Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

September 21st, 2005

Tags

, ,

Comments

9 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Biology of Conflict

I adhere to a Kaplanesque version of pessimistic realism and fundamentally believe that human beings are hardwired to be violent. Steven Huybrechts agrees in his recent paper Biology of Conflict: Ruling Out World Government (pdf), arguing that people naturally divide into tribe-like subgroups destined for conflict. Conclusion: no world government will ever be able to wholly eradicate war, and thinking otherwise will actually make the world more dangerous.

Comments to this entry

J.Kende
September 22, 2005
1:33 am
I think it is more accurate to say that human beings are hardwired to be self-programming, and heavily inclined to whatever their currently programmed habits are. The act of living a more examined and chosen life isn't exactly easy though. That being said, in any analysis of how human beings can be expected to act must label the nature of human beings as an 'uncertain' variable operating within a range. That range definitely includes the Kaplanesque pessimistic realism you are talking about. Violence is a natural extension of many facets of human existance. But that isn't the same as saying that human beings are predictably violent or that they automatically divide into tribal subgroups. Rather they are likely to, unless there is some other stronger overriding force of any sort. Like the 'sovereign' of Hobbes, whether in the form of a central external authority, a distributed authority set in a more Jeffersonian mold, or by way of a self-modifying sovereign self inside each individual person. Regardless, conflict is a natural part of existance, and humanity is not seperate from that... nor should it be.
Daniel Nexon
September 22, 2005
6:36 pm
See:

1) https://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=6&tid=3041
- John Mercer

2) http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=6&tid=3356
- Brad Thayer

3) http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=6&tid=7048
- Duncan Bell and Paul MacDonald debate Thayer

4) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/misr/2002/00000004/00000001/art00253
- Jennifer Sterling-Folker
Dan tdaxp
September 22, 2005
7:08 pm
Curzon,

I agree completely.

Also, love the preview comment functionality!

Wot wot!
Younghusband
September 22, 2005
9:15 pm
I am not going to even get into this argument...

bq. Also, love the preview comment functionality!

Not bad for a start. I will try and put some thought into better presentation. Also, I am not happy that it isn't compatible with Textile.
Daniel Nexon
September 22, 2005
9:19 pm
I forgot to mention Dan Deudney's chapter in The Return of Culture and Identity and Identity in IR Theory (Lynne Reiner, 1996) which makes a similar argument: cosmopolitan identity isn't strong enough to overcome local collective identities.

I'm hesitant to infer too much from the sociobiological or evolutionary psychology literatures on the question of world government. There are a host of reasons why world government is unlikely without resorting to claims about the hardwired nature of human conflict groups.

Moreover, one of the lessons of Social Identity Theory, the Minimal Group Paradigm, and similar insights about in-group bias is that the definition of human in-groups can be pretty plastic. Consider national groups, which are pretty "artificial," or the success of some universal empires, such as the Roman and Han, at forging relatively integrated cultures among groups that one would never expect, prior to imperialization, to share common collective identities.

There's also the example of federative polities (think about the US before and after the Civil War). In both political forms, it is possible to "nest" local differences within an aggregate polity. Conflictual urges, in-group bias, and so forth can be channelled into non-violent competition... or can be suppressed to nuisance levels that don't threaten the aggregate stability of the political order.

Never say "never."
mark safranski
September 23, 2005
1:58 am
Regarding nonviolent competition within polities....

There is the tendency to take groups that " lost" the internal power struggle - say the Scots vis-a-vis the English within Great Britain, the Italian allies/clients of Rome - and make a " place in the sun" for them at the expense of outsiders.

Scots and Anglo-Irish gentry were overrepresented in the colonial service of the British Empire, the Italians were almost as priviliged in the provinces as the Roman citizens, post-bellum white Southerners had deep roots in the Army officer corps and so on
The Burden of Proof
September 23, 2005
8:22 pm
Busy Busy Busy

I've been keeping busy with the wrong stuff, but here is what I'd be reading otherwise. Links and miscellaneous commentary ahead.
Emma
September 24, 2005
3:25 am
I know this is a place of "pagan thought" but I still will say, I believe our 'hardwiring' to violence is definitely true- it's called the fall of man. Just last night I was talking with my friend about how in the long run, places that continue to have famine regularly would be better off if we just moved all those people to a place where constant drought wouldn't occur... technically there is space enough in texas alone to house the world's population at a ratio similar to most suburban neighborhoods... but of course we all know that living in close proximity with people of other beliefs or ways of life is the cause of conflict... why? because we are sinful or as you say, hardwired for violence. It's basically selfishness. We are innate hoarders who only look out for ourselves and when someone else has something we want- well, we have a tendency to get violent. It's true in every culture in every land in all the world and will be forever. No government can change our sinful nature. And for me- sorry pagans- but the only true one who can change the hearts of man is God... but don't worry- i know that religion causes conflict as well when imposed on another... i don't believe in that either.... i am just saying on a personal level ones heart can be unhardwired for violence through God.
TheJew
September 24, 2005
3:42 am
If people naturally divide into tribal sub-groups as evidenced by their previous divisions into tribal sub-groups, how did monotheism or the nation state happen? Could it be that the degree of tribal sub-division is dependent on technology rather then a stagnant element of human nature?

I agree that having an exterior enemy is useful for covering up internal division and conflict. Eliminate the internal division and almost all conflict is eliminated. Just ask Sharansky, he'll give you an earful about scapegoats and the misdirection of aggression by isolated and privileged elites. You could also ask Marx.