The best answer Ive found comes from Margaret Mead, who as I mentioned in a recent post is often disparaged

by genophilic researchers such as Wrangham. Mead proposed her theory of war in her 1940 essay Warfare Is Only an InventionNot a Biological Necessity. She dismissed the notion that war is the inevitable consequence of our basic, competitive, aggressive, warring human nature. This theory is contradicted, she noted, by the simple fact that not all societies wage war. War has never been observed among a Himalayan people called the Lepchas or among the Eskimos. In fact, neither of these groups, when questioned by early ethnographers, was even aware of the concept of war. In discussing the Eskimos Mead distinguished between individual and group violence. Eskimos were not a mild and meek people, she noted. They engaged in fights, theft of wives, murder, cannibalism, often provoked by fear of starvation. The personality necessary for war, the circumstances necessary to goad men to desperation are present, but there is no war. Mead next addressed the claim that war springs from the development of the state, the struggle for land and natural resources of class societies springing, not from the nature of man, but from the nature of history. Here Mead seems to invoke Marx as well as Malthus. Just as the biological theory is contradicted by simple societies that dont fight, Mead wrote, so the theory of sociological inevitability is contradicted by simple societies that do fight. Huntergatherers on the Andaman Islands represent an exceedingly low level of society, but they have been observed waging wars, in which tiny army met tiny army in open battle. , Warfare is only an Invention- Not a Biological Necessity by Margaret Mead I. The first viewa. Man needs an outlet for aggressive behavior in order to reach full human stature b. Assumed that violence is inherent within Man II. Second viewa. Warfare as associated with the state i. Struggles between classes, scarce resources creates warfare

ii. Nature of history, not nature of man III. Third View- Compromise of First and Second a. Man is aggressive and coupled with the rise of complex frustrating societies leads to war IV. Meads Point of Viewa. Definition of warfare- recognized conflict between two groups as groups, in which each group puts an army into the field to fight and kill, if possible, some of the members of the other group b. Meade views warfare as an invention, no different than marriage, writing, cooking food, trial by jury V. Mead Builds her Case- Cultural Examples a. Eskimosi. Turbulent and troublesome- fighting, murder and cannibalism all present ii. Environmental difficulties- faced with hunger, threat of extermination by other men iii. Mead- The personality necessary for war, the circumstances necessary to goad men to desperation are present, but there is no war

iv. Mead claims the idea of warfare is absent, and without the invention of warfare it is an option that is never even considered 1. Question: Did Eskimo strategic culture change once it was introduced to the invention of warfare? v. Possible counterarguments provided by Mead1. Eskimos have a low and undeveloped form of social organization 2. No land ownership, nomadic, no permanent possessions, no social classes 3. Eskimos may disprove the idea that man is inherently inclined to war, but it doesnt disprove the second viewpoint (state development of society increases the likeliness of war) b. Andamans- Pygmy peoples of Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal i. Low level of society- hunter and gatherers, no class stratification, simple houses ii. Know about warfare- maybe 15 pygmies in an army 1. Mead- A people can use only the forms it has

2. If war is the way to gain honor and respect, it is used. If instead artistic ability is more highly valued (Bush Negroes of Dutch Guiana), then they will carve instead VI. What should be done? a. Once an invention is observed and used it is difficult to let go of it

b. Other historical inventions- trial before jury (ordeal and trial by combat) c. Two conditions are necessary to find a better invention i. The disadvantages of the social invention must be realized ii. People must believe social invention is possible, followed by a new form of behavior to take the place of warfare

So what? Too often in discussions on warfare and violence there is the assumption that warfare is an inherent quality within Man; Man is simply violent and there is nothing to be done. Meads piece is invaluable because it challenges many peoples underlying assumptions on violence: what if Mans biology does not make him warlike? The true strength of Meads argument comes as Mead gives various cultural examples of places war is nonexistent or existent. She indicates that war may be an invention by Man and thereby provides her own solutions as to how it may be averted in the future. It would be nice to know what those replacement inventions could be

Warfare Is Only An Invention - Not a Biological Necessity." She dismissed the notion that war is the inevitable consequence of our "basic, competitive, aggressive, warring human nature." This theory is contradicted, she noted, by the fact that not all societies wage war. War has never been observed among a Himalayan people called the Lepchas or among the Eskimos. In fact, neither of these groups, when questioned by early ethnographers, was even aware of the concept of war. Mead next addressed the claim that war springs from "the struggle for land and natural resources" or from the development of complex, hierarchical societies. The social organization of Australian aborigines was very simple, she noted, and yet aborigine bands occasionally interrupted their wanderings across the desert to battle each other. Aborigines seemed to fight not for any of the usual reasons - the "the struggle for lands, struggle for power of one group over another, expansion of population" - but because war was part of their tradition. Warfare is "an invention," Mead concluded, like cooking, marriage, writing, burial of the dead, or trial by jury. Once a society becomes exposed to the "idea" of war, "they will sometimes go to war" under certain circumstances. Some people, Mead stated, such as the Pueblo Indians, fight reluctantly to defend themselves against aggressors; others, such as the Plains Indians, sally forth with enthusiasm, because they have elevated martial skills to the highest of manly virtues. Other scientists have pointed out that war, once invented, had a tendency to spread. The anthropologists Clayton and Carole Robarchek note that when one group in a region resorts to war, "others must either take it up or be destroyed." Societies in a violent region, the political scientist Azar Gat emphasizes, have a strong incentive to carry out pre-emptive attacks. "The fear of war breeds war." War, in other words, is a self-perpetuating meme. So how can we stop it? Contrary to the claims of her critics, Mead was far from a naive optimist. "If we know that it is not inevitable," she asked, "that it is due to historical accident that warfare is one of the ways in which we think of behaving, are we given any hope by that?" Not necessarily, because "once an invention is known and accepted, men do not easily relinquish it." Writing at the dawn of World War II, Mead had good reason to fear that militarism had become too deeply embedded in modern culture to eradicate. For an invention to become obsolete, "people must recognize the defects of the old invention, and someone must make a new one." She added that "to invent new forms of behavior which will make war obsolete, it is a first requirement to believe that such an invention is possible." Only on this point do I disagree with Mead. We already have inventions - notably the United Nations - for resolving conflicts peacefully. We just need to use them and

stop resorting to the worst invention of all time: war. John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings, which is part of the College of Arts & Letters. This column is adapted from an article in Scientific American.

Is Warfare in Nature of Man ? Response to the Margaret Meade`s `Warfare :An Invention Not a Biological Necessity War has always been a companion of man and a part of human existence . In the human history only few years have been absolutely peaceful when all peoples of the globe lived in friendship or at least without conflicts .Already the fist weapons , invented by man , could be used as weapons of war . So war can be called an attribute of humans same as mind , or ability to walk on two legs . A question whether war is caused by inborn or social determinants is , perhaps , as old as history . Once more it has been addressed by Margaret Meade in her Warfare : An Invention Not a Biological Necessity . She argues , that primitive indigenous societies have no idea of warfare and puts in the Eskimos as example . So she believes , that war is a matter of social existence and humans have invented war in the course history just as they invented a wheel . Under Meade , humans have no inborn tendency to war and there are no objective factors for a war to arise . War as she puts it , is a method invented to resolve conflicts , equal to other conflicts resolution methods such as courts and negotiations . This paper is to contest such position and prove , that war is in fact in the nature of man and it is inevitable for man , so it is impossible to speak of war as of invention . It will review some of Meade s arguments and evaluate them using academic papers , that disagree with Mead s position . The final thesis of the paper is that WAR IN HUMAN SOCIETIES IS PRECONDITIONED BY BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL DETERMINANTS . War her can not be compared to other methods of conflict resolution , because it is not , or at least not only a method to resolve conflicts . War is a phenomena which exists as itself and does not result from necessity to cope with certain misunderstanding . References to some fragments of Mead s paper shall be used in forming arguments against her theory .First and foremost it is necessary to determine the subject and find out what is war . Meade offers the following definition : organized conflict between two groups as groups , in which each group puts an army (even if the army is only fifteen Pygmies ) in the field to fight and kill , if possible , some of the members of the army of the other group .The key word here is conflict . War is usually defined as an organized form of conflicts between groups . Usually such groups are represented by societies or communities , most often by peoples and nations . In his brilliant War Before Civilization professor Lawrence H . Keeley has calculated that 90-95 of peoples communities were once engaged to war in this or that way and many of them fought constantly .Whether war has been invented or not , those numbers suggest , that war is more usual than peace for humans . And all those