The Modern Way of War, Society, and Peace

Abstract

MILITARY SOCIOLOGY TELLS US MUCH ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL'S experience of combat and the military, and the relation between the military and society, yet paradoxically it tells us very little about war and the more fundamental issue: the relation between war and peace. The paradox is deepened when one realizes that learning about military organization, strategic decision making, or the aggressive behavior of individuals reveals little about this fundamental relation.' Further, by virtue of its being militaiy sociology, at least under the current definitions of the field, it can tell us very little about peace, as Binz requested it do, since this issue falls beyond its academic purview.2 Sociological theory should be able to provide a basis for understanding the relation between war and peace, other than the simple, traditional dichotomous relation: all that is not war is peace and vice-versa. At first glance it appears that peace is defined as nonwar, as opposed to war being defined as nonpeace. At second glance, it is even more striking that peace is defined in terms of war rather than the other way around. Peace becomes a period, or a place, of noncombatnot of nonviolence, but of noncombat. Situations where noncombat civilian violence abounds, such as high crime areas, are still considered peaceful. Indeed, the distinction between criminal and military behavior when both involve the inflicting of pain, injury, suffering, and death is in itself illuminating, particularly since the military's portion is greater. Peace is not defined on its own terms. Even when referring to civilian rather than military behavior, it is more a form of social control, pertaining more to pacified persons than to personal or social pacifism. Peace,