Hi kehenry1,
Probably. I suspect that he looked at it as a change in frequency distribution over time given his use of metaphors and analogs from Newtonian physics. If we take a sliding scale, from "Politics" (defined as non-kinetic human interaction) to "War" (defined as kinetic human interaction), that would make sense.
Agreed - it's one of the reasons why I brought up the issue of defining politics. Hearkening back to that formal-informal distinction, I think we can also look at the range of actions defined as "acceptable" in a formal setting (either through mutual agreement, e.g. the Laws of War or via mutual acceptance without formal agreement, e.g. "collateral damage") vs. those that are not "acceptable" in a formal setting (e.g. non-state actors engaging in "warfare", terrorist tactics, etc.). Again, I would suggest that we are seeing a change over time in the membership function of any given action/event being included in a given term.
One of the reasons why I "pick on" Gian's comments so much (apologies for that - it's not personal at all and I'll be more than happy to buy the first round if/when we can get some f2f time), is that his stated views are an almost perfect example of someone who believes that certain terms are absolute and unchanging. I really don't think this is a case of someone "getting it" or not - just a great illustration of how the human mind operates. You may be right about the separation of violent from non-violent tactics, although I would argue that this is now into the realm of communicating the concept of appropriate tactics for the given environment.
Bookmarks