Warfare Is Only An Invention-Not A Biological Necessity Summary
Is war a biological necessity, a sociological inevitability or just a bad invention? Is one of the most important questions raised by the famous cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead in her essay titled ‘Warfare is Only an Invention -- Not a Biological Necessity.’
Throughout the world it is a common belief that war is inevitable, it’s bound to take place either due to the man’s innate aggression or the ever existing competition over resources. But Mead points out another perspective, one that’s less defeatist so to say in her own words. She compares war to an invention, same as that of fire or for that matter the practice of marriage and it is her belief that there was a time when man in his social development was unaware of the concept of warfare. She supports this fact by laying down the example of communities like that of Eskimos or Lepchas of Sikkim neither of whom understand war not even in defensive sense.
Her entire work poses various instances where neither the resources nor the human aggression played a major role in one’s decision to undergo war, rather than just being aware of the practice and using it. She ends her essay with a hope for humanity by stating that any invention …show more content…
The people must recognize the defects of the old invention, and someone must make a new one. Propaganda against warfare, documentation of its terrible cost in human suffering and social waste, these prepare the ground by teaching people to feel that warfare is a defective social institution. There is further needed a belief that social invention is possible and the invention of new methods which will render warfare as outdated as the tractor is making the plow, or the motor car the horse and buggy. A form of behavior becomes outdated only when something else takes its place, and in order to invent forms of behavior which will make war obsolete, it is a first requirement to believe that an invention is possible.” [Mead.
Throughout the world it is a common belief that war is inevitable, it’s bound to take place either due to the man’s innate aggression or the ever existing competition over resources. But Mead points out another perspective, one that’s less defeatist so to say in her own words. She compares war to an invention, same as that of fire or for that matter the practice of marriage and it is her belief that there was a time when man in his social development was unaware of the concept of warfare. She supports this fact by laying down the example of communities like that of Eskimos or Lepchas of Sikkim neither of whom understand war not even in defensive sense.
Her entire work poses various instances where neither the resources nor the human aggression played a major role in one’s decision to undergo war, rather than just being aware of the practice and using it. She ends her essay with a hope for humanity by stating that any invention …show more content…
The people must recognize the defects of the old invention, and someone must make a new one. Propaganda against warfare, documentation of its terrible cost in human suffering and social waste, these prepare the ground by teaching people to feel that warfare is a defective social institution. There is further needed a belief that social invention is possible and the invention of new methods which will render warfare as outdated as the tractor is making the plow, or the motor car the horse and buggy. A form of behavior becomes outdated only when something else takes its place, and in order to invent forms of behavior which will make war obsolete, it is a first requirement to believe that an invention is possible.” [Mead.