Anthropology and War

Anthropological approaches to the study of war are varied. Warfare has been studied in a comparative perspective, as structurally institutionalized, and as a sociobiological imperative. Anthropologists have documented war, not simply as historical occurrence but as a social process with repercussions on the societies affected. Governments have enlisted the aid of anthropologists in warfare, using anthropological insights to demonize the enemy, to inflict effective psychological tortures, and, recently, to liaise with local populations, and to engineer new societal constructs commensurate with peace and democracy.

Early anthropological models classified whole societies as either Apollonian or Dionysian. Either type may be given to warfare, but Apollonian cultures approach war with standards of honor, even beauty, while Dionysian violence is chaotic and anarchistic. Other anthropological models contrasted societies' uses of war (a) to attain internal status (proving bravery and skill), often combined with raiding, the captured goods or chattel adding to the warrior's prestige, versus (b) to conquer territory, incorporating it and the inhabitants into an expanding state.

Anthropological theorists have also shown that nation-building often includes the creation of a sense of shared or common identity, which may be strategically reinforced by the “othering” of an outside group, which may be portrayed as an enemy, inspiring the populace to unite in the face of this threat. Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain built on the shared accomplishment of driving the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula to create a sense of “Spanish-ness,” which Isabella then consolidated by commissioning Antonio de Nebrija to compose a grammar for the Spanish language, in effect creating it and a national-co-feeling in the process. Hitler, infamously, forged German/Aryan pride against the “threat” of Jews, homosexuals, and those with hereditary subnormal intelligence, as well as against foreign nations.

Some societies have institutionalized warfare. Among the Nahuatl, soldiers yaoquizqueh could become yaoquizcayacanqui “officers” and might advance from commoner to higher statuses. Nahuatl poetry extols the bravery of warriors, their “heated” essences, and “flowery” faces. The Aztec state waged war not only for territorial gains to acquire client states and exact tribute but also to acquire captives for ritual sacrifice. Some hypothesize that the Aztec left pockets of “enemy” states within their empire so that low-intensity conflict could be maintained. Decades of war in the Congo and in parts of the Middle East have made warfare a major occupation for indigenous young men and boys.

Materialist theorists often attribute warfare to competition over scarce resources. Arthur Demarest suggests that war became endemic among the Classic Maya of the Petexbatún area of the Petén because of water scarcity and the drive to control key trade routes. Analysts have suggested that the Yanomamo compete over women, protein sources, and/or metal tools through fierce raiding warfare.

Case studies in societies during and after sustained periods of warfare inform anthropological theories of competition but also of trauma and reconciliation. In his 2006 work, Adam Jones provides an overview of genocidal actions by modern states [Page 25]in Armenia, Russia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Cambodia, and Ruwanda. Anthropologists have been called into postconflict nations to participate in Truth Commissions (e.g., Guatemala, Chile, Ecuador, Liberia, Paraguay, Congo), giving special attention to the cultural bases for the violence.

...