dilemma game. The one problem with that model, as you note, is when any player can destroy the entire game field :wry:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

There is some leadership theory that works in here, as well. Proponents of mono-culture and "unified, one-world governments" ignore an organizational dynamic where lots of small, competing groups create better and more solutions than one large "peaceful" group.

---

Well, I've always thought that the one-worlders are both hopelessly naive and, at the same time, insanely dangerous. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket! I really wish that they would read up on evolutionary theory, but they aren't likely to do so :wry:. The classic problem with that mindset is that it becomes an internally oriented institutional mind set where what happens inside the institution is more important that what happens in the environment. We've seen that dynamic operate in religions, governments, businesses and pretty much every organization humans have ever put together.

Nualla Beck (Shifting Gears: Thriving in the New Economy) has a really neat discussion of this in the business life cycle (which is really an organizational life cycle).

Quote:

---

Disinflation: Everything still looks rosy from the outside, but behind the brave words of the corporate chieftains lurks genuine fear. They've discovered to their shock and horror that in real life nothing grows forever. Under the sheer weight of all the overcapacity piled on in the expansion phases, competition really starts to bite....

The clue that a company or industry has hit this painful stage is the emergence of catch-phrases like "lean and mean" as in: "We're going to become leand and mean, so that we can tackle all the unfair competition grabbing an increasing piece of our market." Translation: "Maybe if we lay off lots of workers and cut some extravagances, like sales meetings in exotic locations, our shareholders will be happier with out performance."

---

I will leave it to the reader to decide how much this sounds like a certain ex-Secretary of Defense :eek:.

Hi Marc,

"... problems with the mono-causal arguments used by some of the socio-biologists." By professional training I'm a system analyst/engineer (in the original sense), so any time I see an attempt to explain a complex system phenomena in terms of a single element, my, ah, "skepticism" alarm goes off. That response has always seemed even more appropriate in the social sciences than science and technology.

As best I can tell, Koenigsberg's reasoning/theory is:

1. The human race has had bloody wars.

2. Young men viewed defending their group (culture, nation, state, etc.) in those wars as noble (desirable, worthwhile, etc.).

3. This view is a cultural construct/delusion.

4. If we cure cultures of this delusion (eliminate the construct) war will end.

All I can say is that he should get out more. Maybe try starting off by "curing" the Crips, Bloods or Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). After that, he could graduate to Hamas or the Moslem Brotherhood, then tackle al Qui'ida. Sure save us a lot of lives, time and money.

Hi JW,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

"... problems with the mono-causal arguments used by some of the socio-biologists." By professional training I'm a system analyst/engineer (in the original sense), so any time I see an attempt to explain a complex system phenomena in terms of a single element, my, ah, "skepticism" alarm goes off. That response has always seemed even more appropriate in the social sciences than science and technology.

---

While I never trained in either of those areas, I have picked up chunks of it over the years. To me, the mono-causal arguments always appeared to be inane because a) I never accepted their logic and b) it always denied an environmental influence (unless it was a geographical determinist argument). My position finally got put into words when I read Gregory Bateson's work. The way he distinguished between "natural" (i.e. non-sentient) systems and "sentient" systems, and the differing logics operating in the different systems really clicked with me.

I remember arguing with one of my Ph.D. supervisors years ago over whether or not discarnate, "fictional" beings could be considered as "actors" in social analysis. Being a died in the wool neo-Marxist, he refused to accept them, whereas I was arguing that we have to include them (I later had to fire him from my committee for incompetence).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

As best I can tell, Koenigsberg's reasoning/theory is:

1. The human race has had bloody wars.

2. Young men viewed defending their group (culture, nation, state, etc.) in those wars as noble (desirable, worthwhile, etc.).

3. This view is a cultural construct/delusion.

4. If we cure cultures of this delusion (eliminate the construct) war will end.

---

That's pretty much my reading as well. In many ways, this is an analogic mirror of Foucault's arguments relating to ethnographic / historical representation. The problem, of course, is that he is mistaking an effect (cultural construction) for a cause.

One might, following his reasoning, argue that:

1. By farming, people change the environment;
2. People view farming as noble;
3. This view is a cultural construct: (therefore)
4. If we stop farming, we will stop changing the environment

Of course, this says nothing about the underlying causes of war or farming. Maybe he should read Henri Pirenne and some evolutionary theory :eek:!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

All I can say is that he should get out more. Maybe try starting off by "curing" the Crips, Bloods or Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). After that, he could graduate to Hamas or the Moslem Brotherhood, then tackle al Qui'ida. Sure save us a lot of lives, time and money.

---

Yup. Then again, such a solid dose of reality might just lead to an involuntary discarnation, and then where would we be? He would be turned into a "sacrificial martyr" for the "cause" :cool:.

Getting back to the issue of sacrifice, however, I think that the entire concept is a really important one to look at both as a cultural construct and as to how it operates symbolically in society. It's also a concept that is notably absent or, at least, diminished in most Western cultures partly as a result of individualism and partly as a result of decoupling rights from responsibilities.

Marc

Hi Marc,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Getting back to the issue of sacrifice, however, I think that the entire concept is a really important one to look at both as a cultural construct and as to how it operates symbolically in society. It's also a concept that is notably absent or, at least, diminished in most Western cultures partly as a result of individualism and partly as a result of decoupling rights from responsibilities.

---

I love it when poor thinking leads to good. I agree about the decoupling of rights and responsibilities. (As an aside, the theme of Heinlein's Starship Troopers was the obligation of the individual to society, and, coincidentally, the nobility of choosing to be one of its defenders. Pity it was turned into such a terrible, obnoxious movie.)

The best example of the problem I can think of is Kerry's insinuation that losers wind up in the military. Cultures that see no value in defending themselves are at a severe disadvantage to those with different views. I have a copy of a Strange Defeat: A Statement of Evidence Written in 1940 by Marc Bloch, medieval historian and French officer. The most striking thing about it was the description of fellow officers who seemed (to me) to think France wasn't worth defending. It helps explain why France, with greater manpower and better equipment, collapsed so completely and quickly.

Hi JW,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

I love it when poor thinking leads to good. I agree about the decoupling of rights and responsibilities. (As an aside, the theme of Heinlein's Starship Troopers was the obligation of the individual to society, and, coincidentally, the nobility of choosing to be one of its defenders. Pity it was turned into such a terrible, obnoxious movie.)

---

Why am I not surprised to find so any Heinlein fans here :D. Yes, the movie was an obnoxious piece of trash that totally betrayed the book.

I remember one evening at a conference where I was talking with Jerome Barkow about using biological imperatives as the basis for an actual science of morals. Jerry, who is one of the brightest people I know, started joking about creating a Church of Fundamentalist Sociobiology and, a couple of years later, put together a schtic talk on it that was really good (I don't think he ever published it). The intriguing thing about it was that Jerry came to it from sociobiology and evolutionary psychology and I came to it from a study of religion and mysticism (and Heinlein :)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

The best example of the problem I can think of is Kerry's insinuation that losers wind up in the military. Cultures that see no value in defending themselves are at a severe disadvantage to those with different views. I have a copy of a Strange Defeat: A Statement of Evidence Written in 1940 by Marc Bloch, medieval historian and French officer. The most striking thing about it was the description of fellow officers who seemed (to me) to think France wasn't worth defending. It helps explain why France, with greater manpower and better equipment, collapsed so completely and quickly.

---

I've read several of Bloch's books, but not that one - l'll have to dig it up. I think a more up to date version of the same meme, albeit slightly less overtly poisonous, is the "support the troops but not the mission" meme that the Democrats are using right now. While we could probably write reams about why this is happening, I would suggest that that the core of it is a loss of a cultural goal or "vision" that inspires people and imbues them with the idea that what they are doing is worthwhile both individually and as a culture / society.

I think for North America (i.e. Canada and the US), his has come about partly as a loss of the frontier (yeah, the old Turner hypothesis), although we (Canada) still have one (although it's way to cold for me :eek:). Personally, I would like to see much more emphasis put on space exploration / development leading towards colonization. I think this would give both our societies a stronger "vision", more "hope" in general terms, and cause a radical shift in youth perceptions away from post-Industrial nihilism.

Marc

Given our upright posture, frontal vision, large cranial capacity, opposable thumbs and canine teeth, it runs much, much deeper than fighting the good fight, supporting noble causes and sustaining cultural values. The species will have to be neutered and all our canine teeth yanked to attain this colloquium's interpretation of Nirvana on earth.

If one believes the "tiger" and "rabbit" lethality theory, removing the canine teeth would just make us more deadly and unrestrained.

+1 to Heinlein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

Given our upright posture, frontal vision, large cranial capacity, opposable thumbs and canine teeth, it runs much, much deeper than fighting the good fight, supporting noble causes and sustaining cultural values. The species will have to be neutered and all our canine teeth yanked to attain this colloquium's interpretation of Nirvana on earth.

---

Jeez, Goesh, you've uncovered the secret goal of all these movements! Although, to be totally honest, and following a reductio ad absurdam, the only true state of perfect peace will be when everyone is dead.:rolleyes:

Yeah, you're right on about the logical / factual limitations to these types of positions. Anyone who doesn't take into account the fact that people are greedy, lazy, gluttonous, etc. is just missing the boat and living in lala land. At the same time, anyone who doesn't take into account the fact that any individual can overcome these biologically programmed traits is an idiot. Jerry has a really interesting article on this called Biology is Destiny only if we ignore it.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

[T]he theme of Heinlein's Starship Troopers was the obligation of the individual to society, and, coincidentally, the nobility of choosing to be one of its defenders. Pity it was turned into such a terrible, obnoxious movie.

The best example of the problem I can think of is Kerry's insinuation that losers wind up in the military. Cultures that see no value in defending themselves are at a severe disadvantage to those with different views. I have a copy of a Strange Defeat: A Statement of Evidence Written in 1940 by Marc Bloch, medieval historian and French officer. The most striking thing about it was the description of fellow officers who seemed (to me) to think France wasn't worth defending. It helps explain why France, with greater manpower and better equipment, collapsed so completely and quickly.

---

I think that the point to draw here is the nature of a society that bases its moral and political system on rights as compared to one that finds duties to be fundamental. Heinlein urges a duty-based morality, while France became a democracy through a revolution that waved a flag espousing the rights of man.

The good news about Starship Troopers, the movie, is that it seems to have popularized "going on a bug hunt" as a neologism.

In the 1930s, DDT made its grand debut of common useage against the pesky fly and lo! unto them befell bug genocide unparalleled in our ongoing war of attrition against marauding flies who so plagued the species for thousands of generations. Behold! It wasn't too long, a matter of a decade or so, and they became immune to it. We ain't got what it takes for such evolutionary saltation. From enlightened Pharoahs to Einstein and Confucius to Mother Theresa, the only evolutionary saltation we've seen is the club evolving into the JDAM . Alll other accouterments and wonderous technologies are seconday, even tertiary to the primal drive.That saltation occured because the species cannot exist without aggression. I see no equitable evolution in the tenets of Humanitarianism, Liberalism, Enlightenment, Multi-culturalism, Fraternity and plain old warm hugs and sloppy kisses. Let me be the first to shoot at the tires of Barkow's 'vehicle' because aboard he has fat pack hunters who can no longer run, whose biology accrues them immense reserves of energy (fat) but whose man-made cultural mores prevent them from partaking in the hunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

From enlightened Pharoahs to Einstein and Confucius to Mother Theresa, the only evolutionary saltation we've seen is the club evolving into the JDAM . Alll other accouterments and wonderous technologies are seconday, even tertiary to the primal drive.That saltation occured because the species cannot exist without aggression. I see no equitable evolution in the tenets of Humanitarianism, Liberalism, Enlightenment, Multi-culturalism, Fraternity and plain old warm hugs and sloppy kisses. Let me be the first to shoot at the tires of Barkow's 'vehicle' because aboard he has fat pack hunters who can no longer run, whose biology accrues them immense reserves of energy (fat) but whose man-made cultural mores prevent them from partaking in the hunt.

---

We need a quoter at the top of the page to toss these kinds of things into.

Quote:

---

I remember one evening at a conference where I was talking with Jerome Barkow about using biological imperatives as the basis for an actual science of morals. Jerry, who is one of the brightest people I know, started joking about creating a Church of Fundamentalist Sociobiology and, a couple of years later, put together a schtic talk on it that was really good (I don't think he ever published it). The intriguing thing about it was that Jerry came to it from sociobiology and evolutionary psychology and I came to it from a study of religion and mysticism (and Heinlein ).

---

Heinlein certainly beats what's his face (L. Ron Hubbard) and the Scientology crowd. The military is a ready made cult for Heinlein and I too have been a member since I read the novel at age 8.

Funny that I was in the midst of a 4WD version of walk about after Rwanda and retirement and had on the moment driven toward Idaho to see Mick, my Navy Chief who had retired there. I stopped in Laramie, Wyoming, stayed at the best hotel I could find, and as I was walking in this very good looking young woman kept looking at me like she knew me.

Later that evening I was in the restaurant and the waiter asked me if I was part of the cast or crew for the movie. "What movie?" I asked, "and why?"
"Starship Troopers and because you look military," was the answer.

I guess that was better than looking like a "bug" and I recognized Denise Richards two years later when the move came out. She still looked good; the movie sucked, utterly destroyed by Casper Van Diem's apparent infatuation with Casper Van Diem.

Best

Tom

The second reason it really sucked was because it stole significant elements from John Steakley's "Armor". There was also a relationship in there lifted from Haldeman's "Forever War" though memory fails me on the details.

"Starship Troopers" and "Armor" are still my two favorite books.

I saw the movie Starship Troopers in '97, and for the life of me couldn't figure out why the book was on the Commandant's Reading List - but when I read the book I was amazed at the difference between the two, and even more so by Heinlein's ideas put forward in the book. I strongly support the obligation to society theme.