Links Between East and West 51 东西方的连接51

Social Cohesion and Aggression in Warfare

Social cohesion and aggression are concepts essential to the discussion of warfare. Wars can be methods and instruments employed by a nation to achieve greater cohesion, as people of various social groups and identities collaborate towards a common goal. The mentality of bellicosity usually becomes significant when a society claims a certain collective identity that it prides itself in, consequently convincing its members that they must defend or fight for this identity. However, while social cohesion is a purpose or factor of war, warfare itself is an act of social aggression, an incident when societies collide violently against each other. By the term “aggression,” one should not limit its definition to the use of hot arms or the physical invasion of another state. Ideas and trends like nationalism can also be categorized as “social aggression.” This essay will examine the coexistence between social cohesion and aggression.

When people coalesce into societies and cultures, it is natural that they favor their group over outsiders. This preference is present in most social animals. A group of chimpanzees might together form a group that collectively defends every member from any outsiders. During the hunting and gathering age, humans also formed small clans and tribes that possessed a collective identity. This collectively identity served as a token that created a centripetal social force. However, humans are different than other animals in the sense that the former has the capability to employ language to come up with exceptionally powerful “fictions.” A human society began to “amplify” this social phenomenon of favoring their group over others with stronger and more persuasive cultural narratives.

Warfare between human societies demonstrates an intriguing paradox. Warfare is an act of both social cohesion and aggression, the opposite sides of a same coin. When a leader rallies together a cohesive force within a society for the purpose of warfare, the leader then utilizes this force to bring aggression upon other societies and destroy their inner cohesion. Warfare creates a situation when social cohesion and aggression coexists when society builds and destroys simultaneously. The exceptionally powerful “fictions” that lead to much stronger bonds between social members results in warfare towards outsiders. For example, extreme nationalism is one of the most potent “fictions” that the human mind and language has ever conceived of. Nationalism is quite effective in pulling together a society that even has great internal diversity. This “fiction” itself, though, is a belligerent one towards other nations and cultures. As wars due to the explosion of nationalism happened throughout history, nationalism shows its ability to bind and yet destroy societies at the same time.

As cohesion may lead to aggression towards others, aggression may further promote cohesion, forming a positive feedback loop. On the one hand, the triumph from warfare victories serves as a symbol of national, collective strength and can be utilized by leaders to promote social cohesion. Vice versa, the loss in warfare serves as a symbol of national weakness and can also be utilized by leaders to foster greater social unity. Germany, following its loss of World War I, signed the Treaty of Versailles that significantly maimed its military prowess and economic performance. Hitler and the extreme right-wing politicians constantly referred to Germany’s loss and the signing of the Treaty, putting the blame on the “November Criminals” that “stabbed Germany in the back.” Through effective propaganda, Germany did become more united under Hitler and the ideologies of the Nazi Party. The loss on the battlefields can thus be a tool employed by a government to enhance social cohesion.

The above argumentation brings forth a hypothesis: To achieve greater social cohesion, some form of outward aggression is needed. Today, this hypothesis may hold true. Internal social issues that lead to discord are the main disruptors of cohesion. It is not so feasible to solve these issues with a simple appeal to domestic cultural values. For the case of Hitler, it was impossible for him to rise to power if he only promoted German traditional culture and did not promote German populism or the glory from invading other states to rebuild the German empire. The sheer diversity of a society may lead to the creation of deep divisions that are difficult to reconcile internally. The appeal to aggression is a way to direct social attention away from these divisions and hence reestablish a peace, albeit an often short one. Leaders are also subjected to miscalculations and biases. They prefer utilizing aggression to achieve cohesion as it is more effective in the short run and may help to consolidate their power.

A social cohesion that arises from the appeal to aggression is at times highly unsustainable. There is an element of coercion and propaganda that is involved in the process of creating this “artificial” social cohesion. When the appeal to aggression fails, and the entire artificial “scheme” is laid bare, social divisions may further appear. Before World War I, Germany was united with a strong national feeling of nationalism and militarism. It was exactly with united nationalistic and militaristic spirits that German troops became one of the most central forces in World War I. However, once Germany lost World War I, this social cohesion that relied on nationalism and militarism broke up immediately. Since German society lacked an internal force that could factor in the interests of most social groups in peacetime, the Weimar Republic born from the ashes of the war experienced severe social divisions. On the radical left, there were communists inspired by the Bolshevist revolution in Russia in 1917; on the radical right, there were groups who advocated for nationalistic causes, including the Freikorps, a group that was pivotal for the rise of the Nazis. Other divisions between the workers and businessmen deepened the Weimar Republic’s scars. The social cohesion due to the appeal to nationalism and militarism only led to long-term instability and social chaos.

In the modern world, as societies evolve into increasingly complex forms, achieving social cohesion often requires an appeal to some kind of aggression. Should “cohesion” still be viewed as an undoubtedly desirable social outcome? The essayist claims that for a society to possess adequate dynamics, some internal conflicts and strains between social groups must exist. In a perfect “bloc” where there is no dissent, it is difficult for people to propose innovations and improvements. The public and government usually sees underlying problems expressed in the form of heated social debates or protests. Social conflicts pressure the government to act, as in the case of the fight for women’s and African Americans’ rights in some Western democracies. The government should not aim to establish a society that is perfectly cohesive. Rather, it should focus on establishing methods that can detect social conflicts and then implement innovation or change. Unfortunately, an unreachable quest towards immaculate social cohesion so often leads to failure and a complete disintegration of society.

战争中的社会凝聚力与攻击力

社会凝聚力与攻击力是讨论战争时必不可少的概念。战争可以是一个国家实现更大凝聚力的手段，不同社会群体与身份的人在战争中为了一个共同的目标而必须合作。当一个社会宣称自己拥有某种引以为豪的集体身份，并因此说服其成员必须捍卫或为这一身份而战的时候，好战的心态通常会变得更为显著。然而，虽然社会凝聚力是战争的目的或因素之一，但战争本身却是一种社会侵略攻击行为，是社会之间激烈碰撞的事件。所谓 "攻击力"，其定义不应仅限于使用热武器或实际入侵他国。民族主义等思潮也可归类为 "社会攻击力"。本文将探讨社会凝聚力与攻击力之间的共存关系。

当人们凝聚成社会与文化时，人们自然会倾向于本群体而非外来者。大多数社会动物都有这种偏好。一群黑猩猩可能会共同组成一个群体，集体保护每个成员不受外来者的伤害。在狩猎和采集时代，人类也形成了拥有集体身份的小氏族或部落。这种集体身份作为一种象征，形成了一种向心的社会力量。然而，人类与其他动物的不同之处在于，前者能够运用语言创造出异常强大的 "虚构"。人类社会开始用更强大、更有说服力的文化叙事来 "放大 "这种将本群体的重要性放在其他群体之上的社会现象。

人类社会之间的战争显示了一个耐人寻味的悖论。战争既是一种社会凝聚力行为，也是一种社会攻击力行为。当一个领导者为了战争的目的而在一个社会中凝聚力量时，这个领导者就会利用这股力量对其他社会进行侵略，破坏他们的内在凝聚力。战争创造了一种社会凝聚力与攻击力并存的局面，即社会建设与破坏同时进行。异常强大的 "虚构 "使社会成员之间的联系更加紧密，从而导致对外人的战争。例如，极端民族主义是人类思维和语言所能想象出的最强大的 "虚构 "之一。民族主义能有效地将一个内部存在巨大差异的社会凝聚在一起。然而，这种 "虚构 "本身却是对其他民族和文化的好战。由于民族主义的爆发而引发的战争在历史上时有发生，民族主义显示出了它在凝聚社会的同时也能毁灭社会的能力。

凝聚力可能导致对其他社会的侵略攻击，但这种侵略攻击力可能进一步促进凝聚力，从而形成一个正反馈循环。一方面，战争胜利是国家集体力量的象征，领导人可以利用胜利来促进社会凝聚力的产生。反之亦然，战争中的失利是国家衰弱的象征，领导人也可以利用它来促进社会团结。德国在第一次世界大战中战败后签署了《凡尔赛和约》，大大削弱了其军事实力和经济表现。希特勒与极右翼政客不断提及德国的战败及条约的签署，将责任归咎于 "背后捅德国一刀 "的 "十一月罪犯"。通过有效的宣传，德国确实在希特勒和纳粹党的意识形态下变得更加团结。因此，战场上的失利可以成为政府增强社会凝聚力的工具。

上述论证提出了一个假设：为了增强社会凝聚力，需要某种形式的对外侵略或攻击力。如今，这一假设可能成立。导致不和谐的社会内部问题是破坏凝聚力的主要因素。简单地诉诸国内文化价值观来解决这些问题并不那么可行。以希特勒为例，如果他只宣传德国的传统文化，而不宣传德国的民粹主义或入侵其他国家重建德意志帝国的荣耀，他就难以如此迅速地上台。一个社会的多样性可能会导致内部产生难以调和的深刻分歧。诉诸对外侵略，酝酿社会攻击力，是一种将社会注意力从这些分歧上转移开的方式，从而重建内部秩序，尽管这种秩序往往是短暂的。领导人也会受到误判与偏见的影响，他们更倾向于利用对外攻击力来实现凝聚力，因为这在短期内更有效，而且可能有助于巩固他们的权力。

诉诸侵略或攻击力而产生的社会凝聚力有时极难持久。在创造这种 "人为的 "社会凝聚力的过程中，往往存在着胁迫与极端宣传的因素。当侵略诉求失败，整个人为的 "计划 "暴露无遗时，社会分裂就会进一步显现。第一次世界大战前，德国因强烈的民族主义和军国主义而团结起来。然而，一旦德国在一战中战败，这种依靠民族主义和军国主义的社会凝聚力立即瓦解。由于德国社会在和平时期缺乏一种能够兼顾大多数社会群体利益的内部力量，在战争废墟上诞生的魏玛共和国经历了严重的社会分裂。在激进的左翼，有受 1917 年俄国革命启发的共产主义者；在激进的右翼，有主张民族主义事业的团体，包括对纳粹崛起起到关键作用的自由军团。工商之间的其他分歧加深了魏玛共和国的分裂。诉诸民族主义和军国主义所带来的社会凝聚力只会导致长期的不稳定与社会混乱。

在现代社会，随着社会形态日益复杂，实现社会凝聚力往往需要诉诸某种对外攻击力。人们是否仍应将 "凝聚 "视为毫无疑问的理想社会结果？论文作者认为，一个社会要想拥有足够的活力，社会群体之间就必须存在一些内部冲突与矛盾。在一个没有异议的完美 "集团 "中，人们很难提出创新和改进的建议。公众和政府通常会在激烈的社会辩论或抗议中看到潜在的问题。社会冲突迫使政府采取行动，例如一些西方民主国家中，妇女与非洲裔美国人争取权利的斗争促使政府立法保护相关的权利。政府不应以建立一个具有完美凝聚力的社会为目标。相反，政府应将重点放在建立能够发现社会冲突的方法上，进而实施创新或变革。遗憾的是，对完美、永恒的社会凝聚力的遥不可及的追求往往会导致社会的失败与解体。