Codes and conflict

Conclusion

“If theory caused a more critical study of war, it would have achieved its purpose.” (Clausewitz)

In this article I have shown that in times of war, beneath the apparently rational surface of modern societies and states there lurks a powerful religious dimension that is of crucial importance in structuring political and military activity, in informing public, political, and intellectual discourse, and in shaping opinion, beliefs, attitudes, sentiments, and social action. The religious dimension is neither a mere jumble of diffuse sentiments, beliefs, and ideas, nor a simple ideological reflection of social interests — it is an autonomous, internally coherent, analogically organized code that specifies sacred and profane elements and embodies an endogenous apophantic logic. This analytically autonomous code provides for the specification of war as ritual in concrete historical sequences. If the reader comes away from this article feeling that she better understands the role and organization of culture in war, and that consequently war cannot be explained, understood, and interpreted only in terms of economic, geopolitical, and psychological variables, then I will have achieved my chief objective here. However, I hope that this article also has a larger contribution to make. Sociology has inherited a rich tradition of ideas from its founding fathers. This tradition, enshrined in the classic works of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, has informed and shaped the discipline. It seems a shame that contemporary trends in social thought and research draw increasingly upon selected strands of thought in the legacy of only two of those gentlemen. The result of this movement, I believe, is not just a trend toward impoverished uni-dimensional studies of social reality, but also the loss of the auto-critical possibilities engendered by a discourse that draws upon diverse theoretical resources. As I have tried to demonstrate here, Durkheim's legacy, with its unique emphasis on ritual and symbolism, still provides a useful resource for the critique of social theory and the analysis of social life — even in those areas where one would least expect any fruitful insights to arise. More importantly, as Clausewitz recognized, theory contains the possibility not merely for the formal study, but also for the critical study of war. With its stress on voluntarism, a Durkheimian theory of war provides a vital and distinct contrast to those theories of war that attribute causation to factors outside of human control, be they psychological, geopolitical, or economic. The awareness of ethical responsibility arising from such an under-standing provides, one would like to think, the possibility for change.