The enormity of conflict, war, and terrorism has long stimulated scholarly interest in why humans engage in it (Levy & Thompson 2010). A popular explanation for war derives from evolutionary biology. According to this argument, war is part of our genetic heritage because the humans who survived tens of thousands of years ago were those who were most able, by virtue of their temperament and physicality, to take needed resources from other humans they attacked and to defend themselves from attackers. In this manner, a genetic tendency for physical aggression and warfare developed and thus still exists today. In support of this evolutionary argument, some scientists note that chimpanzees and other primates also engage in group aggression against others of their species (Wrangham 2004). Similarly, it is easy to assume that terrorists must have psychological concerns that lead them to have sadistic personalities, and that they are simply acting irrationally and impulsively.
However, most researchers agree that terrorists are psychologically 'normal' despite their murderous violence and, in fact, are little different from other types of individuals who use violence for political ends. As one scholar observed,
“Most terrorists are no more or less fanatical than the young men who charged into Union cannon fire at Gettysburg or those who parachuted behind German lines into France. They are no more or less cruel and coldblooded than the Resistance fighters who executed Nazi officials and collaborators in Europe, or the American GI’s ordered to ‘pacify’ Vietnamese villages” (Rubenstein 1987: 5).
Additionally, scientists dispute the evolutionary explanation for several reasons (Begley 2009). First, the human brain is far more advanced than the brains of other primates, and genetic instincts that might drive these primates’ behavior do not necessarily drive human behavior. Second, many societies studied by anthropologists have been very peaceful, suggesting that a tendency to warfare is more cultural than biological. Third, most people are not violent, and most soldiers have to be resocialized (in boot camp or its equivalent) to overcome their deep moral convictions against killing. If warlike tendencies were part of human genetic heritage, these convictions would not exist.
Scholars have attempted to explain why human beings wage war. A popular explanation comes from the field of evolutionary biology and claims that a tendency toward warfare is hardwired into our genetic heritage because it conferred certain evolutionary advantages. Sociologists, however, emphasize social factors in explaining war.
"US Army 51817 BAGHDAD" on Wikimedia Commons is courtesy of Sgt. Joshua Risner, US Army
Sociological explanations for conflict, war, and terrorism center social factors such as politics, populations, the environment, and other structural factors, as well as ideology and prejudice. We provide examples below before focusing on how the three classical sociological perspectives frame or explain war as well as conflict more broadly and terrorism.
Political Decisions. If warfare is not biological in origin, then it is best understood as a social phenomenon, one that has its roots in the decisions of political and military officials. Sometimes, as with the US entrance into World War II after Pearl Harbor, these decisions are sincere and based on a perceived necessity to defend a nation’s people and resources, and sometimes these decisions are based on cynicism and deceit (Solomon 2006). A prime example of this latter dynamic is the Vietnam War. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, in which Congress authorized President Lyndon Johnson to wage an undeclared war in Vietnam, was passed after North Vietnamese torpedo boats allegedly attacked US ships. However, later investigation revealed that the attack never occurred and that the White House lied to Congress and the American people (Wells 1994). Four decades later, questions of deceit were again raised after the US began the war against Iraq because of its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. These weapons were never found, and critics charged that the White House had fabricated and exaggerated evidence of the weapons in order to win public and congressional support for the war (Danner 2006).
Population Change. Although war is a social phenomenon arising from decisions of political and military officials, other phenomena can make it more likely that these officials will decide to go to war. Population growth may lead to armed conflict of various types, including war, because growing populations need more food, water, and other resources. History shows that when these resources become too scarce within a society, that society is more likely to go to war to wrest these resources from another society (Gleditsch & Theisen 2010).
Environmental Change. Environmental change is a source of armed conflict, including war (Fisman & Miguel 2010). The Environment chapter will discuss these problems further, with climate change as a main concern. When weather disasters and other environmental changes cause drought, flooding, or other outcomes, crops and other resources become scarcer. Historically, this scarcity has motivated societies to go to war.
Other Structural Factors. Many scholars say that terrorism also has structural roots. In this view, terrorism is a rational response, no matter how horrible it may be, to perceived grievances regarding economic, social, and/or political conditions (White 2012). The heads of the 9/11 Commission, which examined the terrorist attacks of that day, reflected this view in the following assessment: “We face a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world – a trend to which our own actions have contributed. The enduring threat is not Osama bin Laden but young Muslims with no jobs and no hope, who are angry with their own governments and increasingly see the United States as an enemy of Islam” (Kean & Hamilton 2007). As this assessment indicates, structural conditions do not justify terrorism, of course, but they do help explain why some individuals decide to commit it.
Ideology and Prejudice. Conflict, war, and terrorism are also fueled by ideological reasons: Individuals and groups have certain belief systems that lead them to hold prejudice and other hostile feelings toward individuals, groups, or nations with different belief systems or backgrounds. Religion is an important ideology in this regard. Historically and also today, nations in the Middle East and elsewhere have gone to war or are otherwise in conflict because of religious differences. In another example, although the causes of World War II are complex, Hitler’s effort to conquer much of Europe stemmed at least partly from his prejudicial ideology that Aryans (Germans and other Europeans with blond hair and blue eyes) were a superior species and that all others were inferior (Bess 2008).
Sociological Perspectives
The three major sociological perspectives offer different understandings of conflict, war, and terrorism. The Theoretical Perspectives Snapshot table below summarizes these assumptions.
Theoretical Perspectives Snapshot
| Theoretical perspective |
Major assumptions |
| Structural functionalism |
War and terrorism serve important functions such as increasing social solidarity or helping preserve freedom and democracy. They may be dysfunctional for society when they violate social solidarity or have negative latent functions. |
| Conflict theory |
War and militarism primarily advance the interests of the power elite, who benefit from the defense industry. Conflict, war, and terrorism also fuel the military-industrial complex and take billions of dollars from unmet social needs. |
| Symbolic interactionism |
Symbols such as the national flag play an important role in raising support for war and national pride. Definitions of terms also play an important role in public opinion regarding conflict, war, and terrorism. |
Structural Functionalism
Recall that functionalism emphasizes the usefulness of certain behaviors and social institutions for many aspects of society. One of functionalism’s insights is that social problems might actually be useful in this way; however, they may also cause many difficulties. For instance, terrorism is a social problem that has negative consequences for society, but it also creates hundreds jobs in sectors of the economy that deal with national defense.
In this spirit, functionalism emphasizes the ways in which conflict, war, and terrorism are useful for society, however horrible they are in so many other ways. Perhaps the first sociologist to make this point for war was Robert E. Park, the 1925 president of the American Sociological Association (which was then called the American Sociological Society – a name that was later changed because of its acronym!). In January 1941, less than a year before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Park (1941) published in a leading sociology journal an influential essay called The Social Function of War: Observations and Notes.
Park’s essay outlined several functions of war. First, war and conflict help resolve international disputes over matters such as territorial boundaries and religious and other ideologies. No matter what one might think of war, historically it has resolved disputes between nations, with the winner of the war winning the dispute. Even though very few people would say that war is a preferred method for resolving a dispute, it still has performed this function.
Second, conflict and war generate a stronger sense of social bonding and solidarity within the societies that are at war. Having a common enemy, people within a society in conflict or at war 'come together' with a shared purpose and feel more united and patriotic than before. This dynamic is called the external conflict/internal cohesion process (Markides & Cohn 1982). Although Park did not discuss terrorism, this form of armed conflict can also create social solidarity. In the days and weeks after 9/11, Americans and even nations across the world came together, as the president of France famously said, “We are all Americans.”
War generates a sense of social cohesion among the people in a society that is at war.
Glenn Harper – Flags – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Third, wars many centuries ago, such as those in which ancient Rome in essence formed and grew from conquering various tribes, led to the development of the nation-state as a political institution. As these tribes came under the rule of nation-states, their separate tribal identities weakened as they gradually identified themselves as one people belonging to their nation-state. Park referred to this process as “the coming-together and integration of races and peoples” (1941: 569). Moreover, the size and resources of these nation-states allowed them to generate scientific, cultural, and political advances that played an important role in world history. War, then, indirectly contributed to these advances. Although nation-states still might have eventually developed even without war, their development was accelerated by war.
Other functions of war can also be cited. Some wars, including the American colonists’ war against England and the Allies’ war against Hitler and Japan, have helped maintain and establish freedom and democracy. In the past and also today, war and military service have also provided important opportunities for jobs and career advancement for people of color and women. Related to this, the US military provides millions of jobs annually and is a ready form of employment for people who only have a high school education. More generally, the military and the defense industry are certainly important components of the US economy, and military spending in some eras has helped stimulate the US economy. In perhaps the most notable example of this effect, spending for World War II is commonly credited with helping to lift the US out of the Great Depression (Shiller 2012).
In a final function, weapons research and other types of military research have contributed to scientific and technological development in general. For example, military research played a key role in the early development of the Internet.
However, as with other problems, some structural functionalists focus on latent functions or negative consequences of conflict, war, and terrorism. For instance, a functionalist in this camp may argue that the lack of care for veterans after they return from war is a grave dysfunction of the institution of the state, which perpetuates other social problems such as mental health concerns, harmful drug use, and houselessness.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory’s perspective is decidedly more critical than that of functionalism. There are different views within conflict theory about conflict, war, and terrorism but three related views stand out. The first view echoes President Eisenhower’s concern over the power and influence of the military-industrial complex, which refers to the network of government and private industries that is driven by profit motives and influences policy, defense spending, and governmental operations (Auerbach & Baker 2021).
According to conflict theory, the US spends so much on the military and even goes to war because military officials, defense contractors, and political leaders work hand-in-hand in a rather cozy relationship. Although they may profess that their actions are meant to keep the nation safe, their ultimate goal is to enhance their political power and financial well-being. This cozy relationship may sound familiar.
The most famous critique of the military-industrial complex from a conflict theorist is that of sociologist C. Wright Mills in his book The Power Elite (1956). As discussed in prior chapters, the power elite is comprised of top government, business, and military leaders, which together constitute a ruling class that strongly influences society and works for its own interests, not for the interests of the nation. Members of the power elite, Mills said, see each other socially and serve together on the boards of directors of corporations, charitable organizations, and other bodies. When cabinet members, senators, and top generals and other military officials retire, they often become corporate executives; military officials in particular join defense contractors. Conversely, corporate executives often become cabinet members and other key political appointees, and defense industry executives often end up in the Pentagon. This circulation of the elites creates a rather cozy relationship that helps ensure their dominance over American life and in particular ensures that the military-industrial complex has an untold influence over economic and foreign policy.
A more recent critique of the military-industrial complex and foreign policy by sociologist Mark C. Worrell bluntly stresses the role played by the desire for corporate profits: “War is business and it is profitable… What we learned in the aftermath of World War II is that mass destruction is great for corporate profits… War is driven by corporate profits and corporations drive politics” (2011: 51). According to Worrell and other contemporary critics of what they call the warfare state, the US now has a permanent war economy. In their view, the war on terrorism after 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “have only deepened the trend toward ever more concentrated state, corporate, and military power in a society that ostensibly embraces democratic values” (Boggs 2011: ix).
The second view of conflict theory concerns imperialism, the use of military power and other means to extend a nation’s influence and control over other nations. This view, held by the more radical proponents of conflict theory, argues that war and other military ventures by the US are done for the sake of imperialism rather than for noble goals such as the preservation and extension of democracy. In this view, the US wages war and engages in other military actions to gain access to oil and other resources of other societies, with the ultimate aim of enriching multinational corporations and other parties. The characterization does not hold true for World War II, conflict theorists concede, but they argue it holds true for many and perhaps most other US wars and military actions, historically and today. In their view, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular were fought under false pretenses to maintain adequate oil supply and more generally to extend America’s military and economic influence around the world (Worrell 2011).
A third view of conflict theory criticizes the size of the military budget and emphasizes the billions of dollars it takes from social needs such as poverty and climate change. As sociologist Carl Boggs argues,
“The war economy, for its part, devours roughly one trillion dollars in material, technological, and human resources yearly… ensuring a pattern of waste, destruction, uneven development, eroded public infrastructures, and decimated social programs. Decaying American cities have become a supreme legacy of the warfare system” (2011: 17).
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionist writing on war features several emphases. One theme concerns the perceptions and experiences of people involved in war: Soldiers, civilians, and others. There are many moving accounts, for example, both real and fictitious, of soldiers’ lives on the battlefield and after they come home from war.
A second emphasis concerns the use of symbols to garner support for war or protest against war. Symbols such as the national flag evoke feelings of patriotism, perhaps especially when a nation is at war. The president and other politicians typically display a flag when they give major speeches, and it would be unthinkable for a flag not to be showing when the speech is about war. During the Vietnam War, protesters sometimes flew the US flag upside-down (the international symbol of distress) to show their hatred of the war, and others burned the flag in protest.
Another ubiquitous symbol during the Vietnam War was the so-called international peace symbol, originally designed in the late 1950s to symbolize concern over nuclear weapons. Vietnam War protesters wore this symbol on their clothing, and many put peace symbol decals on their motor vehicles, book bags, and other possessions.
Other symbols can also be important. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, millions of Americans put magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks to show their support for the troops. The largest manufacturer of the ribbons sold more than one million monthly a year after the war began. However, sales slipped as support for the war declined, and four years after the war numbered only 4,000 monthly (Ward 2007).
A third emphasis of symbolic interactionism concerns how concepts related to conflict, war, and terrorism come to be defined in ways that advance the goals of various parties. For example, a key goal of the military in basic training is to convince trainee soldiers that people they may face on the battlefield are 'the enemy' and, as such, an appropriate target for killing. Related to this goal is the need to convince trainees that when they kill an enemy soldier, the killing is a justified killing and not considered murder. Similarly, the military often refers to civilian deaths or wounding as collateral damage in a conscious attempt to minimize public horror at civilian casualties.
Another definitional issue concerns terrorism. As we shall discuss later, the definition of terrorism is subjective, as actions that some people might regard as 'terrorism' might be regarded by other people as 'freedom fighting' or some other much more positive term than terrorism. Symbolic interactionism is interested in subjective meanings such as these, as well as how they shape people's identities and interactions.
