Sporadic efforts have been made to promote general recognition of broad
national values free of military connotation, but they have been ineffective. For
example, to enlist public support of even such modest programs of social
adjustment as "fighting inflation" or "maintaining physical fitness" it has been
necessary for the government to utilize a patriotic (i.e. military) incentive. It
sells "defense" bonds and it equates health with military preparedness. This is
not surprising; since the concept of "nationhood" implies readiness for war, a
"national" program must do likewise.
In general, the war system provides the basic motivation for primary social
organization. In so doing, it reflects on the societal level the incentives of
individual human behavior. The most important of these, for social purposes, is
the individual psychological rationale for allegiance to a society and its values.
Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious;
the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely
formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the "enemy" sufficient to
warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to
the size and complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one
of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness.
It follows, from the patterns of human behavior, that the credibility of a social
"enemy" demands similarly a readiness of response in proportion to its menace.
In a broad social context, "an eye for an eye" still characterizes the only
acceptable attitude toward a presumed threat of aggression, despite contrary
religious and moral precepts governing personal conduct. The remoteness of
personal decision from social consequence in a modern society makes it easy
for its members to maintain this attitude without being aware of it. A recent
example is the war in Vietnam; a less recent one was the bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. In each case, the extent and gratuitousness of the slaughter were
abstracted into political formulae by most Americans, once the proposition that
the victims were "enemies" was established. The war system makes such an
abstracted response possible in nonmilitary contexts as well. A conventional
example of this mechanism is the inability of most people to connect, let us say,
the starvation of millions in India with their own past conscious political
decision-making. Yet the sequential logic linking a decision to restrict grain
production in America with an eventual famine in Asia is obvious,
unambiguous, and unconcealed.
What gives the war system its preeminent role in social organization, as
elsewhere, is its unmatched authority over life and death. It must be emphasized
again that the war system is not a mere social extension of the presumed need
national values free of military connotation, but they have been ineffective. For
example, to enlist public support of even such modest programs of social
adjustment as "fighting inflation" or "maintaining physical fitness" it has been
necessary for the government to utilize a patriotic (i.e. military) incentive. It
sells "defense" bonds and it equates health with military preparedness. This is
not surprising; since the concept of "nationhood" implies readiness for war, a
"national" program must do likewise.
In general, the war system provides the basic motivation for primary social
organization. In so doing, it reflects on the societal level the incentives of
individual human behavior. The most important of these, for social purposes, is
the individual psychological rationale for allegiance to a society and its values.
Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious;
the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely
formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the "enemy" sufficient to
warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to
the size and complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one
of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness.
It follows, from the patterns of human behavior, that the credibility of a social
"enemy" demands similarly a readiness of response in proportion to its menace.
In a broad social context, "an eye for an eye" still characterizes the only
acceptable attitude toward a presumed threat of aggression, despite contrary
religious and moral precepts governing personal conduct. The remoteness of
personal decision from social consequence in a modern society makes it easy
for its members to maintain this attitude without being aware of it. A recent
example is the war in Vietnam; a less recent one was the bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. In each case, the extent and gratuitousness of the slaughter were
abstracted into political formulae by most Americans, once the proposition that
the victims were "enemies" was established. The war system makes such an
abstracted response possible in nonmilitary contexts as well. A conventional
example of this mechanism is the inability of most people to connect, let us say,
the starvation of millions in India with their own past conscious political
decision-making. Yet the sequential logic linking a decision to restrict grain
production in America with an eventual famine in Asia is obvious,
unambiguous, and unconcealed.
What gives the war system its preeminent role in social organization, as
elsewhere, is its unmatched authority over life and death. It must be emphasized
again that the war system is not a mere social extension of the presumed need
