The Social Dynamics Of Peace And Conflict

Culture In International Security

Robert A Rubinstein, Mary Lecron Foster

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367295813
• eBook ISBN: 9781000305500
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Cultural Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This volume shows the importance for international security studies for better understanding the social dynamics of peace and conflict. It illustrates the crucial role that culture and symbols play in facilitating peace or fostering conflict and intended for anthropologists widely.

Part 1
Confronting Peace and War

1 / Anthropology and International Security

Robert A. Rubinstein

International security analysis is conducted by a community of practitioners which has a well-developed world-view, Robert Rubinstein describes the major features of this world-view, often called "Political Realism." International security professionals use the principles of "political realism" to set the terms of discussions about questions of peace and conflict, Rubinstein shows that this results in their dismissing as not useful, theoretical and empirical information which is not consistent with these principles. Much of this information, he argues, is precisely the kind which anthropologists often consider crucial for understanding societies—facets of symbolism and social process. Rubinstein argues that as a result international security professionals base their discussions on an inadequate conception of the complexity of human culture and society. The result, he shows, is that while international security discussions of the technological aspects of peace and conflict are very sophisticated, discussions of the social dynamics of peace and conflict are impoverished and misleading. Using information about societies in situations of prolonged environmental deprivation to critique discussions of "nuclear winter," Rubinstein shows that the inadequate conception of human culture and society held by the international security community obscures rather than clarifies critical points of discussion. He argues that international security discussions should be revitalized by insuring that multiple levels of analysis—including considerations of symbolic and cultural processes—are treated as equally necessary and legitimate. —The Editors

Maintaining international security and avoiding nuclear war requires both technological and social understanding.¹ Accurate information about the social and cultural dynamics of groups involved in the conduct of international affairs is a necessary complement to the formal and technological analyses now routinely conducted in the field of international security (Schwartz and Derber 1986).² This is because wise strategic decision-making requires, at a minimum, taking account of a wide variety of information and using it in flexible ways (Rubinstein 1986:350). In general, however, social and cultural information is not regarded by the strategic studies community as particularly useful, except, perhaps, for post hoc regional analyses (Booth 1979).

Some anthropologists are concerned that a preoccupation with technical models of, and technological factors in, world affairs is dangerous (see, Foster and Rubinstein 1986). They argue that policies based on a view that sees all international security problems from a perspective of inter-state power conflicts leads to the mistaken belief that these problems can be solved by reference to material power and models of technical rationality (Beeman 1986). This belief in the existence of "technical fixes" (Pacey 1983:7) for all international security problems inevitably leads to recommendations that are out of touch with social and cultural realities.

The potential value of social and cultural information for international security studies is now often noted. Yet, the international security literature remains heavily dominated by technical analyses and technological concerns (Hamburg 1986). International security professionals have found that it is very difficult to integrate substantive social science knowledge into their models and policy recommendations.

There are many different accounts of why social science knowledge has not been more fully integrated into international security analysis. Some focus on the economics of the military industrial complex (Melman 1983, 1986). They argue that the economic and political self-interests of those in positions of power make impossible the fuller use of social and cultural information which threatens the status quo. Others focus on the epistemological differences between the quantitative approaches of the international security community and the qualitative methodologies needed to gain social and cultural information (Knudsen 1987). These people argue that the vastly different rules of evidence and inference of the approaches make them incompatible. Others argue that the professionalization of the international security field produced an orthodoxy that socially enforces a narrow definition of what kind of knowledge is useful in international security work (Korany 1986:548). Each account captures an important aspect of the difficulties that meet attempts to bring cultural considerations to bear on strategic studies.

Anthropologists who wish to contribute to international security discussions also are handicapped because the relevant anthropological literature appears to those in the international security community to be a collection of local-level, often exotic studies. In contrast, the disciplines that form the core of traditional strategic thinking embrace general and generalizable principles of analysis and method (like game theory or econometric modeling, see Ball and Richelson 1986). Anthropological studies are thought to be tangential to problems of international security, in part because the anthropological literature contains no clear statement about the substantive and methodological principles of anthropology that unify this work and relate it to international security concerns. This paper describes some of the common themes in the anthropological literature related to peace and war and indicates some of the ways that the resulting anthropological data provide important information for international security studies.

International Security and the Paradigm of "Political Realism"

When anthropologists seek to contribute to discussions of peace and international security they enter a community of practitioners who share a common paradigm. As Kuhn (1962, 1970) points out, a paradigm limits how a community defines the domain in which it is interested. At the group level, paradigms function by providing (1) theoretical statements about a class of phenomena, (2) shared belief in particular models that legitimate the use of particular analogies and metaphors, (3) common values about what is important, and (4) concrete problem solutions that are firmly accepted by the community and that constitute a critical aspect of the training of young researchers (Rubinstein et al. 1984:63). The paradigm that characterizes the world view of the international security community has been called "political realism."³

The paradigm of "political realism" proceeds from a number of theoretical premises about (1) what the proper unit of analysis is for understanding world affairs, (2) what kinds of information ought to be taken into account by decision makers (3) how "rational" decision makers act, and (4) the nature of power.

The state as unit of analysis. "Political realists" assert that in international affairs the State is the most important unit of analysis (Kim 1983, Beeman 1986, Korany 1986). Thus, in this view, international security is to be understood on the basis of the actions and interests of Nations. Discounted (if not completely ignored) are questions of inter-group relations at levels other than the state, issues of meaning and symbolism, and local-level views of the significance of conflict situations.

Useful knowledge as objective fact. Underlying "political realism" is the view that useful knowledge must be based on "objective," "scientific" facts. Most frequently, quantitative indices of interstate relations are taken as the hallmark of useful knowledge. That it is the "political realist" paradigm itself that determines what counts as fact and what as fantasy is rarely discussed, and is most often expressed in the rejection out-of-hand of descriptions of world affairs that do not conform to "realist" expectations (Kim 1983:9).

Yet, scientific facts are never "just facts." Indeed, they depend upon value judgments that can be consciously presented and explored, or, for whatever reasons, hidden. As Myrdal (1969:51-52) observed:

biases in social science cannot be erased simply by "keeping to the facts" and refining the methods of dealing with statistical data. Indeed data and the handling of data are often more susceptible to tendencies towards bias than is "pure thought." . . . Biases are thus not confined to the practical and political conclusions drawn from research. They are more deeply seated than that. They are the unfortunate results of concealed valuations that insinuate themselves into research at all stages, from its planning to its final presentation. As a result of their concealment, they are not properly sorted out and can thus be kept undefined and vague.

The state as rational actor. A corollary of the first two aspects of the "political realist" paradigm is the belief that once States have the objective facts they (through their leaders) will act rationally. Actions are judged more or less rational to the degree that they conform to the behavior that is predicted by formal models (of econometric analysis or game theory) that are based on objective facts. Such "technical rationality" excludes a wide range of substantive cultural and social information (Simon 1983), and is perhaps more appropriately described as logical rather than rational.

Power as material. To understand world affairs and ensure international security, the "political realist" view calculates the relative power of states acting "rationally" on the basis of "objective" knowledge. Only physical and material resources are included in the calculations of power. Kim (1983:9) notes that,

the concept of "power" in mainstream realism is excessively narrow and limited. This realism respects only material and physical power and is contemptuous of "normative power," ... It denies the existence of the world normative system.

One result of this is that powerful actions based on normative or nonmaterial strength are difficult to understand from the "realist" perspective. Yet normative imperatives form an important basis for many activities important for international security. Indigenous peoples have successfully challenged the actions of materially more powerful groups, and stopped the self-interested actions of those more powerful groups. For example, the Dené (Kehoe this volume) successfully oppose uranium mining and other nuclear related actions, and the Cherokee successfully resist economic and cultural extinction (Rubinstein and Tax 1985). The Dené, Cherokee, and other indigenous peoples' resistance is based on normative, not material, resources. Normative cultural aspects play important roles in the affairs of many countries, like Iran (Bateson this volume; see also Beeman 1986) and China (Potter this volume).

Some Current Implications for Strategic Studies

Although the "political realist" view has for a long time been criticized as over-narrow (see the articles collected in Mendlovitz 1975, Falk and Kim 1980, and Falk et al. 1982) it h...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• About the Editors and Contributors
• INTRODUCTION Revitalizing International Security Analysis: Contributions from Culture and Symbolic Process
• PART 1 CONFRONTING PEACE AND WAR
• PART 2 DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT
• PART 3 DYNAMICS OF PEACE
• CONCLUSION Expanding the Anthropology of Peace and Conflict
• Name Index
• Subject Index