Logos vs. Pathos in the cause of the war

[M-A Lagrange]

I have been working on an idea of a matrix for types of wars that is based on the original cause of the conflict. The idea being that the root cause drives the potential solution sets that then determine your policy/tactics in executing the war to reach your desired (or less than desired) end state.

I may have won the SW contest for the worst writting but which conflict has emotional roots?

Palestine?: 2 parties fight to control a piece of land which they claim is theirs. Land control.
Darfur?: power control.
South Sudan?: power control and economical control.
Rwanda genocide?: power control.

Please give me an exemple of emotional rooted conflict. I would be happy to be wrong.

[J Wolfsberger]

...

...One of Alexander's reasons for invading Persia was the desecration of a temple and the dishonour felt by Greeks that Barbarian's should do that and get away with it. But is that a knee-jerk (emotional) reaction or was it merely the trigger for something else, a set of beliefs rationally and logically formulated. I.E., the concept of Greek superiority over Barbarians (or Civilisation, and what it means to bve civilised, vs Barabarism); the acceptance in the first place that fighting for the sake of regaining honour is a rational and not irrational means of rwegaining one's honour (in terms of warfighting norms and laws of warfare).

Or Alexander may have planned to attack to attack the Persians for reasons of ambition and was only waiting for a pretext.

[J Wolfsberger]

I may have won the SW contest for the worst writting but which conflict has emotional roots?

Palestine?: 2 parties fight to control a piece of land which they claim is theirs. Land control.
Darfur?: power control.
South Sudan?: power control and economical control.
Rwanda genocide?: power control.

Please give me an exemple of emotional rooted conflict. I would be happy to be wrong.

You may have hit on something here. I would have said that the Rwanda Genocide was a conflict with emotional roots. (In fact, I still would.) However, none of us can creep inside someone's head and determine their thoughts and feelings. We can only observe behavior. So, however much the leadership of the the Hutu radicals may have calculated that genocide was a "rational" strategy for gaining or retaining power, the act of genocide was (to understate it) non-rational.

[William F. Owen]

I do not believe Genocide is emotional. It is entirely political. It is the extermination of a group from the political debate. Essentially, "Better they should not exist, than we have power over them."
This can also be seen in cultural annihilation/assimilation as well physical annihilation. Destroy a culture and you really destroy a people as a separate identifiable group.

[TheCurmudgeon]

First off, I would like to thank everyone for their responses. This is a more thoughtful discussion than I really expected to get from what many would consider a fools errand.

I am not entirely sure the 2st intifada was an emotional struggle. Its immeidate cause or trigger may have been emotionally induced but it was IMO hardly an uprising over an "emotional" issue; the issue itself was as rationally defined and framed as the Israeli case regardless of how emotionally invested the participants were to that issue/ yes the issue was an emotional one but it was not based on emotion (if you get my drift; again definitions are important here).

I agree that acting on beliefs that are rationalised using foundational knowledge that is ultimately unverifiable/testable/disprovable is an issue but, again, I doubt that has anything to do with emotions (unless I have misunderstood how you define emotions as opposed to beliefs).

First, let me try to explain what I mean by emotions. These are "gut" feelings you get. They are the rage you feel when you see something that you feel is wrong or unjust. I should probably clarify that I am more interested in the general population from which the military is drawn than I am with the decision-makers (politicians) "directing" the military forces.

As far as how it might work I would defer to the Etzioni "Mixed Scanning Revisited" article. In it he described scanning as a three part process - 1) eliminate the impossible, 2) eliminate those options that violate the basic values of the decision-makers, and 3) eliminate politically untenable options. I would say that in a emotionally driven decision 2 is before 1 - the basic values are those things that people feel in there gut are right or wrong. I might even say that 1 is not even considered. It is bypassed completely or only minimally considered. And again, I am not just talking about the political decision makers, I am referring to the general population.

My problem is that you appear, to me at least, to be suggesting a decision-making spectrum with rational (or, Weberian) on the one side and emotional (or psychological/ pathological/ psychosomatic) on the other. I would agree that there is a spectrum, in ideal typical terms, that falls between rational or irrational but I doubt that emotions can be so determined. Is, for instance, the sense of injustice irrational? Or is it an emotion derived from an appraisal, however rational that may be, of an existing state of affairs interpreted (or perhaps even rationalised) in a particular light (i.e., we are the underclass/disspossed/moztazaffin)? I suppose what I'm asking is...can you really segregate the emotional part of the human psyche and declare that it operates on a plane beyond the reach of reason/rationality.

I am not sure I can segregate them since I do believe they are part of a continuum. I do believe it might be possible to decide which one came first, particularly when you are interested in the general population rather than the decision-makers.

Are struggles over identity really about emotions? Yes, if you are deploying somekind of Maslow-type ontological security framework in which social ties are part and parcel of a persons sense of security. But, OTOH, what about access to resources, political influence, the kind of world/state one wants to live in? Are these "emotional" issues? In Blighty for instance, I live in an area where large numbers of Polish migrants live/occupy and are claiming benefits (housing, unemployment, etc) that should only really be accorded to citizens but which, thanks to the EU, we have to provide them on the basis of reciprocity (yeah, like there are Brits in Poland reciviing benefits ammounting to £10 a week as opposed to the UK); makes a mockery of the "free movement iof labour". The Gov wants to reduce our deficit but isn't mentioning the £200 million+ being forked out on EU migrants (not limited to Poles) and instead is cutting UK public services (that's not even counting the so-called asylum seekers-actually great storytellers-, "students", etc.). Because of that Britons may will lose out in terms of healthcare, education, or even public saftey (i.e., police cuts). Is that an emotional issue? If so, count me emotional.

Actually, I would argue that it is primarily an emotional issue and it is based on group identity. It is an "us and them" emotional argument. The Poles are getting the better end of the deal and you don't like it. Even worse, they are doing it on your (emotionally charged) home turf. Throw in limited resources and you have the basis for a conflict. If you had unlimited resources you probably would not care. Here, a political leader could take advantage of the pre-existing situation and "stir the pot", but the conflict originated with the people. It is also very possible that the conflict will ignite without any direct political guidance. They bubble up from the bottom rather than being directed from the top.

This leads to the example I was asked for. The American Revolution (do the Brits have another name for that, like the "colonial wars"?) The fight started somewhat spontaneously in 1775 and did not become a real organized revolution until a year later. Others may see the hand of a few radicals behind the entire thing but I would disagree.

What we often fail to look at are those cases where the fight never happens. The Red Army Fraction tried to bring about revolution but the issues they were fighting for did not resonate with the people. How many other groups have failed because they either failed to identify an emotional issue that resonated with the people or entice the people by charging their emotions with a "created" issue or grievance.

Please don't take my comments as anything other than (attempted) constructive criticism. The issue you are struggling with is a worthy and difficult one and I for one don't envy you.

No problem, I like criticism. Brings me back to earth.

[J Wolfsberger]

I do not believe Genocide is emotional. It is entirely political. It is the extermination of a group from the political debate. Essentially, "Better they should not exist, than we have power over them."
This can also be seen in cultural annihilation/assimilation as well physical annihilation. Destroy a culture and you really destroy a people as a separate identifiable group.

I argue that this is not rational: "Better they should not exist, than we have power over them." I can't conceive of that as the result of any rational calculation leading to the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide. For humans to engage in those actions they must first deny the humanity of the victim, whether proximately involved as murderers or remotely involved as setting and promoting the policy. That denial of humanity must, I think, come from an either overwhelming and unreasoning hatred or, as in the case of homicide bombers, insanity.

Maybe we're getting hung up on the term emotional. Does it clarify or obscure to go back to the (idealized) dichotomy of rational and non-rational?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I do not believe Genocide is emotional. It is entirely political. It is the extermination of a group from the political debate. Essentially, "Better they should not exist, than we have power over them."
This can also be seen in cultural annihilation/assimilation as well physical annihilation. Destroy a culture and you really destroy a people as a separate identifiable group.

I would agree completely (sorta). Genocide is primarily a rational solution to an emotional problem. It eliminates the opposition completely. It is a machiavellian solution - don't wound your enemy, kill him. I would argue that the basis of the emotional problem is group identity and that it is the result of a failure of the one of the groups to assimilate into the other or for the two to agree on separate territories.

But it has its basis in an emotional issue (hence, I agree with J Wolfsberger). What I would find more interesting is "what portion of the general population of agreed with or participated in the genocide?" Similarly "was the group being eliminated originally identified by the general population as the problem or was the group identified by the political leadership as a scapegoat for other problems?" I believe that whether it was initially a group identified by the population or singled out by the political leadership makes a difference in how you address the problem.

[William F. Owen]

I argue that this is not rational: "Better they should not exist, than we have power over them." I can't conceive of that as the result of any rational calculation leading to the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide. For humans to engage in those actions they must first deny the humanity of the victim, whether proximately involved as murderers or remotely involved as setting and promoting the policy. That denial of humanity must, I think, come from an either overwhelming and unreasoning hatred or, as in the case of homicide bombers, insanity.

It may not be reasonable, but people doing this are/were clearly rational. Hitler was not insane. His reasoning was clearly emotional. There simply was no evidence that the Jews planned to take over the world or prospered by anything other than hard work. - but Politics is primarily driven passion, reason, and chance, and/or fear, honour and interest. Very little policy is reasoned, logical and rational.

[Tukhachevskii]

Or Alexander may have planned to attack to attack the Persians for reasons of ambition and was only waiting for a pretext.

Yep, all true. But to what extent does kudos leave the realm of emotion (in terms of the individual's own self-concept) and enter the realm of the social and the society's definitions of what constitue kudos (the rational and deliberative); some git riding a bike over a canyon may satisfy his desires for glory or honour but onlookers (assuming they are sane) or others not privvy to his mania may view that action as irrational even though they may be emmotionally thrilled; they aren't so much at different ends of the spectrum but accentuate what is considered legitmate, appropriate and desirable (but I'm a methodological communitarian at heart). Axiology or the issue of values is not just a question of what we emotionally feel to be important but also what we collectively determine to be worthwhile based upon some kind of rational deliberative process (although this may have been lost in the sands of time). Still, I reckon I'm just getting hung up over terminology; but then again, how are we to communicate without words that have some commonly agreed meaning so that we don't end up talking past one another (which I think I might be doing here).

OTOH I may be, contrary to my own professed inclinations, be proposing an over-socilaised/rationalised self due in no small part to my early fascination with analytical philosophy which see, for a taster, Donal Davidson's essay, "Actions, Reasons and Causes" as well as the others, rather helpfully pdf'd by some diamond geezer.

A reason rationalises an action only if it leads us to see something the agent saw, of thought he saw, in his action-some feature, consequence, or aspect of action the agent wanted, desired, prized, held dear, thought dutiful, beneficial, obligatory or agreeable. We cannot explain why someone did what he did simply by saying the particular action appealed to him; we must indicate what it was about the action that appealed.(p.2)

My position also has a lot do with with my admiration for the father of (true) political conservatism (Edmund Burke), not the watered down, bourgeois, liberal nonsense peddeled by one half of the ruling coalition currently experimenting on the UK! (ok, rant over, feel much better now!) Burke's understanding of "prejudice" is worth mulling over.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Tukhacheevskii,

Again, thanks for all the reference. More to read.

I am suffering from a lack of definitions. I know what I want to say - I lack the ability at the moment to clearly say it. Since, in my own mind this all makes perfect sense, it is enormously helpful to get the criticism of others as this hones where I am going.

As far as the Davidson quote, "we must indicate what it was about the action that appealed", I would say that what appeals in an emotionally charged conflict is the sence of Justice - what is right and wrong and what must be done to correct said wrong. I would submit that the basis of the wrong in an emotionally charge conflict will either be group identity or liberty, but that is just a guess. I have not the resources or the time to do a complete complation of all the conflicts men had been involved in. I do have my reasons for this assesment but they are still in development.*

Again, I must emphasis that the since I am looking at how to adress the solution to the problem I am first looking at whether the issue originate with the people or with the leadership. I deplore the term "grassroots" but it is close to where I am headed.

* A third emotionally charge issue is simply survival, but it is hard to maintain an organization when things have degenerated to that level. Order falls apart and it is simply every person for themselves.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Maybe we're getting hung up on the term emotional. Does it clarify or obscure to go back to the (idealized) dichotomy of rational and non-rational?

I tend to shy away from these terms for two reasons. First, it sets up a dichotomy - rational or non-rational, where I see that it is always a combination of the two although on a sliding scale. Second, most people prefer to think they live in a rational world, hence there is a bias against the term "irrational". Using that term prejudices the reader. Pathos and Logos, emotion and logic, can both be represented in an argument (and a good argument for anything, including war, will appeal to both). The terms allow for a compatibility or coexistence that rational/non-rational do not.

[slapout9]

I would say that what appeals in an emotionally charged conflict is the sence of Justice - what is right and wrong and what must be done to correct said wrong. I would submit that the basis of the wrong in an emotionally charge conflict will either be group identity or liberty, but that is just a guess.

I'd say you hit it in the highlighted portion above. When rules and laws break down or give an unfair advantage to special groups you get........War.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'd say you hit it in the highlighted portion above. When rules and laws break down or give an unfair advantage to special groups you get........War.

I, of course, agree. But that is only one type of war. There are also wars of conquest - Japan and Germany in WWII or the US in the Indian wars. I would say that these wars were logical wars although I would argue that to raise the passion of the people to engage in these wars a group identity argument - the Germans need breathing space or American "Manifest Destiny" - was used. There are wars to control resources or to maintain power. These I also consider logical wars.

As solution sets go, in the case of a logical war the primary antagonist is the political leadership and therefore they should be the primary targets. If the war is based on emotional inequities, then addressing or mitigating these inequities must be taken into account in the solution to the conflict. Where the primary antagonist uses a preexisting emotional inequity, both the the primary antagonist must be eliminated AND the emotional inequity addressed (in that order, although you risk the possibility of creating a unbeatable martyr).

How you target the political leadership is more a strategic or operational concern - ramifications of directly targeting the leadership, is it better to destroy his capability to continue the war, etc.

[TheCurmudgeon]

As a follow-up to my last reply, I could argue that the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were both primarily logical conflicts (from the coalition's perspective). As such targeting our political leadership (and its ability to maintain the passion of the people) become the most effective method for getting us to back away from the conflicts. Our enemies do this through the media - affecting the mood of the American electorate and therefore affecting the political leadership. Just a thought.

[M-A Lagrange]

You may have hit on something here. I would have said that the Rwanda Genocide was a conflict with emotional roots. (In fact, I still would.) However, none of us can creep inside someone's head and determine their thoughts and feelings. We can only observe behavior. So, however much the leadership of the the Hutu radicals may have calculated that genocide was a "rational" strategy for gaining or retaining power, the act of genocide was (to understate it) non-rational.

Having passed a good part of the last 10 years patching the disaster of Rwanda in DRC, my vision of rwanda may not be rational. I agree.
I also agree that for those who have been there in 94, there is some emotions in the debate.

But trying to look at the root causes, we find the Belgian management of Hutu/Tutsi society in actual Burundi and rwanda. and both countries had to face the same problem: the denial of access to power and then to economical benefits of 1 part of the population by the other one.
If the act (the genocide) is clearly a sick mind decision, the root cause stay in the patern of politic/power and economy.

The same with what happened in Ethiopy with Mengistu or in Somalia with Siad Baree. Both deported large amond of populations to gain military/political power on opposition.
What may drive us in the wall in Africa is the ethnical management of politic. This leads too often to look at conflicts there as "emotional" as based on apparently crazy grieverance between ethnic groups.
But so looks like the WW1 and WW2 or closer from us Yugo conflicts in Europ.

If the political management and propaganda or discourse has been clearly ethnical/national driven, the roots causes lay in economy and power access.

To bring my stone to the idea of emotional root causes, I would suggest that you may look at a division based on necessity and greed.
Necessity being a rational need to survive.
Greed being an irrational need to accumulate power and richness.

Not knowing enough the US independance war (Sorry, we were too busy kicking brits and doing our revolution in France), I am somehow not convinced.

[Tukhachevskii]

Tukhacheevskii,

I know what I want to say - I lack the ability at the moment to clearly say it. Since, in my own mind this all makes perfect sense, it is enormously helpful to get the criticism of others as this hones where I am going.

I'm Dyslexic so I know where you're coming from (why is it dyslexics never find that word difficult to slpel?). You know the old saying...do or do not, there is no try ...so well done for tackling the subject and if anything I hope our criticisms do not deter, but stregthen your resolve.

Anyway, you may also want to check Chapter 4 Rethinking Rationality in Social Theory which looks at the role of emotions in rational deliberation in W. J. Long, War and Reconciliation: Reason and Emotion in Conflict Reolution. Never liked the approach myself and the last time I read it (actually, only ever read Ch.4!) was while I was doing a conflict resolution diploma with some really wishy washy types still some of the ideas stuck with me and they may be helpful to you if only to confirm/disprove lines of inquiry.