“why – for many people — war feels better than peace”

“why – for many people  — war feels better than peace”

 

a review of Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging (2016) by Sebastian Junger

by John M Repp  jmrepp@q.com

 

The title of this review is a quote from the introduction to Tribe (p xvii) where the author tells us what his book is about. In a related TED talk, https://www.ted.com/talks/sebastian_junger_why_veterans_miss_war , Junger says that we need to understand this counter-intuitive fact if we want to stop war.

Junger was a war correspondent for the magazine Vanity Fair. He was embedded in Afghanistan and made the acclaimed documentary film “Restrepo”.

Soldiers form a “tribe” when they train together and especially when they go into combat together. They must band together to survive. They take responsibility for each other and will sacrifice their lives for the good of the group. It is this deep solidarity, the “all for one, one for all” ethos, and camaraderie that soldiers miss when they return to “the States”. Junger thinks the experience of group cohesion in a combat platoon reproduces what our hunting-gathering ancestors felt as they lived their lives. That is why the emotional experience resonates so deeply for many soldiers. It touches something primordial and powerful in our emotional nature. This is why war feels better than peace for so many.

When the veterans return, they face the “quiet desperation” (Thoreau) and loneliness of contemporary America where the reigning ethic is “each person (or small group) is on their own” and they are trying to maximize their position in a ranked society”. Junger thinks it is the individualism, fragmentation, and the conflict of our society which impedes the healing of PTSD (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder). It is worse when we treat them as victims. The government sends disability checks to 45% of the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan up to $3,000 a month for full disability. Junger thinks we should instead give them a meaningful job, with a living wage I would add. They would then have the sense they are still serving society, they would feel necessary, and the trauma can heal for most with time.

So, now we must ask the question: can humanity create a new altruistic ethos in a context other than war or other natural disaster?

Junger refers to anthropologist Christopher Boehm in his text (p 135) and source notes. Boehm asserts that the egalitarianism of our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors is intentionally created by a large coalition of adult males who prevent ambitious alpha males from becoming tyrants. It is not just because our ancestors were nomadic and could not accumulate material wealth that they were egalitarian. Boehm’s idea is called “counter-dominance” and is now widely accepted in the field of anthropology. Only when our ancestors achieved egalitarianism could morality develop and a conscience evolve. This sets us apart from all other creatures.

Junger should also have cited Chris Knight (http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/) who has developed the idea that it was our female prehistoric ancestors that started the development of the trust and cooperation that led to the large coalition, breaking with more ancient primate ethic of “each on their own”. This was necessary for the nurturing of the increasingly helpless human infants needing rich food for their large brains. Out of this came culture: art, ritual, music, and especially human language, which is one of the great transitions of the evolution of life on earth.

Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke often about the “beloved community” which was the goal of nonviolent direct action for peace and social justice. Nonviolent direct action could be the new context for recreating the ancient human ethic of “one for all, all for one”. This idea is not discussed in Junger’s book, but readers of Tribe from the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the growing nonviolent movements for peace, justice, and ecological sustainability can take that next step.

To fully comprehend what is being proposed here, two things need to be considered.

(1) If full blown fascism comes to the United States, we cannot expect liberation to take the form it did during World War II when the Allies used massive military force to defeat the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, and Imperial Japan. There has to be another way. Nonviolent direct action (NVDA)can be that way. Bill McKibben of 350.org, recently wrote that NVDA may be the most important invention of the 20th century. https://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-active-many-can-overcome-the-ruthless-few/  Even if we only get “friendly fascism” with the election of Trump, we can use NVDA to push politicians to progressive positions.

(2) NVDA is potentially more powerful than war. NVDA is much more than amassing thousands of people in the public square. There are almost two hundred “nonviolent weapons” in a NVDA arsenal, many of them like stay-at-home strikes, are “tactics of dispersion”. Large scale NVDA is about taking power or denying power to a tyrant. There is a widespread lack of understanding of NVDA even among activists. It is always hoped that NVDA can persuade the tyrant and his party to stand aside so fair elections can be held, however if that is not possible, then NVDA must coerce the tyrant and his party. To regain democracy, it is necessary for an NVDA movement to have the active participation of millions and the tacit support of a majority. NVDA is designed to operate in the face of violent repression.

Take a look at Self-Liberation: A Guide to Strategic Planning for Action to End a Dictatorship or Other Oppression by Gene Sharp and Jamila Raqib. http://www.aeinstein.org/self-liberation/  “In conflicts between a dictatorship, or other oppression, and a dominated population, it is necessary for the populace to determine whether they wish simply to condemn the oppression and protest against the system. Or, do they wish actually to end the oppression, and replace it with a system of greater freedom, democracy, and justice? Many good people have assumed that if they denounce the oppression strongly enough, and protest long enough, the desired change will somehow happen. That assumption is an error.” (p 1) Mass NVDA against authoritarian regimes is a life and death struggle. Successful NVDA activists from around the world have experienced the same solidarity and joyful camaraderie as Junger’s platoon in Afghanistan.

Junger has written a short book (168 pages with source notes) full of ideas that can help stimulate new thinking about our society and culture, new thinking that we desperately need. We face two existential crises, one that can kill us instantly, one that can kill us more slowly: nuclear war and climate catastrophe. The illegitimate election of Trump and his selection of the new right-wing government amplify the urgency of these crises.

Leave a Reply