Kenneth Waltz introductory thoughts in Man, the State and War delve into the concept of human nature and the society and how these two are intertwined in our understanding of war and peace. According to him, our miseries are ineluctably the product of our nature. His idea of man being perhaps the root of all evil is a concept touched upon by many such as Plato and Kant along with psychologists of the time. We cannot fully gauge this behavioral concept of war without clearly understanding the fact that even though we have been endowed with reason, sometimes the society around us and our systematic understanding of cause and effect influences the states actions and the decision of war as well.
War, according to Waltz, is a socially constructed phenomenon. As humans, politicians have an insatiable desire for power and this desire, this passion, sometimes over rides reason and judgment- there is a constant battle between the two and the outcome is a states actions, which decides whether the world system will be plunged into a state of pillaging and destruction. This is perhaps the leading reason for war because man wants to be the best. States want some form of consistency in the world and in order to ensure that there is a stable of balance of power in the world, they take measures to out do the other- leading to a state of anarchy.
Waltz continues to claim that economy plays little part in the game of war. Agency and human nature are the contributing factors- a view point agreed upon by many theologian philosophers as well. Another dimension to the understanding of war is introduced by Waltz in the form of Rousseaus discourse in which he states that behavior is shaped by the society that one lives in. Bad polity makes men bad because man cannot make a decision unless he has some assurance that others will follow him regardless of the decisions he/she makes. The boundaries between human nature and society are blurred because it is impossible to divorce the two and this is the locus of major problems.
Waltz personifies the state and elevates it to being a prime actor, and attributes both polity and human nature to it, and it is the state, with its interactions with other states in the global arena, that dictates the course of history and the reasoning of war and peace.
War, according to Waltz, is a socially constructed phenomenon. As humans, politicians have an insatiable desire for power and this desire, this passion, sometimes over rides reason and judgment- there is a constant battle between the two and the outcome is a states actions, which decides whether the world system will be plunged into a state of pillaging and destruction. This is perhaps the leading reason for war because man wants to be the best. States want some form of consistency in the world and in order to ensure that there is a stable of balance of power in the world, they take measures to out do the other- leading to a state of anarchy.
Waltz continues to claim that economy plays little part in the game of war. Agency and human nature are the contributing factors- a view point agreed upon by many theologian philosophers as well. Another dimension to the understanding of war is introduced by Waltz in the form of Rousseaus discourse in which he states that behavior is shaped by the society that one lives in. Bad polity makes men bad because man cannot make a decision unless he has some assurance that others will follow him regardless of the decisions he/she makes. The boundaries between human nature and society are blurred because it is impossible to divorce the two and this is the locus of major problems.
Waltz personifies the state and elevates it to being a prime actor, and attributes both polity and human nature to it, and it is the state, with its interactions with other states in the global arena, that dictates the course of history and the reasoning of war and peace.
Your last point really hits the nail on the head in terms of Waltz's conception of how the international system operates and exists. But remember that Waltz believes war is caused by the anarchic structure of the system, not particular individual preferences.
ReplyDelete