Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
ABSTRACT
It is confusingto regardindividualacts of violenceand primitivefeudsas general
antecedentsof modernwarfareand fallaciousto regardwar as a necessaryresultof
man's biologicalnature. In humansocietiesthe impulseof angeris usuallytranformed
intoattitudesofhostilityorintoacts ofviolencewhichare culturallydetermined.With-
in an institutionconflictsare subjectto thenormsofcustom,technique,ethics,and law.
Warfare is culturallyproductivewhen it creates a new institution,a nation-state.
The economicmotive is not presentin warfareuntil therehas developed a body of
portablewealth; untilfoodcan be preservedand transportedand untiltheproductive
arts have advanced so that one man can produce more than he consumes.The most
importantculturaleffectofconquestis an enrichment in nationallifethrougha division
of functionbetweenconquerorsand conqueredand throughthe developmentof new
institutionsin whichthe conquerorsprovide the politicalelementand the conquered,
the economicefficiency. in so faras it saps theresourcesof
The note of totalitarianism,
cultureand destroysits structure,is incompatiblewiththeconstitutionofhumansocie-
ties for the normal business of producing,maintaining,and transmittingwealth,
solidarity,reason,and conscience,all ofwhichare thereal indicesand values ofciviliza-
tion.
I. WAR THROUGH THE AGES
In any symposium of social scienceson war a place mightbe
rightlyclaimedforanthropology, the studyof mankindat large.
Obviouslythe anthropologist mustnot appearmerelyas an usher,
heralding theadventofwarin theperspective ofhumanevolution;
stilllessas theclownofsocialscience,amusingthesymposium with
anecdoteson cannibalism or head-hunting,on preposterousmagical
ritesor quaintwardances.
Anthropology has done moreharmthangood in confusing the
issueby optimistic messagesfromtheprimevalpast,depicting hu-
man ancestryas livingin thegoldenage ofperpetualpeace. Even
moreconfusing is theteachingofthosewhomaintainor implythat
war is an essentialheritageof man, a psychologicalor biological
destinyfromwhichmanneverwillbe able to freehimself.'
I The view of the primevalpacifism ofman is associated withthe names of Grafton
Elliot Smith,W. J. Perry; of Fr. W. Schmidtand the othermembersof the Vienna
school. The studiesofR. Holsti, van der Bij, and G. C. Wheelershowthat the "lowest
savages" did not live in a state of "perpetual warfare." This is substantiallycorrect.
It does not,however,justifygeneralizationssuch as Elliot Smith's: "Natural man ....
is a good-naturedfellow,honestand considerate,chaste and peaceful."
The view that war has been, is, and will remainthe destinyof mankindhas been
521
craticcountriespublicopinionmustbe freedfromprejudiceand
enlightenedas regardssound.knowledge. The totalitarian statesare
spendingas muchenergy, and constructive
foresight, engineering on
thetaskofindoctrinating themindsoftheirsubjectsas in thetaskof
buildingarmaments. Unlesswe scientifically and ethicallyrallyto
the counterpart task,we shallnotbe able to opposethem.At the
same timethe fullculturalunderstanding of war in its relationto
nationality and state,in itsdrivesand effects, in thepricepaid and
advantagesgained,is necessary alsofortheproblemofimplementing
anyfundamental change.
The problemofwhatwar is as a culturalphenomenon naturally
fallsintotheconstituent issuesofthebiologicaldeterminants ofwar,
itspoliticaleffects,and its culturalconstructiveness. In thefollow-
ing discussionof pugnacityand aggression we shall see thateven
preorganized fightingis nota simplereactionofviolencedetermined
by the impulseof anger.The firstdistinction to emergefromthis
analysiswillbe betweenorganizedand collective fighting as against
individual,sporadic, and spontaneous acts of violence-which are
theantecedents ofhomicide, murder, and civicdisorder, but notof
war. We shallthenshowthatorganizedfighting has to be fullydis-
cussedwithreference to its politicalbackground.Fightswithina
community fulfilan entirely different
function fromintertribal feuds
orbattles.Even in theselatter,however, wewillhaveto distinguish
betweenculturally effective warfareand military operationswhich
do not leave any permanent markeitherin termsof diffusion, of
evolution, or of anylasting historicalaftereffect.From all thiswill
emergetheconceptof"waras an armedcontestbetweentwoinde-
pendentpoliticalunits,by meansoforganizedmilitary force,in the
pursuitof a tribalor nationalpolicy."12With thisas a minimum
definitionofwar,we shallbe able to see howfutileand confusing it
is to regardprimitivebrawls,scrimmages, and feudsas genuine
antecedents ofourpresentworld-catastrophe.
II. WAR AND HUMAN NATURE
as in-
We have, then,firstto face the issue of "aggressiveness
stinctualbehavior";in otherwords,ofthedetermination ofwarby
2 Cf. my article,"The Deadly Issue," AtlanticMonthly,CLIX (December, 1936),
659-69.
Worldwar,thatis,totalwar,is,in thelightofouranthropological
criteria,as distinct fromthehistorical warsup to I9I4 as thesewere
different fromhead-hunting or slave-raiding. The influence ofpres-
entwarfare on cultureis so totalthatit posestheproblemwhether
the integralorganization foreffective violence-whichwe call to-
talitarianism-iscompatiblewiththe survivalof culture.
Culture,as weknow,is exercised in eachofitsvarietiesby theco-
operativeworking ofpartlyindependent, partlyco-ordinated insti-
tutionswithinthegroup,whichwedefined as thenation.It hasbeen
thusexercised and transmitted fromtheverybeginnings ofhuman-
ity,rightthrough tothebeginnings ofthiscentury.The foundations
oftheindustrial, liberal,and democratic era which,as I am writing
this,stillsurvivesin theUnitedStatesand in a fewLatin-American
countries, werelaid on theverysamestructure ofinstitutional dif-
ferentiation and co-ordination by the state,whichcontrolledthe
development ofhumancivilization as a whole.The principle of to-
talitarianism, blackorred,brownoryellow,has introduced themost
radicalrevolution knownin thehistoryofmankind.In its cultural
significance it is the transformation of nationhoodand all its re-
sourcesinto a lethal,"technocratic" instrument of violence.This
becomesa meansjustified by theend. The endis theacquisitionof
morepowerforonestate,thatis,morescopefororganizing violence
on a largerscale and forfurther destructive uses. Thus,theend of
totalitarianism, in so faras it graduallysaps all theresources ofcul-
tureand destroysits structure, is diametricallyopposedand com-
pletelyincompatible withtheconstitution ofhumansocietiesforthe
normal,peacefulbusinessofproducing, maintaining, and transmit-
tingwealth,solidarity, reason,and conscience, all ofwhichare the
realindicesand valuesof civilization.
The war of I9I4-I8 was, I submit,different in all fundamentals
fromthehistorical warsofconstructive conquest.In its technique,
in itsinfluence on nationallife,and also in itsreference to theinter-
nationalsituationit becamea totalwar. Fightinggoeson nownot
merelyon all the frontiers geographically possible;it is wagedon
land,on sea, and in theair. Modernwarmakesit impossible to dis-
tinguish betweenthemilitary personnel ofan armyand thecivilians;
betweenmilitaryobjectivesand the culturalportionof national
destructionofthenationwithwhichit is associatedand,lateron,to
destructionon international scale.
Totalitarianism is an extremeexpression in the shiftof balance
betweenstateand nation.It is extremebecausemodernmeansof
mechanicalmobilizationof man-power, economicresources,and
spiritualvalueshavebecomeso dangerously thatit is now
effective
possibleto refashion wholecommunities-consisting ofhundreds of
millions-andto changeeach of themfroma nation,exercising,
transmitting, and developingculture,intoa belligerent machinery
supremein war,but unsuited,perhapsunable,to carryon thena-
tionalheritageof culture.The Germannation,onceleadingin sci-
enceandinart,richina highly differentiated regionalfolklore,
peasant
life,and economicdiversity, has nowbeenchangedintoa large-scale
barracks.It wouldbe an important historicaltask to showhow
muchof Germany'sgreatnesswas due to the racial,regional,and
traditional differences of its component parts.The progressive ex-
tinctionof thisdiversity is the pricewhichGermany, as a nation,
had to pay in orderto make Germany,the state, so powerful.
Nationalism inthismoderntotalitarian formis pernicious becauseit
has becomethegreatestenemyofthenationitself.
And whatis theplace of totalitarianism in internationalpolicies
and politics?It is obviousthat humanityis now facedwithtwo
alternatives-the finalvictory, in thelongrun,oftotalitarianism or
democracy.No stateorganized on a peacebasis,thatis,forthefull-
est and mosteffective exerciseof civilization, can competewitha
stateorganized forefficiency inwar. Nazi victorycanbe finalonlyif
Hitler'snation-state, one and alone, assumesfull controlof the
wholeworld.If thiswereprobableor evenpossible,we mightwell
arguethatoncehumanity is submitted to one conqueror, thecondi-
tionsofcreativeand constructive conquestwillsetin,withtheusual
beneficent results,obtainedat a greatprice,but finallyacceptable.
The possibilityofa completevictoryofone state does not exist. If
Germany wins,shewillhave at leastthreemoretotalitarian
powers
to reckonwith-Italy,Russia,and Japan. WhenItalyfallsout and
becomesa mereappendageofHitlerism, theUnitedStatesofAmer-
ica mayhaveto entertheranksoftotalitarian
countries.For,on the
assumptionthatGreatBritainis beatenand absorbedintotheGer-