My philosophy of war is a subjective account of ‘my’ beliefs pertaining to the relationship between war and humanity. This blog will highlight my apprehension of the history and future of war, and present my stance to the idea of war.

So, what is war? What causes war? Is the aftermath of the war always negative?

Definitions of war vary from conflicts between states to conflicts between schools of thought or ideologies. The need to acquire all and to be superior to all leads to physical war, battles including armies, arms and ammunition are fought in order to attain a single party’s goal. Modern war incorporates conflicting ideologies and principles but is not necessarily between states, such as the Global war on terrorism or the war on drugs, where the dispute is amongst ideology possessors and the battlefield is unknown, but several lives are lost every day fighting against ‘their normative right.’ If so many lives are lost, why do people continue fighting? The answer is ‘change’. Society is a mobile and fluid phenomenon, and change is vital for its functioning.

 

TheOxford Dictionary expands the definition to include “any active hostility or struggle between living beings; a conflict between opposing forces or principles.” My examination of this definition is simple- war means conflict, and as a sociology student, I believe conflict is the driving force to our dynamic lives. Conflict directs most of our actions, from disputes among siblings over the T.V remote to disagreements on treaties for the welfare of humanity, war is a part of our daily life. So, is the present a result of war? Yes, and No, even the answer to war involves war. This debate is between the functionalists, who assume society to be organized and in equilibrium, they believe the cause of change to be evolution, and the conflict theorists, who emphasize war as the permanent feature of the changing society (prof Kerry Greer-lecture).

 

In an individualistic perspective, this debate continues between Hobbes, who saw humans as war-like and violent, and Rousseau, who saw humanity as peaceful until civilization came along. (prof Chris Erikson-lecture) Rousseau argues this position: “War is constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons…War then is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State…” (The Social Contract). I stand with Hobbes and strongly believe that conflict is an innate instinct among human beings. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “I am by nature war-like, to attack is among my instincts.” These primitive urges, I believe, cause war, further leading to fatality.

 

This is where the casualties and aftermath of war creep in, which I refer to as the ‘dark side’ of societal dynamism. The dark side is a period of depression for most societies, it includes death, destruction, poverty, scarcity and results in either a complete societal shift or leads to another war. But does the aftermath always have to be negative? War on drugs is an ideological conflict in order to protect citizens from the harmful effects of drugs, the war against global warming aims to attain sustainability for the well-being of the environment, are there any casualties? Yes, but the final motive is the welfare of society as a whole. If we look at the horror of war through the perspective of optimistic nihilism , viewing life as meaningless, yet finding the positivity and happiness to continue living through the existential crisis, (Elias Skjoldborg- ted talk) we find a wholesome meaning behind the meaningless death and loss surrounding war, like if we win the war against climate change, popularly known as World War III, it will lead to normalized temperatures and prevention of melting ice caps (we benefit).

It is established that war leads to casualty, but battles are fought to form a new world, to form new ideologies, to birth a new renaissance movement.

Viewing war as an agency of change rather than an end result of conflict is ‘my philosophy of war’.  

 

Citation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmRBzc0o71A

https://www.iep.utm.edu/war/

https://www.climatecentre.org/news/1035/a-the-world-is-losing-the-war-on-climate-changea

picture by- War | Britannica.com

Museum of Anthropology’s exhibition: Arts of Resistance. Politics and the Past in Latin America, a thoughtfully curated exhibit by Laura Osorio Sunnucks, showcases the Latin American culture and folkloric artifacts demonstrating works by artists in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, El Salvador, Ecuador and Chile.

The exhibition described to me a struggle, an endeavour to attain justice, and a venture to preserve one’s culture. From drawings of Salvadoran refugees awaiting asylum to huipiles- traditional blouses of the Maya women, this assimilation of contemporary and traditional art forms gave me a unified perspective that illustrated and defined resistance in a different form than my own understanding of revolutionary struggle. Furthermore, it raised certain questions about my apprehension of resistance as a social concept:

Does resistance always need a symbolic representation?

Are such artifacts of social movements a way to create collective consciousness or simply give life to the history that was killed by the modern world?

 

The object that caught my attention was the Local Devil. Every year, the Teloloapans celebrate their local history by swarming the streets with devils who playfully scare the town’s inhabitants- taunt children and hand flowers to women.  A strange mask documenting the guerrilla battle that took place in Teloloapan during the war against Spain, which culminated with the Mexican Independence in 1821. The Devil masks were created for the insurgents in order to frighten and beat back the colonial sympathizers.

The Devil is considered to be an ambiguous character fighting against the exploitative conditions that have long been imposed by the west.

My interpretation as a Hindu, where the devil, called ‘rakshasa’ does not always represent evil forces. A ‘rakshasa’, named- ‘Vibhishand’ fought against the capture of ‘Sita’, Lord Rama’s wife in ‘Ramayana’ and believed in freedom and humanity. Similar to the ideologies of local indigenous Teloloapans who induced fear in order to resist colonization.

I relate this act to Karl Marx’s theory of resistance against the class system and the communist manifesto, that I learned in my sociology class. The indigenous and the proletariat were under the rule of colonizers and the bourgeoisie respectively. The teloloapnas act of resistance was a battle for their sovereignty, similarly, the proletariats act of resistance was a revolution for their freedom as wage labourers. The concept of revolution to attain self-autonomy and conflict to bring about social change and sentiments of nationalism and solidarity was Karl Marx’s approach in the Conflict Theory. Conflict sociologists see the social world as a constant struggle, this competition is the leading cause of change in society and thus the undertaker of the ruling or dominant class or group. (Dr. Kerry Greer lecture) The independence of Mexicans was the cornerstone of societal change and gave the citizens a sense of self-governance.

Conclusion

This resistance of the Teloloapans against the Spanish colonizers resulted in the celebration of the devil festival, thereby creating a sense of collective consciousness and encouraging sociability.

By symbolizing their struggle through the masks, indigenous people do indeed keep the history alive and give voice to the silenced struggle of nationalism.

 

Citation

Arts of Resistance