Is War Becoming Obsolete? A Sociological Analysis

Abstract

There is a degree of consensus among scholars that the character of warfare has substantially changed over the past three decades. However, there is no agreement about the direction and causes of this change. Some argue that 'the new wars' have become more brutal, more chaotic and decentralized. These wars are linked to the globalization processes emphasizing that as the unrestrained proliferation of globalized economy intensifies so will these new wars. In contrast others insist that all forms of organized violence are on the wane: there are fewer wars, they are less lethal, more localized and shorter than in previous historical periods. Moreover they argue that the very institution of warfare is gradually but definitely becoming obsolete. This paper challenges both of these perspectives and articulates an alternative interpretation. The aim is to develop a longue durée sociological analysis that focuses on the macro-organizational social context and explores the dynamics of the war-state-society nexus over the past centuries. I argue that warfare is not becoming obsolete and that 'new wars' are unlikely to completely replace inter-state warfare. Instead my analysis indicates that there is more organizational continuity in the contemporary warfare that either of the two dominant perspectives is willing to acknowledge.

The organisation of military violence in the 21st century

“…WWII). More recently, one could witness another gradual shift from the modern high death ratios towards military power typified by the penetration of highly superior coercive and ideological powers (Malešević, 2014(Malešević, , 2017. Hence, in addition to the cumulative bureaucratisation of coercion, modern social organisations remain underpinned by another ongoing historical process -centrifugal ideologisation.…”

The Privatized Meaning of Wartime Deployments: Examining the Narratives of Norwegian Military Spouses

“…The meaning of wartime service, as examined in the above studies, must be understood in light of the position that the culture at large accords to warfare and military service. This study argues that Norway, along with other western societies, has become largely disassociated from the experience of warfare (Gustavsen ;Malešević ; Rutherford ). During the Cold War, the military had a vast presence throughout Norwegian society.…”

Interpersonal Violence as an Intrinsic Part of The Civilizing Process

“…But also inter-state wars [e.g., Joas 2003], the “war on terror” with acts of torture in particular [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2014], the aspect of (globalized) organized crime in the framework of modern societies [Malešević and Ryan 2012], an “estimated 1.6 million people world-wide [who] died as a result of self-inflicted, interpersonal or collective violence” [World Health Organisation 2007: 6], or acts of individualized terrorism warfare [Kron, Braun and Heinke 2015; Smith et al 2015], all characterizable as non-civilized, provoke Elias’s approach. And even if recent studies, in contrast to these aspects, corroborate Elias’s view of a general decline of violence in modern societies [Bessel 2016; Eisner 2001, 2008; Goldstein 2012; Pinker 2011], though also criticized in turn [Malešević 2014, 2017; Mann 2018], all of them point to its ongoing existence.…”

“…In brief, therefore, my thesis uses the creativity of Elias’s theory rather than testing it [Dépelteau 2017: 91; Spierenburg 2001: 102-103] “by keeping the good parts and fixing some weaknesses” [Dépelteau 2017: 91], and by referring to the following starting points. Regarding the recent debates on the use or misuse of Elias’s theory to explain violence—in particular, the studies of Pinker [2011], who “heavily [draws] on Elias’s theory of civilizing processes” [Malešević 2014: 69], or Goldstein [2012]—Malešević [2014, 2017] and Mann [2018] point to the fact that inter-state wars have not declined but shifted more toward conflicts on the economic or judicial level due to a high level of bureaucratization in the North. Against this backdrop, and contrary to Pinker’s [2011: 483] statement that although “most of us [...] are wired for violence, even if in all likelihood we will never have an occasion to use it,” violence on the micro level has shifted to more indirect forms—interpersonal conflicts are “settled without recourse to violence through third-party arbitration and the law-courts” [Mann 2018: 49].…”

“…And even if direct violent conflicts seems to have vanished on the macro and meso level, due to “a revival of liberal optimism” [ ibid. : 41], they are swapped out to the Western periphery, still framed as civilized through peacekeeping organizations [Goldstein 2012], leading to a worldwide “replacement of inter-state wars by civil wars” [Mann 2018: 51; Goldstein 2012: 291; Malešević 2014: 78] within which brutality and “ferocious violence endures […] with more body-to-body assault” [Mann 2018: 51] on the interpersonal micro level [Mann 2018; Malešević 2014, 2017]—not preventable by the peacekeeping organizations. In brief, violence continues to be an integral part of even civilized societies at the macro, meso and micro levels.…”