16 ms·

Why Young Men Go to War

152 points by 67726e 12y ago

kijin 12y ago
> "The male response to war is an evolutionary adaptation that clearly works for our species." > "It's a left-wing version of the Christian right rejecting the theory of evolution," he says. "I mean the far left is also now rejecting the theory of evolution, which is just insane." The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to go to war doesn't mean that not wanting them to go to war is rejecting the theory of evolution. Evolution only shows us what is. (In the case of evo-psych, it's usually more like what may have been.) Meanwhile, it's our job to figure out what ought to be, and to defer to evolution on that point is nothing but intellectual laziness. Just because men choose to go to war doesn't mean that they are not also victims of a social order that glorifies war and gives them a warped idea of what it means to be male. These can both be true. Politics always takes advantage of pre-existing psychological propensities, but it also reinforces them and reshapes them to its advantage over many generations. In fact, most questions in the form of "did X cause Y or vice versa?" in politics and sociology can be answered as "duh, it's a feedback loop." Humans are subject to evolutionary pressures like any other life form. But one of the major differences between us and other animals is that we can recognize when our biology predisposes us to participate in evil, and counter it with our intelligence and strength of will. If evolution is taking us places where we don't want to go, we have the intelligence and technology to give the middle finger to evolution and shape our own destinies. That includes telling young men that they no longer need to kill other men in order to be acknowledged as upstanding members of our society. EDIT: An earlier version of this comment included the following rant, which was meant as an aside. But too many people seemed to think that it was my main point, so I'm moving it to the end. > "I don’t put any political agenda into my work. I think the right wing tends to idolize soldiers—you can't talk about them critically in any way. The left wing went from vilifying them in Vietnam to seeing them as victims of a military-industrial complex." He laughs over the phone. "Both views of soldiers are just absurd." It's funny how every time I hear someone say they have no political agenda, or that they are neutral, they almost always go on to devote the vast majority of their effort to criticizing the left wing. Maybe they secretly endorse the right wing, or maybe they think the right wing is not even worth criticizing. In either case, I find this fascinating.
- blfr 12y ago
  The rejection is not in not wanting men to go to war, or in favouring any particular social order, but in denying innate sex differences. According to Junger, these theories are strongly rooted in academia, and particularly the social sciences. “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.”
  - kijin 12y ago
    The very definition of "cultural" is in dispute between the right and left wings. The right wing typically operates on a narrower definition of "cultural", which goes hand-in-hand with their emphasis on individual responsibility. The left wing operates on a much broader definition, which goes hand-in-hand with their emphasis on collective responsibility. The social sciences tend to gravitate towards the latter because who doesn't like scope creep? (The right wing, on the other hand, seems to restrict the scope of the social sciences by slicing off a large chunk of it to the biology department.) I personally prefer the idea that something can be both biological and cultural. Pretty much any change that happened to us in the last few tens of thousands of years is both biological and cultural. Unfortunately this idea doesn't seem to be popular among those with stronger ideological commitments one way or another.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    > “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.” You would think that, no matter what your goals for the roles of gender (or sex) in society are, you would achieve these goals best by deliberately seeking out and investigating the properties of the underlying biology (and culture) with the utmost of academic and intellectual integrity, and only afterwards pushing for the policies you prefer to realize that world. Then you would have the advantage of using a position of Enlightenment, instead of Ignorance. Maybe in a few more generations when people look back at us the way we look back on the Victorian era.
niels_olson 12y ago
Having been in for 20 years now, I definitely agree with Junger, there is an innate element in young men trying to prove themselves. I think YCombinator appeals to a similar desire. I was performing an autopsy yesterday when the med student, the photographer, and the assistant started talking about guns. Their gusto was impressive. I felt no need to partake, but I think that was attributable, at least in part, to the fact that I have far more experience with weapons than any of them. But I acquired those experiences by satisfying the same desire they, to some extent, haven't. How do you break that chicken-egg problem? Alternate rites of passage, I would think. We need more of those. Is there a way to facilitate young men helping on start-ups earlier in their careers? Maybe before college?
- 67726e 12y ago
  Perhaps, but I really don't know if that would solve it either. I've done rather well thus far in my career, and continue to do so. Yet something feels missing, I don't know what, but I still have some recurring desire to enlist. That the whole software thing - and this is something I've been doing since a very young age - is not enough. That I should be doing something _more_.
  - saiya-jin 12y ago
    Try rock climbing/mountaineering. Being in the wall few hundred meters above the ground, your mind doesn't care if there is securing rope tying you to last quickdraw or not. You will be scared. You will be bathing in adrenaline. You will have to muster all your courage to move forward, to climb higher, to reach the top. Again and again. You'll get all the excitement army guys get in deployment, without screwing you up and becoming permanent mental cripple. In fact, it will make you a better person in many many ways. Guaranteed.
- bootload 12y ago
  "there is an innate element in young men trying to prove themselves. I think YCombinator appeals to a similar desire." being young, male and bottom of the totem-pole, a place where you are valued, relied on, protect and protect others why wouldn't a kid see this as a great option. Junger makes the point a number of times that as a 17-26y/o you are 6 times more likely to be killed than F or other M in different age groups. You are physically safer in the services. "Alternate rites of passage, I would think. We need more of those." Second that. What ROPs will youngsters choose without some element of danger though, to prove themselves? I'm convinced the danger element/risk seeking and success is bound tightly with ROP. That was my youth, though I'd been well trained in calculated risk.
AYBABTME 12y ago
I went in the army because at the time, I had big dreams and no clear path to them. I thought joining the army and doing a hard training would teach me something about achieving goals. I went to war because I was in the army and wondered what was the point of being in the army if you don't go to war. After doing my training, deploying in Afghanistan was the logical follow up. Why train so hard just to stay home. After the mission, I left the army. Partly because life back into garrison was boring as hell, partly because I felt I had lived all that was to live in the army and it was time for the next phase in my life. At least my original goal is sort of achieved. The army and all the things I lived at that time have equipped me with a confidence that has since helped me achieve milestones toward my life goals. In retrospect, the three decisions I enumerated were sound and being my young self again, I would do the same.
- yequalsx 12y ago
  Your second paragraph seems callous to me. Going to war for the sake of not wasting one's hard training, so to speak, is not moral. At least as I look at it. War is horrible and should be avoided at all costs. Sometimes it is justifiable and necessary. War should be a last resort. I wish society had alternate means of accomplishing your first paragraph without resort to the second.
  - bootload 12y ago
    "Your second paragraph seems callous to me. Going to war for the sake of not wasting one's hard training, so to speak, is not moral. At least as I look at it." Don't waste good.
  - rob_lh 12y ago
    It could be a callous viewpoint, but intent certainly matters. Just going to war to use your training is wholly callous. But take any of the recent genocides (Rwanda) or even ISIS - innocent people are unquestionably being killed. A soldier hears about this in the news, prepares every day to stop large forces like that, and instead is being asked to stand down. The media obviously plays a large role in shaping the perspective of horrors being done in the world, and I wouldn't argue war is the solution to all but a few problems. However, it is fairly straightforward and morally defensible that innocent people would be alive if other people were killed, and soldiers are prepared and ready to kill.
thomasjames 12y ago
They join the military for a variety of reasons, which may or may not have involved any feelings about any conflict at hand much less the media. The reason they go to war, however, is because of old men.
- coolsunglasses 12y ago
  >is because of old men. This is a typical modernist redaction of the will to violence that is common to young men. Past societies found ways to incorporate, normalize, redirect, celebrate that will - now we pathologize it. This is because we think we can mutate the human condition into something better.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    I don't think that's accurate, if we're discussing what actually motivates military deployments. There are exceptions, but in most wars the enlisted men themselves have not been the ones chomping at the bit to be sent to war. Rather, they were sent by older men serving in government, who did not themselves participate in the fighting, often over considerable dissent from the rank and file. In some cases, such as the U.S.'s participation in Vietnam, the wars were exceedingly unpopular among the young people actually sent to fight them.
    - coolsunglasses 12y ago
      >if we're discussing what actually motivates military deployments Sure, but don't try to weave a narrative around the idea that old men are the only ones eager for war. >Vietnam Poor timing, poorly managed, generally a waste of time, and therefore unpopular, yes.
    - 67726e 12y ago
      I don't think that's an entirely accurate depiction, given the article. I believe this is strictly in a modern context, and given that every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman is a volunteer, it misses the point. We can point at Cheney and Rumsfeld and Halliburton, but as the article states, this robs every service member of his or her agency. The reason every one of my friends from high school went to war is because they wanted to. Some wanted to serve their country, defend it's freedoms. Some wanted to spill blood. I very nearly went down that path myself, and some nights I wonder why I didn't. Sometimes I think it's not too late. Perhaps they were hypnotized and lack free will, maybe our NJROTC instructors indoctrinated them in a way that didn't have an affect on me. Why is it so pervasive? I'm young, make a killing writing software - something I've loved doing since a young age - and yet I can't help but think I should enlist (I simply lack the desire to complete my degree, so getting a commission is not a reality). I lust for the thought of besting other young men, I want to win, I want to be the one standing when the dust settles. Maybe it will sate that appetite, maybe it will give me some appreciation for the world that I lack. Who is to say? I don't feel the desire to go out and slay my fellow man, except in that one specific context. I shared the article because it rang very close the home, and I suspect it would for each and every one of my friends.
6t6t6 12y ago
Because young man don't have enough experience to understand the world and they cannot see that war is a good business made by rich men. Rich men who would never send their children to war, of course.
pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
how else can you mutiny?
wyager 12y ago
Well, 66% of the men in WW2 and 38% of those deployed to Vietnam went to war because the government forced them into the military under threat of imprisonment.
- pestaa 12y ago
  Well, you can't put millions behind bars.
  - expertentipp 12y ago
    But you can threaten an individual and everyone else will just mind their own business
  - Crito 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
- jacquesm 12y ago
  They should have stood their ground then.
jhallenworld 12y ago
Related question: is there an elite conspiracy to keep the USA at war? "There has been no decade in which the USA has not been at war." http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-been-since-1776/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-be...
- douche 12y ago
  Was there a Papist plot to keep Europe at war? Between the establishment of the papacy in Rome and the downfall of Napoleon, there had been no decade that Europe was not at war.
  - saiya-jin 12y ago
    you're probably american, so you're forgiven for this ignorance, but europe consists of +-50 sovereign states. Even now with EU (that doesn't contain many states), declaring a war is always matter of a given nation. Apples to ants...
    - throwaway344 12y ago
      The GP said between the establishment of the papacy to Napoleon, so he's speaking about events well before there were 50 sovereign states in Europe or an EU.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
20kleagues 12y ago
It is funny how the whole argument of masculinity is based on the American experience. A good control study would be somewhere where male rites of passage still exist, but men also still go to war (most conservative Asian societies for example).
- 67726e 12y ago
  Perhaps that is mostly because Junger's documentaries are all around American troops. I also highly recommend Restrepo, and the follow up, Korengal.
  - rob_lh 12y ago
    Yeah, the whole article, subject matter, and journey he explores is American. It's investigative at its best in that it explores why people make these decisions, and their decisions are strongly rooted in the ever-changing American society. Tangentially, I might be alone in this, but I consider great journalism to be like great science - it's able to discern the fundamental mechanics of an issue, but they're also notoriously terrible at applying those mechanics in a constructive way. As a result, when a journalist shares their perspective, I put a lot of weight on their analysis and little weight on their solutions.
    - bootload 12y ago
      "Yeah, the whole article, subject matter, and journey he explores is American." and yet it's universal. By training Junger is a anthropologist and if you read "War" you'll see the stories and themes he explains can be applied equally from Roman to the modern warrior. [0] http://www.amazon.com/WAR-Sebastian-Junger/dp/B0085RZFDC http://www.amazon.com/WAR-Sebastian-Junger/dp/B0085RZFDC
      - rob_lh 12y ago
        I think there's something to being a soldier and obviously masculinity that is universal. I would argue the American military experience - especially the modern American military - is fundamentally different from those that preceded it though. We don't claim tribute, we're not an honor society (at least not universally), we are building an empire, and ostensibly the wars of the country are the will of its citizens. Why Americans fight and American terms of victory are something different than any historical counterparts.
hilgartff 12y ago
Wars are planned by rich old men and fought by poor young men.
masswerk 12y ago
I think, going to war has much to do with the construction of the male gender. (We're talking seldom about the male side in the gender discourse, but we may be allowed to do so in this context. Please read the following cum grano salis.) In most cultures and societies males start life on the female side along their mothers. They are special, they are beloved, they are cared for – but they are also objects. When entering adolescence and adulthood, males are essentially losing their identity. They are no more special or unique, they are disposable (as in "women and children first") — and they have to accept this insult. They have to redefine themselves. Moreover, there are some preconditions in most cultures to becoming eligible as a subject. Some of these are related to inheritance, but it really goes a bit deeper than that. So, if they are not born rich or not the eldest son, they are asked to prove they were eligible for being a valued member of society. One way to do so is founding and supporting a family, but there are also preconditions here. To most, the final proof is showing their willingness and to prove being able to "burn themselves" (sometimes literally as in the trenches of war) for societies sake, to accept disposability. (Staying up late coding is yet another way of burning yourself, while not that drastic.) — This may be underpinned by an institution known in some cultures, the institutions of "sworn virgins", where women would enter the male side on the precondition of never returning the realms of female definitions. Ever thereafter they are part of the male side and accepted as males, but they also have to adhere to the socials contracts related to this definition. — Following to this, war is a major means of regaining identity and uniqueness – and becoming an eligible member of society. Small wonder that this often connected with pride. In my humble opinion, these patterns are also to be observed in the discussion of gender diversity in IT and other male dominated environments. Most of the objections and/or insults against females are rather pretexts or symptoms for a basic mistrust against members who do not adhere to the laws of disposability. (Problems often evaporate as the gender-definitions are crossed by "sworn virgin coders". But this isn't a solution to the problem at all.) In this context, the presence and acceptance of "real females" is a real threat to the construction of these environments. This isn't just a show. It's more about accepting that these are not protected realms of males joined in their attempt to become eligible to the honors of society, accepting that these environments are rather part of society themselves. (So, is coding war? Swallow your pride. Nobody should be forced to burn. Does this align with the structures of business as we know it? No. – Hint: Businesses are not only burning money.)
navait 12y ago
I dislike when people try to say they don't have a political agenda and are "neutral" observers. All media has a political dimension, and even if you aren't trying to beat people over the head with it, it would serve you well to acknowledge your leanings. Even Frederick Wiseman, the creator of the "Film Truth" school of documentaries happily acknowledges that he could never be unbiased. However it seems especially absurd to say he has no political agenda in his films, and in the next breath criticize two common political narratives.
pistle 12y ago
My opinion is probably as invalid as the author's or most anyone else's... but I can't let a couple things just sit. Just because some closely related primates display something we can interpret as war doesn't mean you can then assume there is some related, unavoidable instinct in homo sapiens. This is a poor argument that highlights the author's own bastardized interpretation of evolution. It's 2015 and those are chimps, in 2015. We are not chimps. This line of argument is very weak. Overall, his self-consciousness is barely containable and I'm having trouble being objective based on this. It sounds like intelligent people tell him he's wrong, but he's got the facts and the platform, so he's right. He can't strongly defend his ideas. He just likes to say everyone on the right and left is crazy, absurd, and/or wrong - obviously. But there's no follow-through. He knows. He was there, and he's telling you. He's read something about chimps and has an opinion about innate differences and their implications for society. This echoes personalities I've known who self-affirm from exactly the lack of external affirmation they seek. He seeks to define the boundaries of the discussion to suit his conclusion, then accuses others of not being able to have an honest discussion if they wouldn't agree to it since they argue that it is no space for an insightful discussion. Catch-a 22. Why is there no mention of the incentives for the 14%+ of women in the US military? That's a big enough number to do a study to see how many of them are trying to find "manhood" and compare it to the boys. They should have a question in the discharge process: "Did you find manhood during your service?" As an aside, I'd be interested to see an Ask HN: "How many people have you killed on the field of battle?"
- didibus 12y ago
  I agree, too much of this is hyper contextual. Given America, given young men, given the current socio-political context, given the current economy, etc. Why do those young men in that exact context decide to go. All of it seems mostly anecdotal interpretation. It's all as accurate as a grandmother's remedy for the cold.
- vacri 12y ago
  I'm glad you said this; I feel much the same way. There's all sorts of fallacies and pop culture theories throughout the article, though the author is a competant writer. One of the ones that really bothered me was the assertion that we should be respectful of the decisions that these young men make - despite the decisions of young adults rarely being taken seriously by society, regardless of the context. As for 'men are clearly wired for war', well, no they're not. As a demographic, they have to be trained hard to take a life (in person at least). Plenty of men can do that, but to suggest it's an innate wiring is just plain wrong.
DonGateley 12y ago
I've never needed to wonder why they go but I wonder deeply at why they charge into opposing fire.
- dmichulke 12y ago
  They only do it in films - to cultivate the heroism that will eventually lead them to charge into fire in practice. My best guess is it's an implementation of (social-)darwinist beliefs using cultural modelling (aka propaganda).
exar0815 12y ago
A very interesting Article. It is basically a further explanation of the theories of Gunnar Heinsohn about young men and War.
jusssi 12y ago
Participating a war means participating murder, torture and rape. If that's what it takes to be a man, I'll pass.
- thrownaway122 12y ago
  Murder yes that's sort of the point. Torture and rape are not required.
  - jusssi 12y ago
    Is there a documented case of a war that didn't result in any torture and rape?
    - thrownaway122 12y ago
      I doubt it. However, a man (or woman) could go to war to defend their country against an aggressor and do so effectively without torturing or raping anyone. However, they pretty much have to be prepared to kill people... Indeed many modern armies will investigate and eventually punish rapists and torturers whilst they giving medals for doing lots of killing... So 'murder' (or killing people) is a necessary condition for fighting a war. Rape and torture are neither necessary nor sufficient.
      - jusssi 12y ago
        Point accepted, I forgot to consider defending against outside invaders.
- rimantas 12y ago
  I sometimes entertain myself with the thought, that respect for military and disdain for prostitution should be reversed: the job where you are trained to kill effectively is glorified, the job where you give love (physical at least) is frowned upon.
nitwit005 12y ago
While I'm sure there is some truth to this, you do run into the problem that people don't want to admit the mundane reasons they do things sometimes. People join armies all the time because they need a job, but if you ask I'm sure many of them will tell you it's due to a more personal reason or nationalistic pride. That's not confined to the military of course. It seems almost rude to admit you do your job to get a pay check in many occupations.
scrrr 12y ago
I forgot who said it, but it went like this: "If people recognise the banality of war, there will be no more wars." Of course its not that simple, but we, I suppose especially us techie boys (us because I am one), think that an M1 Abrams tank, a F-15 airplane or a Sig Sauer rifle are, well, cool. We also think uniforms look good. And we dream of being heroes, especially when we are young. It is, of course, nonsense. All these machines, while technologically interesting, are basically just ugly tools to end lives of other humans. I suppose the glamour and pride only work as long as you believe it does. And so forth. Of course we need some weapons to defend ourselves, (one might argue our nuclear weapons are more than enough already), because who knows may come and attack, sure. But, yea, I think I just want to say, stop glorifying all this stuff. It gives me hope that one of the most popular computer games ever, Minecraft, is not a war game. :)
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  No we need weapons to defend others. The USA and UK are in part two of the richest nations in the world because they are physically isolated from threats, we grew, and continue to grow, rich of trade with the rest of the world. The West has the capacity to be heroic and for a brief period at the turn of the millennium was actually doing that. Kosovo and Sierra Leone were examples of successful military intervention followed up by nation building. Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention. The cause of peace allows Rwanda, Bosnia and a hundred other regional conflicts and genocide to claims the lives of millions and blight regions. We should not let Afghanistan and Iraq - and really the root problem is Iraq detract from the potential to affect positive change in the world. Finally it's worth saying that military capability gives humanitarian capability. The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief.
  - lentil_soup 12y ago
    "The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief." Then you can have the same efficient result with a non-military organization. What's so special about them having guns?
littletimmy 12y ago
It is frightening to see some people on this thread saying how they feel an urge to go to war because they "want to best other men" or "want to win". One way to counteract that could be actively practicing nullifying one's ego. Everyday, do one thing you really dislike, and stop doing one thing you really like and can do. People need to get over this ridiculous idea that all their desires must be sated.
- aswerty 12y ago
  It may be frightening but it is a very natural urge. Most people use sport and competition as an outlet for this. Personally I think the idea of trying to nullify our innate desires is a a lot scarier.
- 67726e 12y ago
  Lacking context, that sure does sound scary, but it isn't thirst for bloodsport alone, but the added desire to stop those intent on doing the same to others, especially innocents. The notion of sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.
  - littletimmy 12y ago
    A lot of that desire is basically buying into government propaganda, and that is even more problematic.
    - 67726e 12y ago
      I don't buy into government propaganda to a large degree. I'm fiercely critical of my government. But you clearly have your preconceived notions, so I'll leave you to it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Red_Tarsius 12y ago
I really enjoyed this article. imho The quest/test for manhood theme is one of the most dominant in our media, yet it is also kind of a taboo topic. Breaking Bad and Fight Club come to mind, where "castrated" protagonists fight back for their manhood... The Big Lebowski is, among many themes, about how different people prove their masculinity in different ways too. The whole damsel in distress genre... Also, movie/tv male comic relief is often portrayed as asexual or incredibly dorky.
morpheous 12y ago
Not politically correct, but essentially the truth about human nature. These two statements: 1. “War is so compelling that you can even get a room full of pacifists to pay money to be entertained by it.”" 2. "“My sister is a complete and utter feminist and pacifist,” he explains. “She doesn’t see the irony. She’s participating in this wonderful festival … that’s reenacting a battle. Nobody reenacts the Treaty of Ghent. [It] just isn’t that compelling.”" I find particularly profound. Any attempt to "window dress" our base nature, is just that - "Window dressing".
- Houshalter 12y ago
  I like watching disaster movies, yet do not support actual disasters.
  - john_b 12y ago
    Yet presumably you recognize them for the natural, if tragic, events that they are? One's support for or opposition to a force of nature is rather irrelevant.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      I'm saying that noting that people enjoy war movies and kids play games about war, doesn't mean they support war at all. Disaster movies are liked for the same reason as war movies. There is adrenaline and excitement and suspense. Thinking about how you would react in those situations and discussion with friends afterwards. No one wants to watch movies about boring everyday life.
- brc 12y ago
  The fact that violent quarrelling over resources seems to be a part of human nature seems lost on many people. I abhor war, but I'm not stupid enough to pretend it can be stopped with an army of unicorns farting rainbows. There are evil, greedy, nasty people out there who love to collect power just for the sake of collecting power. As colonel Jessop says: "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall" Reading history makes one acutely aware of the fact that orderly and humane societies need walls with men on them, to keep out those who don't wish it so. It's an unpalatable fact sometimes but that doesn't make it less true. So I respect the role that armed forces plays in my peaceful life, and while I will never support an unjustified invasion of a peaceful country, and I will always dislike war, I understand it's just part of who humans are.
IgorPartola 12y ago
This is pretty interesting. I have always thought of war as a political and economic phenomenon. Why try to get by with what you currently have when you can just take what your neighbor has? In some cases it's just cheaper to go beat someone up and get their lunch money than to earn your own. Junger is saying that war is really emergent behavior: young men are violent, so they are not just willing to go to war, but want to. It's certainly a new perspective to me. I suppose it makes some sense, though it feels to me that wars today are "not what they used to be". Take WWI and WWII. There was mass draft and the country was generally behind these. I am sure there was a great number of people who were unhappy to be drafted, but it seems that here people actually believed in the existential threat to the US. Then take the Vietnam war. Hugely unpopular. Look at this widely circulated picture of a lighter supposedly carried by a US soldier in Vietnam: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/10/article-2171404-14002534000005DC-124_306x423.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/10/article-2171404-14.... Now, today our military is volunteer-based and tiny compared to, say, what it was during WWII. Only a small percentage of the population serves, and are pre-selected. Is it then fair to say that all or even most young men want to go to war? It seems to me the answer is no. So the remaining question is whether war happens because of this emergent behavior or for other reasons. Basically, if we gave that small percentage of young men something better than war, would war stop? Or would we continue to wage war anyways?
- brc 12y ago
  The truth about Vietnam is that it is an unpopular war now, and towards the end of it, but when American involvement escalated in the beginning, support was pretty widespread. When thinking about war, it's better to exclude ww1 and ww2 from the sample as outliers. Of course they are the default war experience and the worst wars around, but they aren't typical. It's emergent behaviour - it has to be, as it is endemic with human history - I think you're no more likely to stop wars than you are to stop men looking at women's breasts. You can temper the behaviour with morals and ethics but it's ready to surface at the slightest slip of those things. It's not that young men want to go and start a war, but that some men crave power for powers sake, and it's easy to talk young men into getting involved once a war is in the offing. Ironically the best thing you can do to temper the behaviour is to let men gather wealth and power via peaceful means, such as commerce and trade. Where this happens they usually don't go into war with their neighbours. Having the majority of the worlds people not under the sway of religion would be a good start as well, but I'm of the belief that religion is hard wired in as well - remove an ancient text and god and people usually start tot replace it with some other belief system anyway. And it would be those belief systems clashes that would probably be the 'cause' of wars down the track.
garou 12y ago
And the American culture encourages these young men.
htormey 12y ago
A great documentary miniseries about this topic is War: A Commentary by Gwynne Dyer. In particular, the episode anyone's son will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28miniseries%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28miniseries%29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShDaJXK5qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShDaJXK5qo The episode covers what goes into training young people who enter the marine core. It features candid interviews with drill sergeants and the recruits themselves about their motivations. Well worth a watch. One of the main points the episode makes is that the job of being a soldier is ultimately about killing and dying, something that doesn’t come naturally to most people. The method for turning young men into soldiers is basic training. According to Dyer the secret of basic training is that its not really about teaching people, its about changing people. He claims that if you want to change people quickly and radically, you put them in a place where the only right way to think and behave is the way you want them to. You isolate them and then apply enormous physical and mental pressure. i.e basic training. Essentially he claims that basic training is all about brain washing. In the linked interview Sebastian Junger talks a lot about what it means to be a man. In particular: “In that kind of environment,” Junger continues. “If you dare talk about what it means to be a man, what you’re saying is men are different from women.” and “We aren’t asking, ‘What does it mean to be a human being?’” he says. “‘What’s it mean to be a man?’ Once you have that conversation you offend a lot of academics.” and “Men are clearly wired for [war],” he continues. “The male response to war is an evolutionary adaptation that clearly works for our species.” He doesn't quite claim that young mens desire to go to war has its roots purely in biology but he comes close. Personally I don't buy it. I think the concept of going to war as a rite of passage, particularly in the USA, is a social construct that’s largely the result of pervasive propaganda. The US military has an impressive marketing budget and aggressively recruits in schools right across the country. In the US, joining the military is not seen as a weird or embarrassing thing to do. In contrast, in my country (Ireland), joining the military is seen as a somewhat odd choice. What’s interesting about Dyer’s documentary is that it interviews recruits before they go through basic training. Many of them are poor with few job prospects and no sense of direction. The military gives them a sense of purpose and is socially acceptable thing to do.
moron4hire 12y ago
There is a saying, I can't remember from where, that old men send young men to war because the old men know what war is. I think I'm telling it wrong. The original I heard implied exploitation. The article is about young men choosing to go to war, in our all-volunteer military, but there wouldn't be a war to choose to enter if the mostly old, mostly white, mostly men in Congress didn't choose to have one.
porter 12y ago
The day after the Pearl Harbor attack my grandfather literally dropped everything he was doing and enlisted. Why? A visceral disgust that resulted in a sense of responsibility, or duty to take action. I know a lot of people who did the same after 9/11. War is dumb but a strong military is necessary, and I'm sure others here can explain the game theory behind it all.
yawz 12y ago
Timing of this article is interesting: Yesterday I watched the prescreening of "The Water Diviner". It is the story of an Australian father looking for his 3 sons killed during the Gallipoli Campaign in Turkey in 1915. As the father of a young son, his story resonated with me. Young men might have an excuse, but we, older men, should know better. Even when we didn't live through a war, we should be smart enough to understand its realities, its destructive power, its cruelty. We must stop wars before they start. None of it is worth a young man's life. We should teach our children how ugly weapons are and how valuable life is.
MrDosu 12y ago
Because there are army recruiters in american high schools... This for me was an unbelievable experience as a German, where if the army would be involved with any kind of school it would be a major scandal. But while in high school in america it was normal to be propagandaed on during your lunch hour.
- LanceH 12y ago
  Perhaps there is some historical reason for this.
  - akfanta 12y ago
    Both sides can learn something from history.
  - MrDosu 12y ago
    What history could a western country have to be the only one to recruit for the army in schools?
    - LanceH 12y ago
      A country formed through revolution which only fights its wars overseas.
bcg1 12y ago
I'd say this article is mostly spot on... the assertion that this is male biological urge is probably true. I believe at its core it is a desire to identify oneself as a member of a group of "manly" males and to prove one's worth and garner the respect of the already prestigious members of that group. This actually plays out in a lot of areas... fraternities, urban gangs, Github, etc. The dynamic of dividing humanity into "insiders" and "outsiders" follows closely as well. That dynamic is used to dehumanize all "outsiders" so that the goals of the group can be placed above morality and ethics. I believe these things are true because I'm a slow learner and have been suckered into this dynamic more than once... I tried a college fraternity for a short while (after being accepted, rejected it and dropped out of college), fell in with the wrong crowd and did drugs until my eyes rolled so far back into my head that I swear I was able to see my brain (stopped altogether after somewhat harrowing experiences) and joined the US Army to shoot artillery after 9/11 (went to Afghanistan and after I got back became a conscientious objector before being put out administratively with an "honorable" discharge). In the US, mass media is the fertilizer for mass murder... we teach young men that their number 1 goal is to be manly... and that women are just holes to fuck... and that you need to fuck as many holes as possible to be manly... and that explosions are cool... and that you need to create and survive explosions to be manly... and that streetfighting is cool... and that you need to be in a bunch of streetfights to be manly... I could keep going but I think you all get the point. If the culture changes men will stop going to war unless they are forced to... while the biological urges described above can be exploited to manipulate peoples' actions, those urges could be channeled to positive actions instead, and they are certainly not a free pass to commit the atrocities that most people just pretend don't exist. This is the area where I disagree with the author if the article... it actually does start and stop with those who pull the trigger
michaelochurch 12y ago
Here's a big part of it, and it ain't pretty. First, while gender may be "a social construct" it tends to recur in similar patterns across most societies. That's not to say that gender roles don't exaggerate the (actually very slight, in biological terms) differences and aren't a source of much injustice. However, there's a recurrent ranking that societies create: high-status men > high-status women > low-status women > low-status men. This is why conversations about gender and "patriarchy" fall flat, it's why feminists and MRAs both have a point, and it's not how things necessarily should be, but it's how things are in at least 90% of the societies that humans create. High-status men have harems of 10+ wives, in pre-monogamous societies, which means that some men will have zero. Since women have a rate-limiting reproductive resource (i.e. a womb) they have a good chance of getting at least some action. Low-status men don't, because they're the lowest of the low. No one likes them. And in a non-monogamous society, they're recognized as an actual danger. Of course, most young men will start out low in status. When's the last time, in popular culture, you saw a teenage male portrayed in a positive light? Most of the world fears and hates (most) teenage males. Eventually, the high-status men recognize the threat. They see men who are sex-starved and poor and deprived of opportunities for improvement, but young and fit while they are fading. So they encourage them to raid other tribes, escalate petty conflicts into moral causes, and even glorify the whole thing because it brings the male population down and makes a pre-monogamous society (which would otherwise be unstable and violent) stable for a while. This pattern is so ingrained in us that we've mythologized it and glorified something that is actually pretty awful. It's also where we get the need to "become a man". Because the gap between high-status (or, at least, realized and mature) men and low-status ones is so severe, we've had to create narratives around it. We've also had to elevate quixotry to a virtue. You see this not just in war but when the stakes are smaller. Take startups. What do we call those (oddly nostalgic, even if things were awful at the time) narratives about low-status men working 90-hour weeks, debugging others' awful written-to-deadline code, as 0.02%-owners of a startup whose benefits would accrue to high-status men (founders and investors)? "War stories." As a species, we've had to create this narrative to explain something that we do to each other for Darwinian, reproductive reasons. It continues even in a mostly monogamous and mostly peaceful society.
squozzer 12y ago
I think the central question - what is it to be a man (or human) - is a question worth trying to answer. I disagree with the author when he states the West doesn't really have an answer - sure, the answer isn't in the back of a textbook. One might even reasonably conclude there exists a multitude of answers - some of which probably conflict. Here are some examples - Pedestrian - acquire a skill, get a real job, marry, have kids. Clearly serving the profit motives of others - cultivate expensive tastes. Macho - pursue dangerous hobbies, enter a risky profession - which for some reason excludes cab drivers and convenience store clerks. If I had to offer a guess, I might say, "Assume responsibility for yourself."
sjg007 12y ago
Perhaps we should encourage young men to join the Peace Core. To find themselves by helping others.

152 points by 67726e 12y ago

kijin 12y ago

> "The male response to war is an evolutionary adaptation that clearly works for our species." > "It's a left-wing version of the Christian right rejecting the theory of evolution," he says. "I mean the far left is also now rejecting the theory of evolution, which is just insane." The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to go to war doesn't mean that not wanting them to go to war is rejecting the theory of evolution. Evolution only shows us what is. (In the case of evo-psych, it's usually more like what may have been.) Meanwhile, it's our job to figure out what ought to be, and to defer to evolution on that point is nothing but intellectual laziness. Just because men choose to go to war doesn't mean that they are not also victims of a social order that glorifies war and gives them a warped idea of what it means to be male. These can both be true. Politics always takes advantage of pre-existing psychological propensities, but it also reinforces them and reshapes them to its advantage over many generations. In fact, most questions in the form of "did X cause Y or vice versa?" in politics and sociology can be answered as "duh, it's a feedback loop." Humans are subject to evolutionary pressures like any other life form. But one of the major differences between us and other animals is that we can recognize when our biology predisposes us to participate in evil, and counter it with our intelligence and strength of will. If evolution is taking us places where we don't want to go, we have the intelligence and technology to give the middle finger to evolution and shape our own destinies. That includes telling young men that they no longer need to kill other men in order to be acknowledged as upstanding members of our society. EDIT: An earlier version of this comment included the following rant, which was meant as an aside. But too many people seemed to think that it was my main point, so I'm moving it to the end. > "I don’t put any political agenda into my work. I think the right wing tends to idolize soldiers—you can't talk about them critically in any way. The left wing went from vilifying them in Vietnam to seeing them as victims of a military-industrial complex." He laughs over the phone. "Both views of soldiers are just absurd." It's funny how every time I hear someone say they have no political agenda, or that they are neutral, they almost always go on to devote the vast majority of their effort to criticizing the left wing. Maybe they secretly endorse the right wing, or maybe they think the right wing is not even worth criticizing. In either case, I find this fascinating.

blfr 12y ago
The rejection is not in not wanting men to go to war, or in favouring any particular social order, but in denying innate sex differences. According to Junger, these theories are strongly rooted in academia, and particularly the social sciences. “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.”
- kijin 12y ago
  The very definition of "cultural" is in dispute between the right and left wings. The right wing typically operates on a narrower definition of "cultural", which goes hand-in-hand with their emphasis on individual responsibility. The left wing operates on a much broader definition, which goes hand-in-hand with their emphasis on collective responsibility. The social sciences tend to gravitate towards the latter because who doesn't like scope creep? (The right wing, on the other hand, seems to restrict the scope of the social sciences by slicing off a large chunk of it to the biology department.) I personally prefer the idea that something can be both biological and cultural. Pretty much any change that happened to us in the last few tens of thousands of years is both biological and cultural. Unfortunately this idea doesn't seem to be popular among those with stronger ideological commitments one way or another.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  > “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.” You would think that, no matter what your goals for the roles of gender (or sex) in society are, you would achieve these goals best by deliberately seeking out and investigating the properties of the underlying biology (and culture) with the utmost of academic and intellectual integrity, and only afterwards pushing for the policies you prefer to realize that world. Then you would have the advantage of using a position of Enlightenment, instead of Ignorance. Maybe in a few more generations when people look back at us the way we look back on the Victorian era.

niels_olson 12y ago

Having been in for 20 years now, I definitely agree with Junger, there is an innate element in young men trying to prove themselves. I think YCombinator appeals to a similar desire. I was performing an autopsy yesterday when the med student, the photographer, and the assistant started talking about guns. Their gusto was impressive. I felt no need to partake, but I think that was attributable, at least in part, to the fact that I have far more experience with weapons than any of them. But I acquired those experiences by satisfying the same desire they, to some extent, haven't. How do you break that chicken-egg problem? Alternate rites of passage, I would think. We need more of those. Is there a way to facilitate young men helping on start-ups earlier in their careers? Maybe before college?

67726e 12y ago
Perhaps, but I really don't know if that would solve it either. I've done rather well thus far in my career, and continue to do so. Yet something feels missing, I don't know what, but I still have some recurring desire to enlist. That the whole software thing - and this is something I've been doing since a very young age - is not enough. That I should be doing something _more_.
- saiya-jin 12y ago
  Try rock climbing/mountaineering. Being in the wall few hundred meters above the ground, your mind doesn't care if there is securing rope tying you to last quickdraw or not. You will be scared. You will be bathing in adrenaline. You will have to muster all your courage to move forward, to climb higher, to reach the top. Again and again. You'll get all the excitement army guys get in deployment, without screwing you up and becoming permanent mental cripple. In fact, it will make you a better person in many many ways. Guaranteed.
bootload 12y ago
"there is an innate element in young men trying to prove themselves. I think YCombinator appeals to a similar desire." being young, male and bottom of the totem-pole, a place where you are valued, relied on, protect and protect others why wouldn't a kid see this as a great option. Junger makes the point a number of times that as a 17-26y/o you are 6 times more likely to be killed than F or other M in different age groups. You are physically safer in the services. "Alternate rites of passage, I would think. We need more of those." Second that. What ROPs will youngsters choose without some element of danger though, to prove themselves? I'm convinced the danger element/risk seeking and success is bound tightly with ROP. That was my youth, though I'd been well trained in calculated risk.

AYBABTME 12y ago

I went in the army because at the time, I had big dreams and no clear path to them. I thought joining the army and doing a hard training would teach me something about achieving goals. I went to war because I was in the army and wondered what was the point of being in the army if you don't go to war. After doing my training, deploying in Afghanistan was the logical follow up. Why train so hard just to stay home. After the mission, I left the army. Partly because life back into garrison was boring as hell, partly because I felt I had lived all that was to live in the army and it was time for the next phase in my life. At least my original goal is sort of achieved. The army and all the things I lived at that time have equipped me with a confidence that has since helped me achieve milestones toward my life goals. In retrospect, the three decisions I enumerated were sound and being my young self again, I would do the same.

yequalsx 12y ago
Your second paragraph seems callous to me. Going to war for the sake of not wasting one's hard training, so to speak, is not moral. At least as I look at it. War is horrible and should be avoided at all costs. Sometimes it is justifiable and necessary. War should be a last resort. I wish society had alternate means of accomplishing your first paragraph without resort to the second.
- bootload 12y ago
  "Your second paragraph seems callous to me. Going to war for the sake of not wasting one's hard training, so to speak, is not moral. At least as I look at it." Don't waste good.
- rob_lh 12y ago
  It could be a callous viewpoint, but intent certainly matters. Just going to war to use your training is wholly callous. But take any of the recent genocides (Rwanda) or even ISIS - innocent people are unquestionably being killed. A soldier hears about this in the news, prepares every day to stop large forces like that, and instead is being asked to stand down. The media obviously plays a large role in shaping the perspective of horrors being done in the world, and I wouldn't argue war is the solution to all but a few problems. However, it is fairly straightforward and morally defensible that innocent people would be alive if other people were killed, and soldiers are prepared and ready to kill.

thomasjames 12y ago

They join the military for a variety of reasons, which may or may not have involved any feelings about any conflict at hand much less the media. The reason they go to war, however, is because of old men.

coolsunglasses 12y ago
>is because of old men. This is a typical modernist redaction of the will to violence that is common to young men. Past societies found ways to incorporate, normalize, redirect, celebrate that will - now we pathologize it. This is because we think we can mutate the human condition into something better.
- _delirium 12y ago
  I don't think that's accurate, if we're discussing what actually motivates military deployments. There are exceptions, but in most wars the enlisted men themselves have not been the ones chomping at the bit to be sent to war. Rather, they were sent by older men serving in government, who did not themselves participate in the fighting, often over considerable dissent from the rank and file. In some cases, such as the U.S.'s participation in Vietnam, the wars were exceedingly unpopular among the young people actually sent to fight them.
  - coolsunglasses 12y ago
    >if we're discussing what actually motivates military deployments Sure, but don't try to weave a narrative around the idea that old men are the only ones eager for war. >Vietnam Poor timing, poorly managed, generally a waste of time, and therefore unpopular, yes.
  - 67726e 12y ago
    I don't think that's an entirely accurate depiction, given the article. I believe this is strictly in a modern context, and given that every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman is a volunteer, it misses the point. We can point at Cheney and Rumsfeld and Halliburton, but as the article states, this robs every service member of his or her agency. The reason every one of my friends from high school went to war is because they wanted to. Some wanted to serve their country, defend it's freedoms. Some wanted to spill blood. I very nearly went down that path myself, and some nights I wonder why I didn't. Sometimes I think it's not too late. Perhaps they were hypnotized and lack free will, maybe our NJROTC instructors indoctrinated them in a way that didn't have an affect on me. Why is it so pervasive? I'm young, make a killing writing software - something I've loved doing since a young age - and yet I can't help but think I should enlist (I simply lack the desire to complete my degree, so getting a commission is not a reality). I lust for the thought of besting other young men, I want to win, I want to be the one standing when the dust settles. Maybe it will sate that appetite, maybe it will give me some appreciation for the world that I lack. Who is to say? I don't feel the desire to go out and slay my fellow man, except in that one specific context. I shared the article because it rang very close the home, and I suspect it would for each and every one of my friends.

6t6t6 12y ago

Because young man don't have enough experience to understand the world and they cannot see that war is a good business made by rich men. Rich men who would never send their children to war, of course.

pg_is_a_butt 12y ago

how else can you mutiny?

wyager 12y ago

Well, 66% of the men in WW2 and 38% of those deployed to Vietnam went to war because the government forced them into the military under threat of imprisonment.

pestaa 12y ago
Well, you can't put millions behind bars.
- expertentipp 12y ago
  But you can threaten an individual and everyone else will just mind their own business
- Crito 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
jacquesm 12y ago
They should have stood their ground then.

jhallenworld 12y ago

Related question: is there an elite conspiracy to keep the USA at war? "There has been no decade in which the USA has not been at war." http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-been-since-1776/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-be...

douche 12y ago
Was there a Papist plot to keep Europe at war? Between the establishment of the papacy in Rome and the downfall of Napoleon, there had been no decade that Europe was not at war.
- saiya-jin 12y ago
  you're probably american, so you're forgiven for this ignorance, but europe consists of +-50 sovereign states. Even now with EU (that doesn't contain many states), declaring a war is always matter of a given nation. Apples to ants...
  - throwaway344 12y ago
    The GP said between the establishment of the papacy to Napoleon, so he's speaking about events well before there were 50 sovereign states in Europe or an EU.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

20kleagues 12y ago

It is funny how the whole argument of masculinity is based on the American experience. A good control study would be somewhere where male rites of passage still exist, but men also still go to war (most conservative Asian societies for example).

67726e 12y ago
Perhaps that is mostly because Junger's documentaries are all around American troops. I also highly recommend Restrepo, and the follow up, Korengal.
- rob_lh 12y ago
  Yeah, the whole article, subject matter, and journey he explores is American. It's investigative at its best in that it explores why people make these decisions, and their decisions are strongly rooted in the ever-changing American society. Tangentially, I might be alone in this, but I consider great journalism to be like great science - it's able to discern the fundamental mechanics of an issue, but they're also notoriously terrible at applying those mechanics in a constructive way. As a result, when a journalist shares their perspective, I put a lot of weight on their analysis and little weight on their solutions.
  - bootload 12y ago
    "Yeah, the whole article, subject matter, and journey he explores is American." and yet it's universal. By training Junger is a anthropologist and if you read "War" you'll see the stories and themes he explains can be applied equally from Roman to the modern warrior. [0] http://www.amazon.com/WAR-Sebastian-Junger/dp/B0085RZFDC http://www.amazon.com/WAR-Sebastian-Junger/dp/B0085RZFDC
    - rob_lh 12y ago
      I think there's something to being a soldier and obviously masculinity that is universal. I would argue the American military experience - especially the modern American military - is fundamentally different from those that preceded it though. We don't claim tribute, we're not an honor society (at least not universally), we are building an empire, and ostensibly the wars of the country are the will of its citizens. Why Americans fight and American terms of victory are something different than any historical counterparts.

hilgartff 12y ago

Wars are planned by rich old men and fought by poor young men.

masswerk 12y ago

I think, going to war has much to do with the construction of the male gender. (We're talking seldom about the male side in the gender discourse, but we may be allowed to do so in this context. Please read the following cum grano salis.) In most cultures and societies males start life on the female side along their mothers. They are special, they are beloved, they are cared for – but they are also objects. When entering adolescence and adulthood, males are essentially losing their identity. They are no more special or unique, they are disposable (as in "women and children first") — and they have to accept this insult. They have to redefine themselves. Moreover, there are some preconditions in most cultures to becoming eligible as a subject. Some of these are related to inheritance, but it really goes a bit deeper than that. So, if they are not born rich or not the eldest son, they are asked to prove they were eligible for being a valued member of society. One way to do so is founding and supporting a family, but there are also preconditions here. To most, the final proof is showing their willingness and to prove being able to "burn themselves" (sometimes literally as in the trenches of war) for societies sake, to accept disposability. (Staying up late coding is yet another way of burning yourself, while not that drastic.) — This may be underpinned by an institution known in some cultures, the institutions of "sworn virgins", where women would enter the male side on the precondition of never returning the realms of female definitions. Ever thereafter they are part of the male side and accepted as males, but they also have to adhere to the socials contracts related to this definition. — Following to this, war is a major means of regaining identity and uniqueness – and becoming an eligible member of society. Small wonder that this often connected with pride. In my humble opinion, these patterns are also to be observed in the discussion of gender diversity in IT and other male dominated environments. Most of the objections and/or insults against females are rather pretexts or symptoms for a basic mistrust against members who do not adhere to the laws of disposability. (Problems often evaporate as the gender-definitions are crossed by "sworn virgin coders". But this isn't a solution to the problem at all.) In this context, the presence and acceptance of "real females" is a real threat to the construction of these environments. This isn't just a show. It's more about accepting that these are not protected realms of males joined in their attempt to become eligible to the honors of society, accepting that these environments are rather part of society themselves. (So, is coding war? Swallow your pride. Nobody should be forced to burn. Does this align with the structures of business as we know it? No. – Hint: Businesses are not only burning money.)

navait 12y ago

I dislike when people try to say they don't have a political agenda and are "neutral" observers. All media has a political dimension, and even if you aren't trying to beat people over the head with it, it would serve you well to acknowledge your leanings. Even Frederick Wiseman, the creator of the "Film Truth" school of documentaries happily acknowledges that he could never be unbiased. However it seems especially absurd to say he has no political agenda in his films, and in the next breath criticize two common political narratives.

pistle 12y ago

My opinion is probably as invalid as the author's or most anyone else's... but I can't let a couple things just sit. Just because some closely related primates display something we can interpret as war doesn't mean you can then assume there is some related, unavoidable instinct in homo sapiens. This is a poor argument that highlights the author's own bastardized interpretation of evolution. It's 2015 and those are chimps, in 2015. We are not chimps. This line of argument is very weak. Overall, his self-consciousness is barely containable and I'm having trouble being objective based on this. It sounds like intelligent people tell him he's wrong, but he's got the facts and the platform, so he's right. He can't strongly defend his ideas. He just likes to say everyone on the right and left is crazy, absurd, and/or wrong - obviously. But there's no follow-through. He knows. He was there, and he's telling you. He's read something about chimps and has an opinion about innate differences and their implications for society. This echoes personalities I've known who self-affirm from exactly the lack of external affirmation they seek. He seeks to define the boundaries of the discussion to suit his conclusion, then accuses others of not being able to have an honest discussion if they wouldn't agree to it since they argue that it is no space for an insightful discussion. Catch-a 22. Why is there no mention of the incentives for the 14%+ of women in the US military? That's a big enough number to do a study to see how many of them are trying to find "manhood" and compare it to the boys. They should have a question in the discharge process: "Did you find manhood during your service?" As an aside, I'd be interested to see an Ask HN: "How many people have you killed on the field of battle?"

didibus 12y ago
I agree, too much of this is hyper contextual. Given America, given young men, given the current socio-political context, given the current economy, etc. Why do those young men in that exact context decide to go. All of it seems mostly anecdotal interpretation. It's all as accurate as a grandmother's remedy for the cold.
vacri 12y ago
I'm glad you said this; I feel much the same way. There's all sorts of fallacies and pop culture theories throughout the article, though the author is a competant writer. One of the ones that really bothered me was the assertion that we should be respectful of the decisions that these young men make - despite the decisions of young adults rarely being taken seriously by society, regardless of the context. As for 'men are clearly wired for war', well, no they're not. As a demographic, they have to be trained hard to take a life (in person at least). Plenty of men can do that, but to suggest it's an innate wiring is just plain wrong.

DonGateley 12y ago

I've never needed to wonder why they go but I wonder deeply at why they charge into opposing fire.

dmichulke 12y ago
They only do it in films - to cultivate the heroism that will eventually lead them to charge into fire in practice. My best guess is it's an implementation of (social-)darwinist beliefs using cultural modelling (aka propaganda).

exar0815 12y ago

A very interesting Article. It is basically a further explanation of the theories of Gunnar Heinsohn about young men and War.

jusssi 12y ago

Participating a war means participating murder, torture and rape. If that's what it takes to be a man, I'll pass.

thrownaway122 12y ago
Murder yes that's sort of the point. Torture and rape are not required.
- jusssi 12y ago
  Is there a documented case of a war that didn't result in any torture and rape?
  - thrownaway122 12y ago
    I doubt it. However, a man (or woman) could go to war to defend their country against an aggressor and do so effectively without torturing or raping anyone. However, they pretty much have to be prepared to kill people... Indeed many modern armies will investigate and eventually punish rapists and torturers whilst they giving medals for doing lots of killing... So 'murder' (or killing people) is a necessary condition for fighting a war. Rape and torture are neither necessary nor sufficient.
    - jusssi 12y ago
      Point accepted, I forgot to consider defending against outside invaders.
rimantas 12y ago
I sometimes entertain myself with the thought, that respect for military and disdain for prostitution should be reversed: the job where you are trained to kill effectively is glorified, the job where you give love (physical at least) is frowned upon.

nitwit005 12y ago

While I'm sure there is some truth to this, you do run into the problem that people don't want to admit the mundane reasons they do things sometimes. People join armies all the time because they need a job, but if you ask I'm sure many of them will tell you it's due to a more personal reason or nationalistic pride. That's not confined to the military of course. It seems almost rude to admit you do your job to get a pay check in many occupations.

scrrr 12y ago

I forgot who said it, but it went like this: "If people recognise the banality of war, there will be no more wars." Of course its not that simple, but we, I suppose especially us techie boys (us because I am one), think that an M1 Abrams tank, a F-15 airplane or a Sig Sauer rifle are, well, cool. We also think uniforms look good. And we dream of being heroes, especially when we are young. It is, of course, nonsense. All these machines, while technologically interesting, are basically just ugly tools to end lives of other humans. I suppose the glamour and pride only work as long as you believe it does. And so forth. Of course we need some weapons to defend ourselves, (one might argue our nuclear weapons are more than enough already), because who knows may come and attack, sure. But, yea, I think I just want to say, stop glorifying all this stuff. It gives me hope that one of the most popular computer games ever, Minecraft, is not a war game. :)

cmdkeen 12y ago
No we need weapons to defend others. The USA and UK are in part two of the richest nations in the world because they are physically isolated from threats, we grew, and continue to grow, rich of trade with the rest of the world. The West has the capacity to be heroic and for a brief period at the turn of the millennium was actually doing that. Kosovo and Sierra Leone were examples of successful military intervention followed up by nation building. Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention. The cause of peace allows Rwanda, Bosnia and a hundred other regional conflicts and genocide to claims the lives of millions and blight regions. We should not let Afghanistan and Iraq - and really the root problem is Iraq detract from the potential to affect positive change in the world. Finally it's worth saying that military capability gives humanitarian capability. The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief.
- lentil_soup 12y ago
  "The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief." Then you can have the same efficient result with a non-military organization. What's so special about them having guns?

littletimmy 12y ago

It is frightening to see some people on this thread saying how they feel an urge to go to war because they "want to best other men" or "want to win". One way to counteract that could be actively practicing nullifying one's ego. Everyday, do one thing you really dislike, and stop doing one thing you really like and can do. People need to get over this ridiculous idea that all their desires must be sated.

aswerty 12y ago
It may be frightening but it is a very natural urge. Most people use sport and competition as an outlet for this. Personally I think the idea of trying to nullify our innate desires is a a lot scarier.
67726e 12y ago
Lacking context, that sure does sound scary, but it isn't thirst for bloodsport alone, but the added desire to stop those intent on doing the same to others, especially innocents. The notion of sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.
- littletimmy 12y ago
  A lot of that desire is basically buying into government propaganda, and that is even more problematic.
  - 67726e 12y ago
    I don't buy into government propaganda to a large degree. I'm fiercely critical of my government. But you clearly have your preconceived notions, so I'll leave you to it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Red_Tarsius 12y ago

I really enjoyed this article. imho The quest/test for manhood theme is one of the most dominant in our media, yet it is also kind of a taboo topic. Breaking Bad and Fight Club come to mind, where "castrated" protagonists fight back for their manhood... The Big Lebowski is, among many themes, about how different people prove their masculinity in different ways too. The whole damsel in distress genre... Also, movie/tv male comic relief is often portrayed as asexual or incredibly dorky.

morpheous 12y ago

Not politically correct, but essentially the truth about human nature. These two statements: 1. “War is so compelling that you can even get a room full of pacifists to pay money to be entertained by it.”" 2. "“My sister is a complete and utter feminist and pacifist,” he explains. “She doesn’t see the irony. She’s participating in this wonderful festival … that’s reenacting a battle. Nobody reenacts the Treaty of Ghent. [It] just isn’t that compelling.”" I find particularly profound. Any attempt to "window dress" our base nature, is just that - "Window dressing".

Houshalter 12y ago
I like watching disaster movies, yet do not support actual disasters.
- john_b 12y ago
  Yet presumably you recognize them for the natural, if tragic, events that they are? One's support for or opposition to a force of nature is rather irrelevant.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    I'm saying that noting that people enjoy war movies and kids play games about war, doesn't mean they support war at all. Disaster movies are liked for the same reason as war movies. There is adrenaline and excitement and suspense. Thinking about how you would react in those situations and discussion with friends afterwards. No one wants to watch movies about boring everyday life.
brc 12y ago
The fact that violent quarrelling over resources seems to be a part of human nature seems lost on many people. I abhor war, but I'm not stupid enough to pretend it can be stopped with an army of unicorns farting rainbows. There are evil, greedy, nasty people out there who love to collect power just for the sake of collecting power. As colonel Jessop says: "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall" Reading history makes one acutely aware of the fact that orderly and humane societies need walls with men on them, to keep out those who don't wish it so. It's an unpalatable fact sometimes but that doesn't make it less true. So I respect the role that armed forces plays in my peaceful life, and while I will never support an unjustified invasion of a peaceful country, and I will always dislike war, I understand it's just part of who humans are.

IgorPartola 12y ago

This is pretty interesting. I have always thought of war as a political and economic phenomenon. Why try to get by with what you currently have when you can just take what your neighbor has? In some cases it's just cheaper to go beat someone up and get their lunch money than to earn your own. Junger is saying that war is really emergent behavior: young men are violent, so they are not just willing to go to war, but want to. It's certainly a new perspective to me. I suppose it makes some sense, though it feels to me that wars today are "not what they used to be". Take WWI and WWII. There was mass draft and the country was generally behind these. I am sure there was a great number of people who were unhappy to be drafted, but it seems that here people actually believed in the existential threat to the US. Then take the Vietnam war. Hugely unpopular. Look at this widely circulated picture of a lighter supposedly carried by a US soldier in Vietnam: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/10/article-2171404-14002534000005DC-124_306x423.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/10/article-2171404-14.... Now, today our military is volunteer-based and tiny compared to, say, what it was during WWII. Only a small percentage of the population serves, and are pre-selected. Is it then fair to say that all or even most young men want to go to war? It seems to me the answer is no. So the remaining question is whether war happens because of this emergent behavior or for other reasons. Basically, if we gave that small percentage of young men something better than war, would war stop? Or would we continue to wage war anyways?

brc 12y ago
The truth about Vietnam is that it is an unpopular war now, and towards the end of it, but when American involvement escalated in the beginning, support was pretty widespread. When thinking about war, it's better to exclude ww1 and ww2 from the sample as outliers. Of course they are the default war experience and the worst wars around, but they aren't typical. It's emergent behaviour - it has to be, as it is endemic with human history - I think you're no more likely to stop wars than you are to stop men looking at women's breasts. You can temper the behaviour with morals and ethics but it's ready to surface at the slightest slip of those things. It's not that young men want to go and start a war, but that some men crave power for powers sake, and it's easy to talk young men into getting involved once a war is in the offing. Ironically the best thing you can do to temper the behaviour is to let men gather wealth and power via peaceful means, such as commerce and trade. Where this happens they usually don't go into war with their neighbours. Having the majority of the worlds people not under the sway of religion would be a good start as well, but I'm of the belief that religion is hard wired in as well - remove an ancient text and god and people usually start tot replace it with some other belief system anyway. And it would be those belief systems clashes that would probably be the 'cause' of wars down the track.

garou 12y ago

And the American culture encourages these young men.

htormey 12y ago

A great documentary miniseries about this topic is War: A Commentary by Gwynne Dyer. In particular, the episode anyone's son will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28miniseries%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28miniseries%29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShDaJXK5qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShDaJXK5qo The episode covers what goes into training young people who enter the marine core. It features candid interviews with drill sergeants and the recruits themselves about their motivations. Well worth a watch. One of the main points the episode makes is that the job of being a soldier is ultimately about killing and dying, something that doesn’t come naturally to most people. The method for turning young men into soldiers is basic training. According to Dyer the secret of basic training is that its not really about teaching people, its about changing people. He claims that if you want to change people quickly and radically, you put them in a place where the only right way to think and behave is the way you want them to. You isolate them and then apply enormous physical and mental pressure. i.e basic training. Essentially he claims that basic training is all about brain washing. In the linked interview Sebastian Junger talks a lot about what it means to be a man. In particular: “In that kind of environment,” Junger continues. “If you dare talk about what it means to be a man, what you’re saying is men are different from women.” and “We aren’t asking, ‘What does it mean to be a human being?’” he says. “‘What’s it mean to be a man?’ Once you have that conversation you offend a lot of academics.” and “Men are clearly wired for [war],” he continues. “The male response to war is an evolutionary adaptation that clearly works for our species.” He doesn't quite claim that young mens desire to go to war has its roots purely in biology but he comes close. Personally I don't buy it. I think the concept of going to war as a rite of passage, particularly in the USA, is a social construct that’s largely the result of pervasive propaganda. The US military has an impressive marketing budget and aggressively recruits in schools right across the country. In the US, joining the military is not seen as a weird or embarrassing thing to do. In contrast, in my country (Ireland), joining the military is seen as a somewhat odd choice. What’s interesting about Dyer’s documentary is that it interviews recruits before they go through basic training. Many of them are poor with few job prospects and no sense of direction. The military gives them a sense of purpose and is socially acceptable thing to do.

moron4hire 12y ago

There is a saying, I can't remember from where, that old men send young men to war because the old men know what war is. I think I'm telling it wrong. The original I heard implied exploitation. The article is about young men choosing to go to war, in our all-volunteer military, but there wouldn't be a war to choose to enter if the mostly old, mostly white, mostly men in Congress didn't choose to have one.

porter 12y ago

The day after the Pearl Harbor attack my grandfather literally dropped everything he was doing and enlisted. Why? A visceral disgust that resulted in a sense of responsibility, or duty to take action. I know a lot of people who did the same after 9/11. War is dumb but a strong military is necessary, and I'm sure others here can explain the game theory behind it all.

yawz 12y ago

Timing of this article is interesting: Yesterday I watched the prescreening of "The Water Diviner". It is the story of an Australian father looking for his 3 sons killed during the Gallipoli Campaign in Turkey in 1915. As the father of a young son, his story resonated with me. Young men might have an excuse, but we, older men, should know better. Even when we didn't live through a war, we should be smart enough to understand its realities, its destructive power, its cruelty. We must stop wars before they start. None of it is worth a young man's life. We should teach our children how ugly weapons are and how valuable life is.

MrDosu 12y ago

Because there are army recruiters in american high schools... This for me was an unbelievable experience as a German, where if the army would be involved with any kind of school it would be a major scandal. But while in high school in america it was normal to be propagandaed on during your lunch hour.

LanceH 12y ago
Perhaps there is some historical reason for this.
- akfanta 12y ago
  Both sides can learn something from history.
- MrDosu 12y ago
  What history could a western country have to be the only one to recruit for the army in schools?
  - LanceH 12y ago
    A country formed through revolution which only fights its wars overseas.

bcg1 12y ago

I'd say this article is mostly spot on... the assertion that this is male biological urge is probably true. I believe at its core it is a desire to identify oneself as a member of a group of "manly" males and to prove one's worth and garner the respect of the already prestigious members of that group. This actually plays out in a lot of areas... fraternities, urban gangs, Github, etc. The dynamic of dividing humanity into "insiders" and "outsiders" follows closely as well. That dynamic is used to dehumanize all "outsiders" so that the goals of the group can be placed above morality and ethics. I believe these things are true because I'm a slow learner and have been suckered into this dynamic more than once... I tried a college fraternity for a short while (after being accepted, rejected it and dropped out of college), fell in with the wrong crowd and did drugs until my eyes rolled so far back into my head that I swear I was able to see my brain (stopped altogether after somewhat harrowing experiences) and joined the US Army to shoot artillery after 9/11 (went to Afghanistan and after I got back became a conscientious objector before being put out administratively with an "honorable" discharge). In the US, mass media is the fertilizer for mass murder... we teach young men that their number 1 goal is to be manly... and that women are just holes to fuck... and that you need to fuck as many holes as possible to be manly... and that explosions are cool... and that you need to create and survive explosions to be manly... and that streetfighting is cool... and that you need to be in a bunch of streetfights to be manly... I could keep going but I think you all get the point. If the culture changes men will stop going to war unless they are forced to... while the biological urges described above can be exploited to manipulate peoples' actions, those urges could be channeled to positive actions instead, and they are certainly not a free pass to commit the atrocities that most people just pretend don't exist. This is the area where I disagree with the author if the article... it actually does start and stop with those who pull the trigger

michaelochurch 12y ago

Here's a big part of it, and it ain't pretty. First, while gender may be "a social construct" it tends to recur in similar patterns across most societies. That's not to say that gender roles don't exaggerate the (actually very slight, in biological terms) differences and aren't a source of much injustice. However, there's a recurrent ranking that societies create: high-status men > high-status women > low-status women > low-status men. This is why conversations about gender and "patriarchy" fall flat, it's why feminists and MRAs both have a point, and it's not how things necessarily should be, but it's how things are in at least 90% of the societies that humans create. High-status men have harems of 10+ wives, in pre-monogamous societies, which means that some men will have zero. Since women have a rate-limiting reproductive resource (i.e. a womb) they have a good chance of getting at least some action. Low-status men don't, because they're the lowest of the low. No one likes them. And in a non-monogamous society, they're recognized as an actual danger. Of course, most young men will start out low in status. When's the last time, in popular culture, you saw a teenage male portrayed in a positive light? Most of the world fears and hates (most) teenage males. Eventually, the high-status men recognize the threat. They see men who are sex-starved and poor and deprived of opportunities for improvement, but young and fit while they are fading. So they encourage them to raid other tribes, escalate petty conflicts into moral causes, and even glorify the whole thing because it brings the male population down and makes a pre-monogamous society (which would otherwise be unstable and violent) stable for a while. This pattern is so ingrained in us that we've mythologized it and glorified something that is actually pretty awful. It's also where we get the need to "become a man". Because the gap between high-status (or, at least, realized and mature) men and low-status ones is so severe, we've had to create narratives around it. We've also had to elevate quixotry to a virtue. You see this not just in war but when the stakes are smaller. Take startups. What do we call those (oddly nostalgic, even if things were awful at the time) narratives about low-status men working 90-hour weeks, debugging others' awful written-to-deadline code, as 0.02%-owners of a startup whose benefits would accrue to high-status men (founders and investors)? "War stories." As a species, we've had to create this narrative to explain something that we do to each other for Darwinian, reproductive reasons. It continues even in a mostly monogamous and mostly peaceful society.

squozzer 12y ago

I think the central question - what is it to be a man (or human) - is a question worth trying to answer. I disagree with the author when he states the West doesn't really have an answer - sure, the answer isn't in the back of a textbook. One might even reasonably conclude there exists a multitude of answers - some of which probably conflict. Here are some examples - Pedestrian - acquire a skill, get a real job, marry, have kids. Clearly serving the profit motives of others - cultivate expensive tastes. Macho - pursue dangerous hobbies, enter a risky profession - which for some reason excludes cab drivers and convenience store clerks. If I had to offer a guess, I might say, "Assume responsibility for yourself."

sjg007 12y ago

Perhaps we should encourage young men to join the Peace Core. To find themselves by helping others.