Page 372 - Essencials of Sociology

War and terrorism: Implementing political Objectives 345

have attended prestigious private schools, belong to exclusive clubs, and are mil- war armed conflict between
lionaires many times over. Their behavior stems not from some grand conspiracy to nations or politically distinct groups
control the country but from a mutual interest in solving the problems that face big
business.

Which View Is Right?
The functionalist and conflict views of power in U.S. society cannot be reconciled.
Either competing interests block any single group from being dominant, as functional-
ists assert, or a power elite oversees the major decisions of the United States, as conflict
theorists maintain. The answer may have to do with the level you look at. Perhaps at the
middle level of power depicted in Figure 11.2, the competing groups do keep each other
at bay, and none can dominate. If so, the functionalist view would apply to this level. But
which level holds the key to U.S. power? Perhaps the functionalists have not looked high
enough, and activities at the peak remain invisible to them. On that level, does an elite
dominate? To protect its mutual interests, does a small group make the major decisions
of the United States?
Sociologists passionately argue this issue, but with mixed data, we don’t yet know the
answer. We await further research.

War and terrorism: Implementing 11.5 Explain why countries
political Objectives go to war and why some groups
choose terrorism; discuss targeted
Some students have asked why I include war and terrorism as topics of politics. The rea- killings.
son is that war and terrorism are tools used to pursue political goals. The Prussian mili-
tary analyst Carl von Clausewitz,(1918) who entered the military at the age of 12 and
rose to the rank of major-general, put it best when he said “War is merely a continuation
of politics by other means.” Few want to say that we honor war,
Let’s look at this aspect of politics. but we do. Its centrality in the teaching
of history and the honoring of the
Why Countries Go to War patriots who founded a country are
two indications. A third is the display of
War, armed conflict between nations (or politically distinct groups), is simply one option past weapons in parks and museums.
that politicians choose for dealing with disagreements. Why do they choose this option? A fourth is the monuments that
As usual, sociologists answer this question not by focusing on factors within humans, commemorate wars and battles.
I took this photo in Washington,
such as aggressive impulses, but by looking for social causes— D.C., a memorial of the war in Vietnam.
conditions in society that encourage or discourage combat
between nations.
Sociologist Nicholas Timasheff (1965) identified three essen-
tial conditions for war. The first is an antagonistic situation in
which two or more states confront incompatible objectives. For
example, each may want the same land or resources. The second
is a cultural tradition of war. Because their nation has fought
wars in the past, the leaders of a group see war as an option for
dealing with serious disputes with other nations. The third is a
“fuel” that heats the antagonistic situation to a boiling point, so
that politicians cross the line from thinking about war to actu-
ally waging it.
Timasheff identified seven such “fuels.” He found that war
is likely if a country’s leaders see the antagonistic situation as an
opportunity to achieve one or more of these objectives:
1. Power: dominating a weaker nation
2. Unity: uniting rival groups within their country
3. Revenge: settling “old scores” from earlier conflicts