Blog Them Out of the Stone Age

The third in a five-part guest post by Prof. Brien Hallett, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.

Essential and Non-Essential Definitions

In thinking about how to define war, the first issue that one has to deal with is whether to define war as a mental or a material phenomenon. The issue returns one momentarily to Clausewitz’s first definition, “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will” (1976, 75). From this popular and widely accepted definition, one can logically conclude that, as a “pure concept,” war is all about opposing wills battling each other in some psychic ether, and not about men and machines battling in the mud of the earth.

Interestingly, the U.S. Marine Corps appears to accept this logic. Toward the end of Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication-1, Warfighting, the political character of war is acknowledge, “The sole justification for the United States Marine Corps is to secure or protect national policy objectives by military force when peaceful means alone cannot” (1997 (1989), 71). But this is in the final chapter and must be balanced against the earlier and more frequent claims that, “The essence of war is a violent struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose it-self on the other. War is fundamentally an interactive social process. Clausewitz called it a Zweikampf (literally a “two-struggle”) and suggested the image of a pair of wrestlers locked in a hold, each exerting force and counterforce to try to throw the other” (ibid., 3; cf. 4, 14, 32).

To be fair, the authors of Warfighting are struggling with the same problem that high school football coaches wrestle with every Saturday. Élan, esprit, and moral are necessary to win games. Pep talks about “a winning spirit,” the “will to win,” and such are necessary and expected parts of the coaching. More, no one can deny the mental component of either sports or war. Yet, to acknowledge that the mental “essence” of football or war is indeed a Zweikampf requires one to acknowledge also that this “essence” is entirely irrelevant to defining war as a material phenomenon. Mentally, football may well be spirit; it may well be a contest of wills. However, as a practical matter in the material world, football is an ends-means problem, an ideal in process. It is moving the ball by means of running and passing to and over the goal line. Mentally, war as a “pure concept” may well be “a violent struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills.” But this purely psychic concept does nothing to explain or define war in the material world. To do that, one must recall Clausewitz’s second definition. In the practical or material world, war is the continuation of policy by as-yet-undefined means. In the material world, war is fundamentally an ends-means problem. That is more fully, war is the achievement of coherence between “national policy objectives” and as-yet-undefined means.

Alternately, to recall Martin Luther King’s language, in the material world, war is the initiation of an ideal in process. For example, if the end or ideal sought by thirteen colonies is independence, the material, but not mental, process to achieve this ideal is 1) to declare their independence and 2) to fight for it. Dependent colonies do not fight. Colonies seeking independence fight, because by declaring and fighting for independence they initiate the process or take the first step towards actually becoming independent.

In sum, while no one would wish to deny the mental “essence” of war, this mental dimension of war is very much less mysterious or interesting than the as-yet-undefined material dimension. The ways and means of inducing a Manichaean “us-them” mentality so necessary for a Zweikampf are all well known. Little point exists in studying further how to use “rally ’round the flagpole” rhetoric, give pep talks, produce propaganda, manipulate the media, and such. These techniques are too well known. Hence, in what follows, all effort will be directed to understanding and defining the material dimension of war, focused on Clausewitz’s as-yet-undefined “other means.”

The second issue that must be dealt with is to finally come to grips with the question of number. Clausewitz offered two definitions, a mental and a practical or material definition. But rather more are clearly needed for such a complex social phenomenon. Hence, in addition to a definition of war in the mental sense, how many definitions of war in the material sense are needed? And, what about the common subjective concept of war as “violence?” The question is raised, however, only to finesse it by asking a more relevant question. Which kinds of definition are needed? One or more essential definitions? A non-essential definition? Or, some combination of the two?

By way of explanation, an essential definition attempts to capture the “essence” of the thing defined, whereas a non-essential definition attempts to describe the thing defined in terms of a Wittgensteinian “family resemblance.” An essential definition is built around the copulative verb, “to be” in the form of “definiendum A is/equals definiens B” (e.g., By analogy, “War is nothing but a duel.”). This equation is frequently in the form of the species of a genus (e.g., War is of the species “to compel” of the genus “an act of force.”). But often a different more descriptive form is used (e.g., War is the continuation of policy by other means.).

A non-essential definition seeks neither the “essence” of the thing nor does it establish an equation. Rather, it attempts to identify a group of salient characteristics that tend to be found in things that often qualify as the thing being defined. A non-essential definition recognizes that the world is not black and white, not this or that, but is, instead, gray, somewhat like this but not altogether unlike that. In a word, a non-essential looks for “family resemblances.” It identifies the color of the hair, the arch of the eyebrow, the curve of the nose, and the set of the jaw to define the group of people sitting at the next table as all belonging to the Jones family, except the tall blond, who must be young Billy Jones’ fiancée.

Obviously, a combination of essential and non-essential definitions are needed in order to even begin to define war as in its full complexity. In particular, a non-essential definition is needed to organize and structure a goodly list of essential definitions. In this way, a checklist of relevant characteristics can be created. Then, with this checklist in hand, one can venture into the gray confusion of the world and look for “family resemblance” among the conflicts of the world.

A Non-Essential Definition of War

I. War as a Mental Phenomenon
A. “War is a violent struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose it-self on the other.”

II. War as a Material Phenomenon:
A. The Policy Goal
1. Formally, war is a performative speech act (i.e., a declaration), which may be either open and formal or informal.

2. Substantively, war is a dispute over sovereignty, either sovereignty itself (e.g., the American Civil War, WWII in Germany) or a portion of sovereignty (e.g., territory, treatment of minority, trade policy, etc.). Minimally, war is a dispute over who shall lay down the law.

3. Legally, war is the state or condition of enmity. Peace is the state or condition of amity.

B. The Other Means
1. Cold War
a. Diplomatically, war is, in general, a policy “that peace and justice may thereafter prevail” (Cicero, 1967, I, xi, 35). In particular, war is the resolution of the grievances denounced in the formal or informal declaration of war, most probably along the lines of the peace terms articulated in the same declaration.

b. Economically, war is the disruption, reduction, or severance of trade and commerce.

2. Hot War
a. Militarily, (yet to be defined)

III. War as a Subjective Phenomenon
A. Visually, (yet to be defined)

Clearly, to speak of war as only a military activity–as armed conflict–is stunningly inadequate. Any marginally useful and explanatory definition must begin to encompass the whole of war, its Mental, Material and Subjective aspects. That is, war as 1) the contest of opposing wills; 2) the formal, substantive, and legal character of the policy for which the war is being fought; 3) the diplomatic and economic character of a Cold War; 4) the military character of a Hot War; and, finally, 5) the visual character of war. Anything less than these minimal characteristics are simply inadequate to capture the complex reality of war.

For example, when university students boycott Nike for using third-world sweatshop labor to sew its shoes, they are engaging in a warlike activity, but not war. The full “family resemblance is simply not there. When a street gang shoots up the neighborhood, they also are engaging in a warlike activity, but not war. Their purpose is self-interest, not political. In the gray and obscure circumstances of a lived life, the arch of an eyebrow is insufficient to define a “family resemblance.” Several, if not all, of the characteristics listed must be observed before a social activity can be labeled as “war.”

Not unnoticed, two of the characteristics listed have not yet been defined–the Military and the Visual. Perhaps, consideration of the two films, “We Were Warriors” and Dead Birds, can help in defining them.

References:

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1967. On Moral Obligation: A New Translation of Cicero’s ‘De Officiis’. John Higginbotham, trans. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Clausewitz, Carl von. 1976. On War. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds. and trans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

U.S. Marine Corps. 1997 (1989). MCDP-1, Warfighting. Washington, DC: USGPO.

Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 (coming)