An unnerving idea proposed in Sinisa Malesevic’s The Sociology of War and Violence I keep returning to is that war is necessary in order to facilitate rapid progress. Although I largely brushed it aside as the product of bellicose sociology and the process of nation-building initially, the idea continues to haunt me, perhaps because it seems so historically feasible.
Throughout history, war has acted as a catalyst for social change. Whether international or civil, wars have ushered in numerous monumental social shifts. A glaring example of this would be nation building, with every nation in the world created through some form of conflict.
Radical social change shares these historical roots in conflict, with various factors shaping our modern government and rights created through violence. Events such as the French Revolution, American Civil War and Russian Revolution were successful in orchestrating substantial social change in the forms of republicanism, emancipation of slaves and establishing socialism respectively, yet only achieved these objectives through civil war. Even early bills of rights such as the Magna Carta emerged as a result of war. The governmental progression from absolute monarchies and empires to republics and constitutional monarchies was consistently (although not exclusively) achieved through conflict, indicating the effects of war on social change.
Wars have also been instrumental in causing social developments, as seen by the progress of feminism during wartime. With the advent of world war one, women were required to work in traditionally male occupations as men fought. This new generation of female factory and office workers brought about substantial social changes, introducing women into the labour force and allowing young females personal income that allowed for greater financial independence. Post war, universal suffrage and feminist movements became more widespread, undoubtably aided by the social changes necessitated by the wartime conditions. World War Two only furthered this, as once again women migrated from the domestic sector into employment within the war economy and again the post war climate brought about progress in feminist objectives.
So perhaps then my concern was justified. It is undeniable that war has been crucial in causing social reforms and cultural shifts. Progress has been rife with conflict and our modern world was forged in blood. With this I return to my original question – is war necessary for considerable progress to occur? How do we solve contemporary issues such as social injustice, climate change and financial inequality? History suggests violent revolution.
In consideration of this, I began to ponder if such change could occur without conflict. Is there a chance issues of corporate pollution, governmental control or gender inequality could be solved without violence? After all we have seen such progress before, with the Apartheid and British Raj falling to peaceful revolutions, with demonstrations and unity used to overcome adversity. Perhaps then, it is not conflict itself, but the solidarity borne from it that is necessary for change. Perhaps unity and demands for change can replace weapons and murder as instruments of progress. I’d like to hope so, but only time will tell.
I really enjoyed reading your blog post – it is especially relevant to the questions we’ve posed in lectures around the major cultural and social shifts that have come about as a result of war and conflict. Your contemplation of whether war is necessary for major progress to occur made me think about the shifts that have occurred during quarantine – particularly regarding the environment. I definitely feel that often major upheavals are, as you say, the catalyst for changes that people otherwise don’t seem to have the means and urgency to bring about. The reduction in air pollution has been described as the “largest scale experiment ever” in regards to industrial emissions! I think the thing that we are all wondering is whether we will find the means as a global population to tackle climate change – I like to think that having seen such positive effects, we will be reminded to what extent such positive social environmental change is possible. Technically the pandemic is not a physical war, but you’re right that history undoubtedly shows major, unprecedented changes as being something that fuel our societal growth and progression. However, I love the notion of our solidarity being a driving force for change, and thought that the inclusion of post-war feminism was an inspired touch – a major societal change that has been spurred by the hardships of the past. With any luck, we will make the best of the challenging situations that are thrown our way, and really rise to the challenge. I’m looking forward to reading more of your posts, and to wait and see what great things we can achieve next on a global scale!
Conflict, war, and violence are all fascinating products and drivers of social change. Your comments on post-war feminism are particularly interesting to me. If we consider war (committing organised violence upon a group or person) an affordance of pre-existing conflict or violence (conflict being a, or any multitude of, social issues; and violence being the committing of organised or negligent harm on a group or person) in society, and an affordance of war is women gain greater economic freedom, then the affordances of pre-existing conflict or violence in society have, in part, necessitated an environment for further social conflict. In an environment where women not only want to but are requested to transcend their genders’ ascription, reverting that environment ‘back to normal’ will have many women recognising new conflicts in society – and perhaps even systems of violence committed upon them.
Interesting and thought-provoking post. Thank you for sharing!