warfare and devotion to the sacred ideal

[marct]

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

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

[J Wolfsberger]

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

[marct]

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

[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.

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.

[marct]

Hi 120,

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 .

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 .

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 . 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).

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 .

[J Wolfsberger]

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.