Tag Archives: war

Shame and War

19 Sunday Jan 2025

Posted by in Politics for Worldbuilders, War, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

In our supposedly enlightened era, many people would like to imagine that most wars are fought for essentially rational purposes: punishing terrorists, seizing resources, profiteering off of arms sales, and so on. In centuries past, of course, kings and princes would fight wars to avenge personal insult or for self-aggrandizement. But surely we don’t do that sort of thing today? Surely entire countries don’t burn with humiliated resentment and seek revenge?

If only. Countries are collections of people, after all. And emotions still play a significant role in decisions to go to war. In some cases, they may play the decisive role. And fantasy or sci-fi authors would do well to keep this point in mind. As I have noted before, we are apt to forget that people have many reasons to go to war.

I am nearly finished reading Bloody Revenge: Emotions, Nationalism, and War, by sociologist Thomas J. Scheff. (Despite the piffle that infests the field, there are occasionally good works of scholarship by sociologists to be found!) He argues convincingly that in recent decades, much of American academia has been improperly deemphasizing the role of emotion in war, and in society generally. (This is, he claims, part of the move by advancing “civilization” to suppress and delegitimize emotions as justifications for behavior. I wonder what Dr. Scheff would say about the late effervescence of “safetyism.”)

Somewhat less convincingly, Scheff argues that many if not most wars are motivated by suppressed shame, acted out in a dysfunctional international system that mimics a dysfunctional family system in many respects. He argues from the assumption that if national interest were the only issue in a conflict between countries, people are creative enough to work out compromises that are, at any rate, not as bad as the wholesale destructiveness of total war.

Why fight wars then? Scheff argues that the emotion of shame (and probably fear as well, though it is not his focus) leads to alienation between the conflicting sides when it is suppressed and unacknowledged—and also within a country, so that citizens subordinate their own selves to the false solidarity of nationalism, to the extent that they are willing to fight and die in the military (which Scheff calls engulfment). It is this alienation, and the rage erupting out of unacknowledged shame, that leads countries to desire vengeance and fight wars with each other, rather than working out their conflicts less destructively.

Scheff argues that France’s shame at losing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 was one of the key preconditions of World War I, and motivated French policies that played a key role in triggering the conflict—in particular, its alliance with Russia against Germany, which encouraged Russia to foment trouble in the Balkans. Germany’s own belligerence was, therefore, (partly) motivated by a rational fear of France’s intrigues. He also draws parallels between the secret intrigues of France, Russia, and Britain—each of which kept preparations for war secret from their own peoples, and in some cases even from much of their own governments—to the “triangling” and intrigues to be found in dysfunctional families. Finally, Scheff endorses the standard position that World War II was in large part motivated by Germany’s humiliation in Versailles and consequent desire for revenge, though he adds several lurid details of the psychology of Adolf Hitler in particular.

Scheff nearly falls into the trap of reducing everything to a single variable. He does periodically note that clashes of interests, rational fears, and the like still play a role in decisions to make war; but his foundational assumption that people would naturally come up with solutions to conflict, if not for their emotional commitments, impels him to the conclusion that if only countries would acknowledge their shame and work through their issues, wars would all but disappear.

This conclusion, however, is based on Scheff’s unstated assumption that both parties always assume that war is not something desirable, in the absence of humiliation and rage, or some other “problem” or “conflict” to be resolved. But in some cases, war is simply something that a society does. For example, while the Mongol campaigns against China and the neighboring Muslim sultanates seem motivated partly by the desire to eliminate ongoing threats, the invasion of Kievan Rus was completely unprovoked. The Rus write that the Mongols were unknown to them before their sudden invasion.

In general, Scheff neglects a country’s strategic culture, the way it understands the world and the role of war in such a world. If one “civilized” country goes through a soul-searching process of airing grievances and working through its emotions, and another “warlike” country simply perceives the first country as weaklings who are ripe for conquest, acknowledging shame is more likely to encourage war than to prevent it.

Still, Scheff’s book is an important reminder that emotions in their rawest form, cloaked as they may be in the language of national interest or international justice, often play a role in war. Worldbuilders should keep this in mind, as shame and fear can be powerful tools in the worldbuilding toolbox.

Internal Discipline in Rebel Movements, Part I

13 Thursday Jul 2023

Posted by in Politics, Politics for Worldbuilders, Revolution, War

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

We fiction writers often feature resistance movements in our stories. American culture in particular lionizes rebels and guerrillas, thanks in part to our rose-colored cultural memory of the American Revolution on the one hand, and some people’s idealized picture of socialist revolution in the Che Guevara mode on the other.

In real life, most resistance movements fail before they even get started. Of the ones that get established enough to fight a serious war against the state, most of them lose—and before they lose, many of them victimize civilian populations more brutally than the states they try to overthrow.

Yet some resistance movements are protective of civilians, and maintain internal discipline to ensure that their foot soldiers do not steal or murder with impunity. Some of them end up getting corrupted by success and start predating civilians; but a few manage to stay moral all the way to victory.

What makes the difference? Why do some rebel groups routinely harm civilians and others don’t? And more to the point, how can we writers use these concepts in our stories?

Jeremy Weinstein, in his book Inside Rebellion, provides an unexpected answer that becomes utterly compelling as he lays out his evidence. Weinstein argues, on the basis of considerable fieldwork in Peru, Uganda, and Mozambique as well as analysis of the literatures on several other civil wars, that the key difference is the level of resources available to the rebel group at its inception.

If a group initially has very few resources (primarily money, food, and weapons), then it must quickly build links to a broader civilian community in order to survive. The need to maintain relationships with the populace then impels the group to develop strong internal discipline and governance, and to behave well with civilians (except for selective killings done for strategic reasons, for example executing collaborators).

If, on the other hand, a group has access to significant resources—money from a state sponsor, or from the drug trade, or from natural resources, for example—then it has much less need to maintain good relations with the civilian populace. That, by itself, doesn’t force a group to harm civilians; but the easy availability of resources tends to lead a group to pay its members well, which attracts a different (and less savory) caliber of recruit than would agree to join a poor, weak resistance group without resources.

This is not a simple argument of “rich group kills civilians, poor group does not.” Weinstein carefully lays out the cascading effects of that difference in initial conditions as they bear on five distinct problems faced by rebel groups (and by governments too, although that is outside of Weinstein’s scope):

  • Recruitment;
  • Maintaining discipline;
  • Managing civilians in areas the group controls;
  • Punishing people for cooperating with the enemy or otherwise shirking; and
  • Resilience (that is, maintaining your membership and its governance structures over time)

*****

Before I explain these, let me just take a moment to rhapsodize about good theories. (Because this is my blog, and I can do what I want!) The world is full of thorny questions, and equally full of bad answers to those questions—as H.L. Mencken put it, “[T]here is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” It is a true joy to read a theory that suggests an answer that is utterly unexpected, and yet as you read the argument, it addresses so many features of the initial problem that the theory seems impossible to refute.

Obviously, later work can improve on even good theories. But some theories stand the test of time, and persist in their unaltered form despite the best efforts of later scholars. (Einstein’s theories are good examples. In a different domain, so is the work of Mancur Olson on collective-action problems.)

Not to suggest that Weinstein’s work is definitely in that latter category. But if it were, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program!

******

Weinstein’s model builds from the starting assumption that there are two kinds of people who might join a rebel movement: “investors” and “consumers.” Investors are willing to incur significant short-term costs for the sake of the long-term goal of victory. Consumers, on the other hand, are interested in gaining benefits today from their association with the rebel group: a salary, a gun, prestige, the chance to loot plunder, the chance to harm neighbors they don’t like. Which type of recruit predominates in a rebel group has powerful effects on the development of the group.

If a rebel group is poor, it cannot offer immediate benefits to members. As a result, consumers would tend not to join the group, having little reason to. The group’s only option, therefore, is to attempt to appeal to investors—that is, develop links to a civilian population with which it shares ethnic, communal, or ideological ties to which it can appeal to gain support and foster loyalty. This means that the group will have to build institutions of self-governance, so that the civilian populace has reason to trust that the group will protect civilians from the government and from its own members.

It is important to emphasize that getting the support of a civilian base is a strategic imperative for poor rebels, regardless of their political program, ideology, or even personal standards of morality. Those poor groups that don’t manage it will simply wither away from lack of recruits or lack of food. This task will be easier with a rank-and-file made up of investors, who are relatively more willing to submit to discipline that serves the group goals, than it would be if most members were consumers and therefore willing to break the rules for personal gain.

Weinstein also finds that poor rebel groups spend a lot of effort filtering out low-quality recruits, despite the difficulties in finding manpower. Such groups have far too much at stake to risk antagonizing civilians with undisciplined behavior, like the National Resistance Army in Uganda and the Shining Path in Peru (except for the Shining Path in the Huallaga Valley, which became enmeshed in the cocaine trade and therefore followed the “rich group” trajectory).

If a rebel group has significant starting resources, on the other hand, it will be able to rapidly gain recruits by offering them steady pay. This tends to attract a much higher proportion of consumers. It also means that the strategic imperative to gain the support of civilians is largely absent: the group can support itself even if it is hated and feared by civilians, as long as the money or guns keep rolling in. As a result, the group will spend far less effort appealing to the populace, and will also spend less effort on filtering out low-quality recruits because it incurs little penalty from undisciplined behavior that harms civilians.

Moreover, even if the group wanted to stop its forces from harming civilians, it would have a hard time doing so: because most of its members are consumers, i.e. out for immediate gain, they will tend to resist orders not to predate on the civilian populace. So the group will tolerate bad behavior by its troops towards civilians in exchange for demanding obedience on the battlefield.

Now, you might wonder what happens if a group with significant resources nevertheless managed to resist the temptation to behave badly—and instead managed to only recruit investors, impose strong discipline, build links to the populace, etc. In theory, this is possible. In practice, however, the tremendous risks that rebels take when opposing the government would make it almost impossible for them not to take the quick and easy way of recruiting a bunch of thugs to boost their manpower, if they had the cash available. Remember, most rebellions fail miserably. Immediate survival often weighs more heavily on the minds of rebel leaders that the problems of tomorrow that they are unwittingly setting into motion.

*****

The foregoing is only the first half of Weinstein’s discussion, and this post is already quite long. In future posts I will summarize his discussion of how “rich” and “poor” rebel groups differ in how they govern civilians under their control, how they punish civilians for resisting their control or for apparent collaboration with the enemy, and how they maintain their own membership over time. But you can already see where the trend is going.

******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned fourth book in this series, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Where Does War Come From, Anyway?

02 Tuesday May 2023

Posted by in Politics for Worldbuilders, War, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Worldbuilders and fiction writers often feature wars in their settings, often many wars. This is natural, given the importance of wars and their consequences in humanity’s recorded history. But note that I said “recorded” history. There are still a handful of societies (predominantly foraging societies without formalized leadership) in which war and feud does not take place. That does not mean that such societies are peaceful necessarily; often, homicide rates are quite high. (In one society without war, the Gebusi, homicide was traditionally thought to account for almost a third of adult deaths!) But while individuals might kill individuals, and groups might attack and kill offenders as a form of capital punishment, no one in these societies kills another solely because of his or her membership in a group.

Usually, your invented world will feature social organizations complex enough that the idea of war already exists for your inhabitants. But it’s still worth taking a few minutes to think about what makes war possible, and what it requires.

As used as we are to the idea of war, it can be hard to step back and consider that when you think about it, war is really weird. I’m supposed to kill that man in a uniform over there not because of anything he has done, or might do, but just because he’s wearing a uniform? And he’s going to try to kill me for the same (lack of) reason?

A great review of the anthropology literature on the subject is in Raymond Kelly’s Warless Societies and the Origin of War. Kelly distinguishes war from other forms of violence, such as brawls or assassinations, with the following characteristics:

  • War is collectively carried out.
  • Participants deliberately use deadly force.
  • The “deaths of other persons are envisioned in advance and this envisioning is encoded in the purposeful act of taking up lethal weapons.”
  • War involves advanced planning.
  • The killing in war is seen as justified, morally appropriate, and praiseworthy.
  • Finally, and in contrast to collective executions which target a specific individual, in war the targets are any member of a group, regardless of individual guilt or innocence.

Kelly points out that the default is for people to assign responsibility to individuals—if A murders B, B’s family will try to kill A, but not A’s brothers or sons or cousins. For a society to come up with the idea of feud (punishing an entire family for the crimes of one of its members) requires the concept of what Kelly calls social substitution, that killing A’s brother is somehow “just like” killing A. The same idea applies to war: war can only exist if the targeted people are socially substitutable, and killing one of them is as good as killing another.

There are two basic ways this can come about. Kelly the anthropologist focuses on the more common one, which is the development of durable group identities such that for A to murder B is an offense not only to B, but B’s group—and the offense came not merely from A, but from A’s group. In this view, war (and its smaller-scale cousin, feud) is carried out between groups. But that requires the concept of the group to be present.

He finds that in almost every case where war is not present in a society, the society is unsegmented, meaning that social organization features only the bare minimum of group identities. People who live together will cooperate, but there are no forms of organization that go beyond the immediate local group; and if you leave one group and join another, there is no sense of lingering affiliation with your previous neighbors. Extended families rarely function as a unit beyond the immediate nuclear or polygynous family. Vague senses of regional belonging can develop from periodic shared feasting and the like, but not in the sense of a shared nationality. Even being in the same language group doesn’t necessarily create the conditions of collective action as a group. Finally, and unsurprisingly, strong political leadership does not exist in these societies.

By contrast, once the concept of extended families takes root, once people feel loyalty to a group as such, once strong political leadership welds people into larger units of action, then war and feud are usually on the menu. The group as such has social reality and can suffer injury when its members are harmed. Moreover, your neighbors are viewed through the same lens (often with reason), so that if one member of a neighboring tribe kills your compatriot, the entire tribe is blamed.

(This is not always, or even usually, irrational. Indeed, collective punishment can sometimes be the only way to avoid a situation where outsiders commit violence against you with impunity.)

But war does sometimes exist even in unsegmented societies. How does it start, even in the absence of group identities? That gets us to the second driver of war: the perception that all members of another group pose threats to you as an individual. For example, the unsegmented Slave Indians who once lived near the Great Slave Lake in Canada, were so called because they were frequently attacked by the Cree Indians, who killed the males and took the women and children as slaves. Despite this, astonishingly, there is no record that the Slaves ever engaged in retaliatory raiding against the Cree or developed the concept of warfare as such. But other unsegmented societies facing persistent violence, such as the Andaman islanders, did develop a concept of war in response even in the absence of strong group identities of their own.

Sometimes, such a perception of threat can arise even without previous violence. If two communities live nearby, and suddenly there is a drought so that there isn’t enough food for both, and there’s nowhere else to move to, the communities are suddenly locked into a battle to the death (through no fault of either side). Kelly argues that this was part of what happened in the Andaman case—war developed as a concept when some groups were squeezed into too small a space, and were forced to compete for food.

(Incidentally, the concept of war-as-threat-perception was a big part of my PhD dissertation, for any of you with a few weeks to kill and a craving for boredom…)

******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned fourth book in this series, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Is War Good for States?

17 Monday Jan 2022

Posted by in Politics, Politics for Worldbuilders, State Formation, War

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Randolph Bourne, an American pacifist, famously wrote during World War I:

War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate co-operation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.

Was he right? Only some of the time.

Recall the context. America’s entry into World War I gave the Progressive movement of the day, led by Woodrow Wilson (our first totalitarian president, and a key influence on the development of Fascism), the opportunity to dramatically reshape the relationship between citizens and state. Before the war, American government had a light footprint, and states jealously guarded their powers from Federal intrusion. But during the war, the Federal government greatly expanded its powers due to the wartime emergency; and it set a precedent which would be eagerly seized on during the New Deal fifteen years later.

In early modern Europe, frequent war was a great spur to the development of powerful states, but also to the increasing role of popular representation in government and strong social-welfare policies. As the eminent political scientist Charles Tilly put it, “War made the state, and the state made war.” His thesis, briefly put, is that rulers desperate to raise soldiers and money to pay them had two options: ratchet up their control over the populace and squeeze them until they comply, or else offer them valuable rights and privileges to get their willing cooperation. (Or both.) The enduring effect was that the state’s power over citizens grew, but in some states frequent wars also laid the groundwork for expanded political rights.

The story gets more complicated, of course, but it seems to be a recurring pattern. Peter Turchin argued convincingly that most empires first developed under the pressure of frequent barbarian invasions, which forced the rapid growth of strong state structures to defend against them. More contemporary examples come easily to mind. So is that the end of the matter? Should all states be fomenting wars in order to extend their control over the populace?

Not quite. Miguel Centeno reminds us that not all states grow stronger during war. War is a tremendous stressor, and some states crack under the strain. States that began the war with weak institutions, with tenuous control over their populaces, may never achieve the longed-for unity in the face of the enemy. Instead, the desperate need for money and manpower may force states into bad deals, where they accept long-term problems for the sake of short-term survival. Different factions may harden among the people, undermining the development of healthy patriotism and breeding disloyalty for generations to come. Struggles over government power and taxation may hobble the state likewise.

The key question seems to be: is a state that is facing wartime stresses stable enough to survive them and thrive? If so, then its power will likely grow, justified by the emergency but lingering long after the war is over. If not, then state dysfunction may be the result.

(Of course, in real life you can get both outcomes, in different domains. The military-industrial complex is many things, but a rational exercise of government power is not one of them.)

*******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post is at the intersection of the planned second and third books in this series, working titles Tyranny for Worldbuilders and War for Worldbuilders. No idea when they will be finished, but they should be fun!)

Audiences for War

21 Tuesday Dec 2021

Posted by in Politics for Worldbuilders, War, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

When you go to war, what are you trying to do?

You might think the answer is obvious: “Defeat the enemy.” But even setting aside that you can find victory through multiple avenues (battlefield victory, outlasting the enemy in a siege, outproducing the enemy in a war of attrition, diplomatic isolation, et cetera), sometimes warfighters seem to treat victory as a minor consideration. Sometimes they even try to prolong wars, rather than winning them.

Mary Kaldor, writing about the 1990s war in Bosnia, noted that the casualties suffered by civilians dwarfed those suffered by military forces by about 10 to 1. In one sense, the nominal belligerents in the Bosnian War were actually collaborating with each other against their true enemy: the multiethnic, tolerant civilian populace. Serb and Croat nationalists, and to some degree Bosniak jihadis, strove to drive the ethnic populations of the former Yugoslavia apart from each other. By reshaping the populace and creating single-ethnicity communities, who are forced to view each other as enemies, the armed groups justified their own illegitimate power—they presented themselves as “ethnic champions,” so to speak.

Insurgent groups often continue their fight against the state government long after the fight is obviously hopeless. They have failed to gain the support of their home communities, they don’t have the strength to defeat government forces, and continuing the fight achieves no larger political gains and just gets more people killed. Why, then? For one thing, insurgent leaders are often competing with each other for the loyalty of their followers. Taking hard-line positions are often a way to shore up one’s support among the rank and file against competing factions. (I have read one argument that the 9/11 attacks came about because Osama bin Laden was feeling pressure from other factions within the jihadi movement, and needed something spectacular to reinforce his claimed position as the Amir. The attacks were successful in the short term, and may have harmed America in the very long run as well; but in the medium term, they were a strategic disaster for Al Qaida and its allies.)

Second, many insurgent groups are dependent on outside patrons for their support; very often, these patrons are other states, hostile to the insurgent group’s government and seeking proxies to cause it grief. (For example, many armed groups active in the Congo civil wars of the 1990s and 2000s were basically cats-paws for neighboring Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda.) In such a case, your patron may demand that you keep fighting long after true victory is outside your grasp, and will give you money and weapons to keep you in the field. (This is one of the most difficult complications in trying to make peace deals between sides in a civil war.)

In other situations, warring sides may be looking beyond their immediate enemy to some other actor on the sidelines, which constrains the choices they can make. For example, American strategy in Vietnam was hobbled by the threat that China or even the Soviet Union would (overtly) join the war if North Vietnam were seriously threatened. On the flip side, American willingness to continue a war they were apparently losing, even with a senseless and wasteful strategy, was an important signal for nearby countries such as Indonesia who were threatened internally by powerful Communist movements.

Similarly, many NATO member countries contributed forces to the Afghanistan war—not necessarily because they felt threatened by the Taliban, but because they saw it as important to vindicate the Alliance, since in the future they might need the United States to protect them from aggression rather than the reverse.

*****

When setting up your fictional war, there are all kinds of juicy complications you can throw into the mix. Maybe that isn’t the kind of story you want to tell, and that’s fine. But if you do want something more complex than “Bad Guys are attacking Good Guys,” consider asking about the audiences for your warring sides. What are they trying to accomplish with the war? Who are they trying to impress, or frighten, or influence?

******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. I am now moving my attention to the planned second and third books in this series; the subject matter of this post fits into the third book, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

War as Negotiation

21 Sunday Nov 2021

Posted by in Politics, Politics for Worldbuilders, War, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Suppose that Country A and Country B are having some sort of crisis, and Country A threatens to invade unless it gets its way. (A common occurrence, sadly.) But wars are costly, even if you win. Mobilizing your army diverts resources away from other critical activities, such as harvesting crops for the year. Battle casualties represent huge losses of human talent and labor. And every time you fight a war, you run the risk of losing. That all being the case, why would anyone decide to fight a war? And when?

That is, we have to explain four things: the choice of Country A to threaten war, the choice of Country B not to submit, the choice of either country to actually start the war, and the choice of the other country not to simply surrender and save itself the trouble of fighting.

There are many ways of explaining this sequence. But one powerful model to use, because it is so flexible and easily covers a whole range of situations, is the bargaining model of war developed by James Fearon and others in that vein.

The key variables of this model are:

  • The cost of fighting, for each side;
  • The total potential benefits of winning; and
  • The likelihood of each side winning.

Essentially, if you know for a fact that you are likely to win, and that the benefits of winning exceed the cost of fighting, you are very likely to fight—and the other side is very likely to back down.

For example, suppose that you lead a company of 100 mercenaries, and you have the chance to attack a gold mine held by 30 opposing mercenaries. If you do, you expect to lose 15 of your troops, but you would gain the lucrative gold mine and you would very likely be able to keep it. Given that, chances are you’re going to attack the gold mine, even at the cost of some of your troops. And knowing this, the 30 mercenaries are likely to retreat or surrender before you attack, because it is pointless to fight and die when they know they would lose.

On the other hand, the losing mercenaries know that they could kill 15 of your troops if they do fight, and they know that you know it too. So they could negotiate with you for a settlement where they are allowed to take some amount of gold with them as they go—say, the equivalent of 10 mercenaries. So even though they would lose, the weaker side has an incentive to push for some share of the loot before they capitulate.

War thus becomes a bargaining process, where the two sides are essentially negotiating over how to split up the stakes of a war.

If so, why do people fight wars at all? Why not tally up opposing forces, figure out who would win and how much the net profit would be, negotiate some sort of settlement where the stronger party gets the same or greater profit and the weaker party is left with something, and avoid all the messy killing and burning and looting?

The most common reason is uncertainty. In the real world, it is often difficult to know who would win a war. It is also difficult to know how costly a war would be, and even what the benefits would be of winning. As a result, says the theory, any factor that increases uncertainty would tend to make war more likely, because each side hopes that it will end up being worth it to fight. And even if one side knows it would lose, the other side might be so overconfident that it asks for far too much of the “loot”; the weaker party may then decide to fight anyway, in hopes of keeping at least some of what it has.

And any factor that increases certainty would tend to discourage war. If the costs and benefits of war are better known, both parties will recognize when a war would be wasteful—or when the benefits of fighting are so obvious that the winning side cannot be deterred. And of course, if it is obvious who would win a war, the weaker side is likely to capitulate to save itself greater loss; the stronger side, too, is unlikely to demand too much, since it knows the point at which the other side would fight regardless. So, many conflicts would be avoided because the game is not worth the candle, and many others would end with the sides negotiating some sort of settlement, without fighting.

A second reason for war is if the “loot” cannot be split up between the sides. For example, in a war of extermination, there is simply no option of a settlement; you win, or you die. Less drastically, if two countries are fighting over control of a strategic mountain pass, there is no way to share the pass; one side is going to end up in control, and the other side will be shut out. So the stakes are higher, and there is less opportunity to negotiate a settlement.

Finally, what if you should be able to negotiate a settlement, but you don’t trust the other side to keep it? Or you can’t convince the other side that you can be trusted? Then it becomes much harder to negotiate an end to the crisis, and much easier (so to speak) to go to war instead. For example, rebel forces negotiating with a government have a very hard time coming to an agreement. Each side fears that any concessions will simply make the other side stronger; and often, the rebel forces are being supported by a rival country, which will sometimes pressure the rebels to keep fighting even when they want to stop (or vice versa).

That’s the basic model. It can be elaborated on in many ways, such as adding concerns about reputation or honor in a repeated game. (If you surrender once, maybe countries can bully you into submission over and over again in the future. So the long-term costs of surrender may end up being much higher that the immediate costs of fighting, all things considered, even if you know you will lose.)

So in your fiction, if you want to set up the conditions for a jolly old war, these are the key points to adjust: the cost of fighting, the prize for winning and whether it can be shared, the relative strength of the sides, the ability of each side to commit to a settlement, and the uncertainty of each side about any of the foregoing. A relatively simple model, and quite powerful—my favorite kind of writing tool!

******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. I am now moving my attention to the planned second and third books in this series; the subject matter of this post fits into the third book, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

War in Fantasy Fiction

08 Sunday Aug 2021

Posted by in Better Fantasy, Politics for Worldbuilders, War, Writing

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

The stories we write reflect our own beliefs of the world. If our beliefs change, that has the effect of changing the stories we write. This is particularly noticeable when thinking about how our stories handle war.

Nowadays, most fantasy or sci-fi stories feature only a few different types of wars:

  • The no-alternative war against some life-destroying calamity (such as Shai’tan in the Wheel of Time series, Ruin in the Mistborn series, or the Flood in Halo).
  • The defensive war against a ruthless invading empire, that has no reason for its invasion other than sheer lust for conquest.
  • The rebellion against an Evil Overlord who murders peasants for the lulz.
  • The seemingly noble war that was actually orchestrated by selfish interests, such as weapons dealers or oil companies (or their fantastical equivalents).

All four of these are based on the understanding that most wars are wrong and undesirable. To be heroic, it seems, a fictional war needs to be the last resort; where it is not, the protagonists are typically manipulated into war by the true villain, and the revelation of this perfidy sets off the true struggle, often featuring former enemies allying against their common foe. (This last category seems a particular favorite in American media, especially in the wake of Vietnam and Iraq.)

But the core understanding that these stories imply—that most war is wrong—would have baffled people living in earlier ages. Not very long ago, it was considered perfectly reasonable for Louis XIV to invade his neighbors for the sole purpose of magnifying his own glory, or for Napoleon to invade multiple continents for the same reason. In an earlier age, Aristotle assumed that wars were usually unjust when fought between fellow Greeks, but were always just when fighting against outsiders, for any reason.

In many tribal societies, fighting neighbors was the traditional way to gain respect or take plunder; often, such fighting had elements of a sports contest, with ceremonial weapons and rules that rewarded personal bravery rather than sheer killing efficiency. (In the Iliad, Paris was seen as effeminate and dishonorable because he used a bow, rather than fighting enemies face-to-face with spear and sword. Many American Indian societies would honor warriors who “counted coup” on their enemies—touching them in battle without killing them.)

Our modern dislike of war is obviously preferable to the older glorification of it, in the real world. But for fantasy or sci-fi writers, it is worth thinking about how people in your worlds might view war differently. Otherwise, you might unthinkingly base your story on a view of war that doesn’t really fit with the rest of your worldbuilding, and would seem anachronistic.

Thucydides, the famous chronicler of the Second Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, writes that while some wars are justified on noble grounds, such as enforcing justice against enemies who break oaths or otherwise violate norms, most wars are ultimately motivated by three things: fear, honor, and interest.

Fear is fairly easy to understand. You fear that your enemy will harm you now or in the future; so you either defend against an immediate attack, or you begin a preventative war on your own terms while your enemy has not reached its full strength. The tricky bit here is that fear is based on your perceptions; among the reasons that preventative war is frowned on today is that sometimes, countries assume that a neighbor poses a threat when the neighbor actually had no intention of harming them.

Interest too is not difficult to see. Many countries seek to build empires, to plunder their neighbors and enrich themselves. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in order to seize its rich oilfields; Japan invaded Indonesia, in part, to secure its oilfields since Japan had little domestic oil production. Individuals too have interests, as we know.

Honor, on the other hand, is perhaps the hardest concept for us moderns to understand, or appreciate why people would fight and die for it. Yet most wars in history probably were motivated by honor more than concrete interests.

Why did Alexander the Great feel driven to conquer the world? And why would his army follow him? Because they sought glory that would last throughout the centuries (and it worked, since we still remember them today!). But remember that glory was important for the Greeks; their version of the afterlife, Hades, was a place of pale shades with little reward and punishment for moral behavior (as most of us today are used to). The Greeks believed that enduring glory, kleos, was perhaps the most worthwhile thing to strive for in life, since that was all that would last once you were dead. Glory was worth dying for, and more importantly was worth killing for.

More concretely, honor can have practical importance. In dangerous settings, a nation that does not fight to defend its honor will soon be bullied into subservience by its neighbors. Displaying your willingness to fight even over trivial offenses can sometimes prevent wars, because it signals to hungry neighbors that you will not be cowed.

For authors, remembering that people have many reasons to fight wars, depending on the moral and political calculations of the setting, can open up space for fresh and interesting stories. If you don’t want to write stories featuring amoral war, there’s nothing forcing you to do so; but people have all sorts of motives for everything they do, war is no exception, and the stories that can emerge from that can be fun.

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. I am now moving my attention to the planned second and third books in this series; the subject matter of this post fits into the third book, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Conflict in Politics and Fiction

18 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by in Politics, Politics for Worldbuilders, Writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series.)

What is politics? And why does it matter for fiction?

If you were to google “politics definition,” many of the dictionary entries focus on the mechanics of running a government or a society; these are not wrong exactly, but are not terribly useful. When we say “office politics,” for example, what we mean is often the exact opposite of a smooth-running office!

Early political scientists, when they were in a pedantic mood, might have used a definition like this: “The authoritative allocation of scarce goods.” This is not very good either, but it does focus our attention on a few points:

  • “Scarce goods” implies that some people will get less than they want, or do without entirely. By definition, some people will be unhappy with the “authoritative allocation,” and want it to change.
  • “Authoritative” highlights the importance of authority, the sense that some people or some commands ought to be followed. In other words, a key part of politics is about leadership and obedience, and how that comes about.

But this definition seems sterile. We are given an image of some central bureaucrat sitting in an office and punching numbers into a calculator, thusly to apportion out the chocolate ration. Yet politics is about more than material goods (or even status, which is also a “scarce good” of a sort; but see below). So the definition is often modified to include “The authoritative determination of values.” Here we get into more interesting ground:

  • Rather than focusing on what we want, “values” instruct us in what we should want.
  • Often, this gets to the core of our identities as people. The stakes are thus very high.
  • When two different people disagree on values—say, whether cocaine use is a personal matter or a harmful vice—often they are proceeding from very different principles, which prevent agreement altogether.
  • Without a way to authoritatively settle the question, such disagreements are thus likely to persist for a long time.

Still, this definition assumes that there is a way to authoritatively determine values, and have them stick. Sometimes it can happen, for example in a unified theocracy; but very often, people who disagree with the authority’s values will deny that the authority even has the right to impose them. Religious wars are but a single example; the conflict between Capitalism and Communism would be another.

Notice that both examples also involve “the allocation of scarce goods”; and in many cases, one’s choice of values is heavily influenced by whether you will benefit from them. Of course peasants will want redistribution of capital, and of course industrialists will want state protection of property—whether or not either side could defend its position on moral grounds (and perhaps they can). As they say, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” Values direct behavior, but they also justify behavior.

Which brings us to Lenin’s Trotsky’s cynical definition of politics: as “the question of who and whom.”

In other words, politics is about which actor or group of actors can enforce its will on another group. This needn’t even be about who gets more “scarce goods,” though that often plays a role. Rather, it’s about power—in the worst case (as Orwell so bleakly depicted in 1984), power for its own sake. Policy analysis, discussion of values, appeals to shared humanity or morality or whatever, all of these things are mere rationalizations for the will to power.

This also brings the role of conflict to the fore. Conflict was implied in the other two definitions, as we saw; but Lenin gives it center stage. Politics, for Lenin, is unending conflict.

A full definition of “politics” involves aspects of all three, but conflict remains at the heart. And that is why stories involving politics can be so powerful in fiction.

Authors are constantly admonished that stories must be about a conflict; the protagonist wants or needs something, and must struggle to get it. Political conflicts thus make for a compelling setting for stories, by definition. And each dimension of politics can add another delicious layer to the story. Conflict over possessions, or conflict over status, or right and wrong, or personal beliefs, or even about sheer will to power—as Milton’s rendition of Satan put it, it’s better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven—all of these things can interact and build off each other.

A clear understanding of politics can provide another tool to creating strong stories. And perhaps, with luck, truly insightful stories can improve our politics in real life as well.

When Do Societies Face Unrest?

02 Thursday May 2013

Posted by in Better Fantasy, Economics, History, Politics, Revolution, Self-Promotion, War, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have just read a recent journal article by the brilliant scholar Peter Turchin, in which he elaborates on his theory of the dynamics of social instability over time and tests it on the United States from 1780 to 2010. Put briefly, his theory holds that one can expect a society to suffer greater social violence (such as riots or lynchings, as opposed to routine crime) in a relatively predictable cycle. The larger “secular” cycle occurs every 150 years; a smaller cycle of violence occurs roughly every 50 years, superimposed on the secular cycle. Thus in the United States, we had peaks of societal violence near the years 1870, 1920, and 1970, with the Civil War being the peak of the secular cycle. Turchin forecasts that the next secular peak should hit sometime around the year 2020. Turchin’s previous work has detected the same sorts of cycles in societies from ancient China to revolutionary France.

Of course, detecting a pattern does not tell you what has caused it. Turchin’s theory for when violence intensifies depends on two major factors. Both of these factors might derive from excessive population growth; in the early version of Turchin’s work, he was focusing on agrarian societies in which population growth leads directly to food shortages. But now that he is considering Industrial societies, Turchin is focusing more on the immediate causes laid out below.

First, whether from excessive population growth or technological disruption or whatever, there emerges a labor glut. The average wage drops in response, leading to diminished standards of living. Thus you see larger segments of the populace who are in a precarious situation, with the potential for violent outbreaks such as labor struggles, or ethnic competition with minorities, or political upheaval.

Second, there emerges “an oversupply of elites.” This can happen for a few reasons, and Turchin focuses on the economic one. The low cost of labor means that it is easier for those on the top to become far wealthier than they might have done in a more normal setting, leading to the accumulation of vast fortunes and a polarization of society. A consequence of this is that there is much more competition for the leadership positions in society, such as control of government offices. Politics becomes more nasty and partisan, leading in extreme cases to violent rivalries between elite factions struggling to secure their hold on power. Such violence is made easier by the larger number of poor, desperate people in society who can serve as a demagogue’s muscle.

In Turchin’s research, he finds that oversupply of elites has the strongest association with societal violence. This is easy to understand when one looks at places like the Philippines, in which politicians routinely employ armed militias to attack competitors (a horrifying example was the Maguindanao Massacre of 2009), or the Congo, which has been wracked with coup after coup. But even in the United States, a surplus of would-be leaders will tend to produce extreme ideologies, such as militant unionism in the 1920s, or the present upsurge in eco-terrorism.

I think many people, writers among them, mistake the relationship between cheap labor and exploitative rich. Often, a super-wealthy class emerges as a result of lots of poor people, who make it easier to be rich—that is, to benefit from the production of lots of other people. This is not to say that an exploitative class won’t try to keep everyone else poor, once it emerges. But the dynamics are complex here, and societal violence is one of the things keeping them in check.

(How might such violence be averted? Full discussion will have to wait for another post, but I find it rather interesting that the Biblical institution of Jubilee, in which land was returned to its ancestral owners and debts forgiven, follows a 50-year cycle.)

(Have I mentioned lately that my new book is available on Amazon Kindle? It’s called The Best Congress Money Can Buy: Stories of Political Possibility. You can read the first story for free here, and then buy it if you like. Enjoy!)

On Sovereignty, Trust, and Protectorates

04 Sunday Nov 2012

Posted by in Better Fantasy, Economics, History, Politics, State Formation, Writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I recently read a journal article by Peter Haldén titled A Non-Sovereign Modernity: Attempts to Engineer Stability in the Balkans 1820-90. He writes to correct the conventional view that international relations in modernity is all about sovereign, independent states, and that the earlier era of protectorates, vassal states, or other such semi-autonomous regions ended with the arrival of nationalism. Indeed, the rationalist, modern Concert of Europe deliberately used non-sovereign zones several times in the Balkans area in order to control the outbreak of political crises.

The topic remains important for us readers today for a few reasons. First, understanding history is always good (particularly for budding fiction writers, who have a tendency to assume that all stories must be set in modern states or in absolutist monarchies, and thus impoverish their stories.) Second, non-sovereign states never really went away; they were just sleeping. Understanding the dynamics of non-sovereign states gives us a fresh lens to understand places like Kosovo, Chechenya, or even international organizations such as the European Union or the United Nations.

The power politics of the 19th century were marked by several themes, but two of the most important were the decline of the Ottoman Empire as a great power, and the rise of Russia which aspired to take its place. The fundamental problem facing the European powers was how to manage the fragmentation of Ottoman authority, which expressed itself in events like the Greek revolution, without causing a full-blown war between the Great Powers over the spoils.

Briefly, the favored solution was to take outlying provinces of the Empire and turn them into non-sovereign states, under the aegis of the Concert of Europe. These provinces would still nominally be subject to the Turkish Caliph and would pay tribute, and they would be prohibited from having free diplomatic relations with other states as an independent state would, or from having a military. But they would have civil militias and police forces for defense, they would be self-governing, and they could have diplomatic relations with the Concert of Europe as a body. Importantly, the Ottoman Empire would be forbidden to maintain troops in these non-sovereign states.

How does this help? In modern International Relations, states often try to set up buffer zones between them and some potentially hostile neighbor. These zones typically take the form of other, smaller, states. For example, China uses the totalitarian hell state of North Korea as a buffer between it and South Korea, or Japan. The “Low Countries” of Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg were used as a buffer between France and Germany, to their periodic detriment.

The idea is that if you don’t share a border with a potential foe, then there are fewer opportunities for friction that might escalate into a full-blown war. After all, it is hard to distinguish between positioning troops to defend your borders, and positioning troops to attack your neighbor. So the buffer state helps to cool down the temperature. The only problem is that when a buffer state is independent, it can rely only on its own force of arms to maintain itself. The history of the Low Countries graphically demonstrates how easily this can fail; moreover, the potential for a buffer state to become a full-blown military ally of one side or the other ensures that the situation remains tenuous.

A demilitarized nonsovereign territory, on the other hand, is not guaranteed by force of arms, but by the cooperation of the potential rivals under color of an international agreement. There is less likelihood of miscalculation or escalating tensions, and more opportunity for creative institutional design (read the article for some great examples); not all peoples are ready for statehood, after all, even aside from the objections of their current rulers. And there would be less competition between rivals such as Britain and Russia as there would be (and were) over who would dominate the policy of newly independent states, if the territories could only have relations with the international body as a unit and not with other states bilaterally.

For a modern parallel, we can look to the European Union, which began as the European Coal and Steel Community—a project to strip West Germany’s ability to produce war armaments without the cooperation of France, and vice versa. By effectively tying their own hands, the member states hoped to foreclose on the possibility of war between them, so they could focus on the vital task of withstanding the Soviet Bloc. Henceforth, relations between member countries would be based on partnership and negotiation, not power politics.

However, in the case of the Balkans, the stability of the protectorate arrangements for Greece and elsewhere depended crucially on the degree to which the Great Powers trusted each other. In the three cases that Haldén considers, the initial attempts to institute a nonsovereign territory broke down once Russia violated the terms of the agreement, and Britain could no longer trust the Russians to play nice. (I am oversimplifying grossly.) Indeed, the creation of new independent states from the former provinces of the Ottoman Empire was, in Haldén’s telling, a suboptimal outcome, forced on the Great Powers by the breakdown of cooperation and the increasing worry over Russia’s growing power. The independent states would have to fend for themselves, without the aegis of a Concert of Europe which was growing ever-less-concerted over time. No surprise that World War I kicked off in the Balkans; Serbia was one of these formerly nonsovereign states.

Similarly, arrangements such as the EU or the UN are hampered by the lack of trust between member states. Many predict that the current economic crisis may spell the end of the Euro currency, or of the EU altogether, because Germany will grow tired of footing the bill for its more spendthrift neighbors forever. Early aspirations for the UN to become a true world government, meanwhile, have run aground on the cold reality that Americans do not trust a body made up mostly of dictatorships to act with the public interest in mind.

Haldén also draws a fascinating parallel with the old free-markets/interventionism debate in economics. He writes that creating new independent states who would rely on their own armies for defense, and hoping that they can contribute to international stability, is comparable to the intent of the free market. Conversely, a managed protectorate under the oversight of an international body is similar to government control of the economy, under the theory that such control will lead to more manageable outcomes. Whether or not you believe that government control can lead to better outcomes in the abstract, it is clear that you will not desire actual government control unless you trust the government to play nice. If you do not trust the government, you will accept even the putatively suboptimal outcomes of the free market in exchange for keeping a measure of control over your own destiny.

Haldén apparently wrote a book exploring some of these themes, which I may want to read. For our purposes, we should remember that what we are familiar with is not everything that is possible. As well, if we want to build a new world, it is crucial that we trust the main players; otherwise, the world may turn out to be not what we expected.