Alternative Futures
of War: Imagining
the impossible
By Sohail Inayatullah
"War is the darkest spot on humanitys
history."
P.R. Sarkar*
Asking if war has a future may appear
ludicrous, given that the 20th century was one of the bloodiest
ever, and that scores of low grade wars are currently maiming
and killing countless thousands. You may wonder why even ask?
Havent we always had war? Won't we always have war?
At times, however, questioning can lead us
toward a different type of analysis, possibly even giving us the
means to create a future without war. To change the future, we
must be able to imagine a different future. As a Lithuanian
leader recently said (paraphrasing): 75 years ago, it was
impossible to imagine a post-communist world. Then twenty years
ago, we could imagine it, but we did not understand how it could
practically come about. Now, we are a proud and free part of the
European Union. (1)
The impossible can become the
possible, first by imagining, then by creating a plausible
processes, and bravely and persistently taking necessary steps.
So, we must raise the question - Does war have a
future? We must challenge the notion that just because war
always was, it always has been. Writes Fred Polak:
Many utopian themes, arising in fantasy,
find their way to reality. Scientific management, full
employment, and social security were all once figments of a
utopia-writers imagination. So were parliamentary democracy,
universal suffrage, planning, and the trade union movement. The
tremendous concern for child-rearing and universal education and
for
Garden Cities all emanated from the utopia. [It] stood for the
emancipation of women long before the existence of the feminist
movement. All the current concepts concerning labor, from the
length of the work week to profit-sharing,
are found in the utopia. (Polak, The Image of the Future,
1973, 137-138.)
Conceiving, of course, is only part of
the challenge. We need to go on to create and implement social
invention. Specifically, we need to devise new methods to
resolve international conflicts. We need to challenge the entire
notion of armed conflict, as conducted by powerful governments
and weaker organizations.
To do so, we need to first analyze the
multiple causes of war. Four levels of analysis can help. First
is the level of the litany, the unquestioned "truth" said over
and over, presented daily on video and TV. The second is the
level of the system, the historical economic, political,
environmental, and technological reasons. The third is the
deeper cultural perspective, the worldview we live in. This is
hard to see, as we breathe it. Just as fish do not know they
swim in water, we can rarely see our worldview, unless we begin
a process of deep questioning. Finally, is the unconscious
story, the group consciousness or the deeper myth.
1. The Litany. In thinking about
war and peace, the superficial analysis usually contends that If
we can find and kill all the bad guys, and also destroy all the
rogue nations, everything will be ok. From James Bond to Arnold
Schwarzenegger to Steven Segal, the plot is predictable. But as
Mike Myers's satiric movie character Austin Powers
suggests, evil may not only be out there, but it may be also in
us. We are often - knowingly or unwittingly - complicitors in
evil. Hence, this vastly over-simplifying approach has awesome
limitations.
2. Systemic Analysis. The focus
here is on historical, economic, political, environmental, and
technological reasons for war and peace. For example, proponents
emphasize the need to rapidly transform the arms export
industry, as by making the export of killing products illegal.
This would have great benefit for the whole world, and sharply
reduce profits of leading arm manufacturing nations (the USA,
China, Britain, Israel and other rogue armament countries). (2)
This process has begun with nuclear arms, and while there are
many problems ahead, illegal shipping of nuclear arms appears to
be diminishing dramatically.
However, any arms ban would not work
unless there were security guarantees for those states afraid of
aggression. That is, states import arms because they are afraid
of enemies within the nation and without (and use this fear to
hold on to and extend their power). As well, the military elite
in all states becomes accustomed to living in a shopping plaza
with endless goodies. Global disincentives would be needed as
well.
A world governance structure that could
provide security through a type of insurance scheme or through a
global police system may help to reduce the demand aspect of
global weapons. The supply option would require big states to
end their addiction to easy money. . Indeed, "Every year the
most powerful nations of the world spend over 1,000 billion
dollars in weapons. The dollars saved could be spent on forming
peace activist forces trained in mediation and peace-keeping
skills." (3)
Transformation must occur most urgently in
the global economy. Poverty, and more accurately, relative
deprivation knowing others just as talented as you and your
society are doing financial better because of unfair advantages
are among the deeper causes of conflict and war.
We must create a Glocalization Movement to
help end poverty, and see to it that wealth circulates with more
justice than at present. Glocalization attempts to keep the
benefits of globalization (freer movement of ideas, capital,
people) along with the benefits of the local (keeping money
circulating in your own area, ensuring that while there is
growth there is distribution as well). (4)
3. Worldview. Other dimensions of
society than the military-industrial complex also need
transformation, especially our worldview. At present, it helps
create the conditions for war. Moments of national military
trauma become part of our identity creation. War creates a
national consciousness we know who we are through battles with
others. Whether it is the Star Spangled Banner and the victory
of the American colonists over the British, or the defeat of
Serbs in Kosovo, war defines who we are. (5)
But this is not the only form of possible
self-identification. We can define ourselves differently. A
planetary project whether transforming global warming or
creating a global governance system or ending poverty or even
space exploration seems more likely to help us find deeper
reasons for being than available in warfare. We also need peace
education that celebrates ahimsa, that celebrates moments
of transcendence, that teaches us how to mediate conflict and
that celebrates the challenges humanity has faced (not any
particular tribe within it) and will continue to face. (6)
4.Myth and Metaphor
Underneath this system of war is a
defining Group Consciousness, a deeper culture. Challenging the
idea of war as natural means challenging three pillars,
or the thought that life is about domination, survival of the
fittest, and ego-identity.
The first pillar is patriarchy, or
dominator-oriented politics. Truth, nature, and reality are
defined in dominator, rather than in partnership terms. What
matters most is who is above and who is below. We see the world
in terms of feeling superior or feeling inferior. Cultures are
seen as evolved or primitive, civilized or barbaric.
Second, evolution is seen as survival
of the fittest, and thus war is seen as just since the
fittest have survived - instead of as an evolutionary failure.
Victory thus justifies evolution. However, it is cooperation
among bacteria that has led to our evolutionary development.
Cooperation at all levels maximizes our survival and thrival
possibilities. (7)
Third, identity is defined in terms of
ego attachment to land, race, and language. Thus identity is
seen in terms of geo-sentiment (my land, love it or leave it!),
race (my color is superior) or linguistic politics, and not in
more universal terms. Religion is seen as exclusionary, for the
chosen few, or those with special access to the transcendental,
and not for all. While this may have been necessary in tribal
politics to identify "stranger danger," there are no reasons for
this today at the global level.
How can these views be challenged? First,
by asserting cooperation can lead to mutual learning.
Second, by asserting evolution is not merely about
survival of the fittest, but involves three additional aspects:
An attraction to the sublime, even spiritual; an ability to be
guided through human reason and action; and an ability to become
ethical. And finally, by asserting we can develop a
planetary Gaian consciousness that sees the planet as
living. We live in symbiotic relationship to our hosts, and we
need to nurture the planet, as she nurtures us. We can
create our destiny. (8)
Inner
and Outer, Individual and Society.
Along with our four levels of analysis, we
can analyze the futures of war with a simple two by two table
approach. On one axis is from inner to outer, and on the other
axis is individual and collective. From this table, we can
different types of strategies emerge. The challenge is to engage
at all levels: an individual's inner self (meanings); an
individual's outer self (behaviours); society's inner self
(myths and collective unconscious); and society's collective
outer (structures and institutions)
Using this type of analysis, there are
many activities and strategies we can engage in, and most
importantly, begin to imagine and create a world without war.
Transforming the Field of Understanding
Prior to the war on Saddam Hussain and
Iraq, Robert Muller commented that he was not depressed at what
might happen, since millions were in fact waging peace. (9)
Yes, it was unlikely Bush and Hussain were capable of a peaceful
and just resolution, but their worldviews had motivated millions
to express frustration, and to call for, indeed, meme a new
world.
Memes are like genes but focused on ideas.
Memes are ideas that pass from person to person, become selected
because they offer us advantages in our thinking, in our
survival and thrival. Certainly, war as a meme, I would argue,
has reached its limits in terms of offering longer lasting
solutions to Earth's problems, I would argue.
Another world is possible! We need a field
that begins the process of moving beyond the world of hawks and
doves. And a world that recognizes that multiple traditions are
required to transform war and peace. Within our histories are
resources of peace, whether Islamic, Vedic, Christian, Buddhist
or secular.
But first we must challenge the litany of
war. Unless it is contested, we will assume that because it
is, it always will be. The next task is to challenge the
systems that support war: the military-industrial export
complex; national education systems; our historical identities.
We also need to challenge the worldviews that both support and
are perpetuated by war: patriarchy and survival of the fittest.
Ultimately, we need a new story of what it means to be human.
Alternative Futures
What then are the alternative futures of
warfare? Four standout as plausible possibilities, and seriously
challenge us. First, War now and war forever. We
cannot transform war since humans are violent and greedy for
land, territory and ideas. Witness History. Whether it is
capitalists ruling, or prime ministers and priests or warriors
and kings, or workers revolting, it is war that results and is
used by each social class to maintain its power.
The nature of war changes depending on
which social class is in power (worker, warrior, intellectual,
or capitalist) and it also changes depending on the nature of
technology. Most recently it has been air power with real time
surveillance that has dominated. Nano-technology will probably
expand humanitys capacity to become both more destructive and
more precisely targeted. The capacity of one leader to hold a
population hostage, as with Milosevic, Pol Pot, and Saddam
Hussain, is likely to decrease dramatically. However, at the
same time, the capacity of any person to hold a nation hostage
will increase.
Second, War becomes ritualized or
contained. Generally, in this future scenario, we move to a
peace culture, but periods of war remain. However, these are
rapidly contained or conducted with the authority of a global
governance system. War remains an option, even if a less
desirable one. As well, war is used by those challenging the
world governance system, and by areas not totally integrated by
the world system. War could even become ritualized, either
conducted through virtual means or via sports. In such ways,
aggression is contained and channelled.
Third, War itself changes. Genetic
engineering and other invasive technological procedures search
for the "aggression gene" with the hope of eliminating the
behavior that leads to war. Some states, however, reserve the
right to manipulate the "aggression" gene to make even fiercer
fighters. Deeper efforts to transform systems of war are not
attempted, as nations are unwilling to let go of their
war-industry profits. Efforts to tame war wind up maintaining
the status-quo.
Last and most idealistic among the four
possibility, War disappears. It does so because of
changes in the system of war (the military-industrial complex),
in the worldview that supports war (patriarchy, capitalism,
identity politics) and in the nature of what it means to be
human. We take an evolutionary step toward full humanness.
Proponents note we have had periods in history without war.
Moreover, humans have begun to imagine a world without war.
(10)
Conclusion
Which of these futures is most likely?
Historical experience suggests the first scenario - war now
and forever. However, the future informed by new readings of
evolutionary theory maintains war disappears is also
possible. At the same time, since new ideas are often taken over
by structures of power and those in power, we should not be
surprised by the containment of war scenario or even the
geneticization of war. In short, all four options must be
taken seriously.
What, then, as creative shapers of a more
desirable future, should we do? I recommend we remain hopeful
about creating a future without war and act across our
lives to achieve it. We must also work on achieving peace
within. We must employ mediation and conflict resolution in
all of our institutions. And we must never stop struggling
against social systems and worldviews that help create wars.
Notes
1. Interview on Australia National Radio.
August 2003
2. However, given current economic
dependence on arms export (even as with tobacco exports),
nations should be given a decade or decades to overcome their
addiction to easy arms money. Of course, there would still be
illegal arms smuggling but at least the large states would not
be condoning it. Thus, certainly realizing this will not be
easy. It would require international treaties that could be
verified. But why might this occur? As with other regulations,
pressure from lobby groups, social movements and nongovernmental
organizations might lead to new arms sales regulations. In
addition, a global regime is possible if a player wants
advantage, that is, because of too many arms dealers, a
particular player, like the USA intervenes to regulate the
market so that it can enhance its own trading at the expense of
others. It also may be realized in a step by step fashion, that
is, certain arms are banned - land mines - as a first step, and
then slowly other arms are banned.
As well, as sticks, there are carrots in
the emerging peace business. Peace business is based on the
ideas of Johan Galtung and Jack Santa-Barbara, Ph.D. trained as
an experimental social psychologist, founded a company that
became the largest of its kind in Canada, and won the "50 Best
Privately Managed Companies" award in 1997. He has founded a new
institute to promote integration of ecological and economic
goals in government decision making.
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~mpeia/projectteam2.html
3. Julio Godoy, "Political Obstacles Slow
Path to Goals," Other News - Roberto Savio / IPS <soros@topica.email-publisher.com.
4. Sohail Inayatullah, theme editor, Global
Transformations and World Futures, UNESCO Encyclopedia of
Life Support Systems. Oxford, EOLSS Publishers, 2002.
5. Hoping for an invasion from Mars as in
Mars Attacks and endless other movies only continues to
create an us-them.
6. We need to re-write textbooks in nearly
every nation and move away from the Great Man or Dynastic theory
of macrohistory. Creating alternative futures requires not only
requires a rethinking and reacting of the present but recovering
our lost and alternative histories. Just as there are many
futures ahead of us, there are different histories to explore.
This is exploring history from other perspectives that of a
worker, the wife or mother of a killed warrior, a tree, ice,
other cultures, and even technologies histories such as that of
the toilet. What we think, write about, remember repeats the
paths trodden in history, and thus, creates the paths we are
likely to travel in the future. The work of Riane Eisler is
exemplary - www.partnershipway.org. Also, see, Johan
Galtung and Sohail Inayatullah, eds, Macrohistory and
Macrohistorians. Wesport, Ct, Praeger, 1997. Sarkar, for
example, argues there are four types of history economic,
peoples, intellectual and dynastic.
7. http://www.westbynorthwest.org/artman/publish/printer_340.shtml.
Article by Lynee Twist, March 14, 2003
8. See the writings of biologist Lynn
Margulis and evolutionary biologist Elisabeth Sahtouris, See
also David Loye's alternative reading of Darwin - Darwin's Lost
Theory of Love. San Jose, Iuniverse, 2000. Also, see, David Loye,
ed., The Great Adventure. New York, State University of New York
Press, 2004.http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html.
Elisabeth Sahtouris, Earth Dance: Living Systems in Evolution.
San Jose, Iuniverse.com, 2002. This remains among the lasting
messages of the Star Trek series, especially in its latest
incarnations.
9. This worldview transformation is a
change in two main symbols we use to metaphor war. This is the
hawk and the dove. Can there be a third space, another story
that can represent a world without war but with justice? Coming
up with a new metaphor will not solve the issue, but our failure
to do so highlights our conceptual problems. Perhaps looking for
stories in our evolutionary past up and down the food chain - is
not the way to go. Creating a post-war world may mean looking to
the future for ways out.
10. To create the new means being able to
first conceptualize it. Next is finding the means to make the
impossible, possible. The last stage is merely one of details.
The details in this case are about creating a culture of
meditation and of conflict resolution. This means making it
central in schooling at one level, and beginning to create the
process of global-local governance, where war becomes
impossible.
References.
For more on Sarkar, see Sohail Inayatullah,
Understanding Sarkar: The Indian Episteme, Macrohistory and
Transformative Knowledge. Leiden, Brill, 2002.
Fred Polak, The Image of the Future.
Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1973,
137-138.
