10 Theses on War and Social Order: Preliminary Arguments on the Constitutive Functions of Armed Conflicts

Oleg Kil'dyushov
{"title":"10 Theses on War and Social Order: Preliminary Arguments on the Constitutive Functions of Armed Conflicts","authors":"Oleg Kil'dyushov","doi":"10.17323/1728-192X-2015-4-140-149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the beginning of the article, the author explains its idea—to explicate the conceptual ap proach to war as the most important structural element and mechanism for maintaining social order. The author claims the existence of a stable tradition of theorizing based on the argument about the social functionality of the structural violence, which allows interpreting war as a special type of sociality. The representatives of this conventional line of argumentation mentioned in the article are such key figures in the history of ideas, as Thomas Hobbes, Carl von Clausewitz, Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault. The author formulates ten theses, which problematize the heuristic aspects of war in relation to the theory of social order and are accompanied by short comments explaining the ambivalent status of war topics in the philosophical tradition and sociological classics, because neither of them developed a com plete theory of war relevant from the social theory perspective. The key theses state that war experience is constitutive for human societies, and reconstruct the line of argumentation that emphasizes the constitutive function of war for social institutions and political order and the role of war as a major factor of social transformations in the modernity for this role is often underestimated in sociological theory. In conclusion, the author states the need for analyti cal explication of the organized violence functionality in relation to the structures of social action typical for the modern era. He also claims that within the proposed social-theoretical perspective the war can become a heuristic key to understanding the nature of the social, because this approach allows not only to consider war as a cultural-universal phenomenon, but to analyze more realistically the structural role of violence in the processes of production, reproduction and transformation of social orders.","PeriodicalId":137616,"journal":{"name":"The Russian Sociological Review","volume":"647 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Russian Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2015-4-140-149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

At the beginning of the article, the author explains its idea—to explicate the conceptual ap proach to war as the most important structural element and mechanism for maintaining social order. The author claims the existence of a stable tradition of theorizing based on the argument about the social functionality of the structural violence, which allows interpreting war as a special type of sociality. The representatives of this conventional line of argumentation mentioned in the article are such key figures in the history of ideas, as Thomas Hobbes, Carl von Clausewitz, Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault. The author formulates ten theses, which problematize the heuristic aspects of war in relation to the theory of social order and are accompanied by short comments explaining the ambivalent status of war topics in the philosophical tradition and sociological classics, because neither of them developed a com plete theory of war relevant from the social theory perspective. The key theses state that war experience is constitutive for human societies, and reconstruct the line of argumentation that emphasizes the constitutive function of war for social institutions and political order and the role of war as a major factor of social transformations in the modernity for this role is often underestimated in sociological theory. In conclusion, the author states the need for analyti cal explication of the organized violence functionality in relation to the structures of social action typical for the modern era. He also claims that within the proposed social-theoretical perspective the war can become a heuristic key to understanding the nature of the social, because this approach allows not only to consider war as a cultural-universal phenomenon, but to analyze more realistically the structural role of violence in the processes of production, reproduction and transformation of social orders.
战争与社会秩序论文集:关于武装冲突构成功能的初步论证
在文章的开头,作者阐述了其思想——将战争作为维持社会秩序的最重要的结构要素和机制的概念途径加以阐明。作者认为,基于结构性暴力的社会功能论证,存在着一种稳定的理论化传统,这使得战争可以被解释为一种特殊类型的社会性。文章中提到的这种传统论证路线的代表人物是思想史上的关键人物,如托马斯·霍布斯、卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨、卡尔·施密特和米歇尔·福柯。作者撰写了十篇论文,对战争的启发式方面与社会秩序理论的关系提出了问题,并附有简短的评论,解释了战争主题在哲学传统和社会学经典中的矛盾地位,因为它们都没有从社会理论的角度发展出一个完整的战争理论。本文的核心论点指出,战争经验是人类社会的构成要素,并重建了强调战争对社会制度和政治秩序的构成功能以及战争作为现代性社会转型的主要因素的作用的论证路线,因为这一作用在社会学理论中经常被低估。最后,作者指出,有必要对有组织暴力的功能与现代社会行动的典型结构进行分析性解释。他还声称,在提出的社会理论视角中,战争可以成为理解社会本质的启发式关键,因为这种方法不仅可以将战争视为一种文化普遍现象,而且可以更现实地分析暴力在社会秩序的生产、再生产和转型过程中的结构性作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信