Warfare, Submission and Devotion

--part1_17d.11a85384.2b006656_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am indebted to Professor Jorge M. Roche, an anthropologist at the
Universidad de Monterrey, for summarizing my idea on the relationship between
warfare and submission, and framing it as a scientific (and potentially
testable) hypothesis:

"As far as I can tell Dr. Koenigsberg in his literary metaphor "warfare
as submission" is arguing that warfare can (not that it should) be seen as a
form of submission on the part of the combatants themselves. That is, that
the combatants are "submitting" to some type of power/authority that in
different settings takes on different symbolic forms. That at an individual
cognitive level (i.e., psychologically) organized and "target" oriented aggre
ssive behavior (i.e., warfare) is at times perceived (at times it might not
be perceived, it might be subconscious) by the aggressive individuals
themselves as their social role in order to fulfill the expectations of the
symbolic authority to which they are submitting (perhaps out of fear, perhaps
respect, or sense of duty, or whatever -those are empirical issues). And
that they, at least in part, derive their motivation for aggressive behavior
from this submission."

"As with most interpretative endeavors, Dr. Koenigsberg's is a case of
inductive theory building, reasoning and arguing based on at times vague
metaphors and interpretations (that in his case they appear to be all of an
emic nature). It is just what Darwin himself did when he argued that nature
worked on a similar fashion as the pigeon breeders did; by selecting some
traits in lieu of others, that resulting over several generations in
different types of pigeons. Darwin could not offer enough direct evidence
for nature selecting traits, but he could offer enough evidence that
selecting traits results in phenotypic changes over generations. He too used
an analogy; "Nature as a Breeder" in making his case for a theory of natural
selection."

Given this clarification, it becomes possible to articulate the logic
of my hypothesis. A case study is presented in order to illustrate (not
prove) my hypothesis. By examining the attitude of Hitler and the Nazis
toward warfare, perhaps we can move toward understanding of the meaning of
this institution within other cultural frameworks.

A fundamental category of thought for Hitler and the Nazis was that of
SUBMISSION. I hypothesize that the overt phenomena--behavior that we witness
and label as aggression, sadism, hatred, war, etc.--grew out of a deeper
dynamic revolving around submission..

When we speak of "totalitarianism," we mean essentially that all
individuals or subjects of a nation are required to submit to the state. The
very term implies that submission be TOTAL. Totalitarian ideology insists
that there be no area of life where persons act according to individual
inclination, or free will. In every instance, the citizen should bow to the
will of the state. The essence the totalitarian ideology of Nazism,
therefore, was that EVERY GERMAN SHOULD SUBMIT TO HITLER AND THE GERMAN
NATION

Rudolph Hess said, "We know nothing but carrying out Hitler's
orders-and thus we prove our faith in him." The oath of the SS Man went as
follows: "We swear to you Adolf Hitler, as Fuhrer and Chancellor of the
German Reich, our loyalty and bravery. We swear to you, and our superiors
appointed to you, obedience unto death."

Nazi identity built upon this willingness to submit to Hitler and Germany.
One might say that the SS-man was the perfect citizen of the totalitarian
state. He swore to submit entirely-to be obedient unto death.

Death in war, from this perspective, may be viewed as the absolute form
of submission to the state, the perfection of Nazi citizenship. In dying for
Hitler and German (for "Volk and Fuhrer" as the Nazis put it), the dream of
National Socialism--absolute submission to the state--was fulfilled.

Throughout his writings and speeches, Hitler presented the idea of
dying for Germany as the essence of National Socialism. He declared that the
"social" (in National Socialism) meant that the individual is "to such an
extent convinced of the goodness of this community as to be ready to die for
it." While the "national" in National Socialism meant to act with a
"boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to
die for it."

Moral virtue from the perspective of Nazi culture lay in the
willingness to subordinate oneself entirely to the community. Dying for
Germany, therefore, constituted the apotheosis of moral virtue. One may
suggest that dying for Germany represented the FULFILLMENT OF NAZI IDEOLOGY.

Dying in battle was valorized in German culture. In a typical
proclamation, Hitler said: "More than once, thousands and thousands of young
Germans have stepped forward with self-sacrificing resolve to sacrifice their
young lives freely and joyfully on the altar of the beloved fatherland." The
historian Jay Baird, in his book TO DIE FOR GERMANY, notes that in Germany
heroic death in war became a "philosophy of life." For the German, "death in
combat took on the ennobling force of a sacrament," with "honor even more
than victory becoming the ultimate goal of the hero."

Once we have spelled out the internal or cultural logic connecting
warfare to submission, the idea does not seem radical. Through engagement in
battle, the soldier--by submitting to his nation--DEMONSTRATES THE DEPTH OF
HIS DEVOTION.

A World War I reporter described his experience with a wounded soldier:
"As I looked into his face and saw the look of personal victory over physical
pain, I gripped him by the hand and said: 'My good man, when you go back home
to Canada, back to your home, you need not tell them that you love your
country-just show them your scars.'"

We thus may add an intervening variable to our hypothesis relating
warfare to submission. The middle term is DEVOTION or FAITHFULNESS or
LOYALTY. Warfare may be viewed as an institution or activity whereby human
beings submit to their nation or culture, and thereby demonstrate their
devotion to it.

Where does "aggression" fit into this picture? In framing my
hypothesis, Professor Rocha suggests that combatants who are submitting to
some type of power/authority may, at least in part, "derive their aggressive
behavior from this submission." This is a fruitful way of putting at. Perhaps
others may assist in spelling out this dynamic. HOW MIGHT AGGRESSION GROW OUT
OF SUBMISSION?

With best regards,

Richard Koenigsberg

Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
Director, Library of Social Science

--part1_17d.11a85384.2b006656_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>      I am indebted to Professor Jorge M. Roche, an anthropologist at the Universidad de Monterrey, for summarizing my idea on the relationship between warfare and submission, and framing it as a scientific (and potentially testable) hypothesis: 
 
     "As far as I can tell Dr. Koenigsberg in his literary metaphor "warfare as submission" is arguing that warfare can (not that it should) be seen as a form of submission on the part of the combatants themselves.  That is, that the combatants are "submitting" to some type of power/authority that in different settings takes on different symbolic forms.  That at an individual cognitive level (i.e., psychologically) organized and "target" oriented aggressive behavior (i.e., warfare) is at times perceived (at times it might not be perceived, it might be subconscious) by the aggressive individuals themselves as their social role in order to fulfill the expectations of the symbolic authority to which they are submitting (perhaps out of fear, perhaps respect, or sense of duty, or whatever -those are empirical issues).  And that they, at least in part, derive their motivation for aggressive behavior from this submission." 
 
     "As with most interpretative endeavors, Dr. Koenigsberg's is a case of inductive theory building, reasoning and arguing based on at times vague metaphors and interpretations (that in his case they appear to be all of an emic nature).  It is just what Darwin himself did when he argued that nature worked on a similar fashion as the pigeon breeders did; by selecting some traits in lieu of others, that resulting over several generations in different types of pigeons.  Darwin could not offer enough direct evidence for nature selecting traits, but he could offer enough evidence that selecting traits results in phenotypic changes over generations.  He too used an analogy; "Nature as a Breeder" in making his case for a theory of natural selection." 
 
      Given this clarification, it becomes possible to articulate the logic of my hypothesis. A case study is presented in order to illustrate (not prove) my hypothesis. By examining the attitude of Hitler and the Nazis toward warfare, perhaps we can move toward understanding of the meaning of this institution within other cultural frameworks. 
 
      A fundamental category of thought for Hitler and the Nazis was that of SUBMISSION. I hypothesize that the overt phenomena--behavior that we witness and label as aggression, sadism, hatred, war, etc.--grew out of a deeper dynamic revolving around submission.. 
 
      When we speak of "totalitarianism,"  we mean essentially that all individuals or subjects of a nation are required to submit to the state. The very term implies that submission be TOTAL. Totalitarian ideology insists that there be no area of life where persons act according to individual inclination, or free will. In every instance, the citizen should bow to the will of the state. The essence the totalitarian ideology of Nazism, therefore, was that EVERY GERMAN SHOULD SUBMIT TO HITLER AND THE GERMAN NATION 
 
 
      Rudolph Hess said, "We know nothing but carrying out Hitler's orders-and thus we prove our faith in him." The oath of the SS Man went as follows: "We swear to you Adolf Hitler, as Fuhrer and Chancellor of the German Reich, our loyalty and bravery. We swear to you, and our superiors appointed to you, obedience unto death." 
 
Nazi identity built upon this willingness to submit to Hitler and Germany. One might say that the SS-man was the perfect citizen of the totalitarian state. He swore to submit entirely-to be obedient unto death. 
 
     Death in war, from this perspective, may be viewed as the absolute form of submission to the state, the perfection of Nazi citizenship. In dying for Hitler and German (for "Volk and Fuhrer" as the Nazis put it),  the dream of National Socialism--absolute submission to the state--was fulfilled. 
 
      Throughout his writings and speeches, Hitler presented the idea of dying for Germany as the essence of National Socialism. He declared that the "social" (in National Socialism) meant that the individual is "to such an extent convinced of the goodness of this community as to be ready to die for it." While the "national" in National Socialism meant to act with a "boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it." 
 
      Moral virtue from the perspective of Nazi culture lay in the willingness to subordinate oneself entirely to the community. Dying for Germany, therefore, constituted the apotheosis of moral virtue. One may suggest that dying for Germany represented the FULFILLMENT OF NAZI IDEOLOGY. 
 
      Dying in battle was valorized in German culture. In a typical proclamation, Hitler said: "More than once, thousands and thousands of young Germans have stepped forward with self-sacrificing resolve to sacrifice their young lives freely and joyfully on the altar of the beloved fatherland." The historian Jay Baird, in his book TO DIE FOR GERMANY, notes that in Germany heroic death in war became a "philosophy of life." For the German, "death in combat took on the ennobling force of a sacrament," with "honor even more than victory becoming the ultimate goal of the hero." 
 
      Once we have spelled out the internal or cultural logic connecting warfare to submission, the idea does not seem radical. Through engagement in battle, the soldier--by submitting to his nation--DEMONSTRATES THE DEPTH OF HIS DEVOTION. 
 
      A World War I reporter described his experience with a wounded soldier: "As I looked into his face and saw the look of personal victory over physical pain, I gripped him by the hand and said: 'My good man, when you go back home to Canada, back to your home, you need not tell them that you love your country-just show them your scars.'" 
 
      We thus may add an intervening variable to our hypothesis relating warfare to submission. The middle term is DEVOTION or FAITHFULNESS or LOYALTY. Warfare may be viewed as an institution or activity whereby human beings submit to their nation or culture, and thereby demonstrate their devotion to it. 
 
      Where does "aggression" fit into this picture? In framing my hypothesis, Professor Rocha suggests that combatants who are submitting to some type of power/authority may, at least in part, "derive their aggressive behavior from this submission." This is a fruitful way of putting at. Perhaps others may assist in spelling out this dynamic. HOW MIGHT AGGRESSION GROW OUT OF SUBMISSION? 
 
With best regards, 
 
Richard Koenigsberg 
 
 
 
Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D. 
Director, Library of Social Science</HTML>

--part1_17d.11a85384.2b006656_boundary--