{"title":"克劳塞维茨,基冈,和战争的大历史","authors":"D. Barreiros, Daniel Ribera Vainfas","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v4i1.4130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a social phenomenon, is war subordinate to politics, as Carl von Clausewitz argued in the early nineteenth century, or, instead, is it the product of an instinctive ‘warrior culture’, common to all peoples and times and beyond politics, as John Keegan suggested in the late twentieth? Should we emphasize ‘essential historical elements in the search for a tem-poral continuum in warfare? In this article, we stress the relevance of the ‘perennity of war’ thesis, and the impropriety of a dichotomy between political rationality vs. instinct. The results of the clash between these two strands of thought about the origins of warfare face limitations due to the absence of a temporal ‘play of scales’, so that short-term approaches emerge as incompatible with macro-historical views. We suggest that a deep understanding of the phenomenon of warfare must consider the interaction and the feedback between processes at different time scales.","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clausewitz, Keegan, and the Big History of Warfare\",\"authors\":\"D. Barreiros, Daniel Ribera Vainfas\",\"doi\":\"10.22339/jbh.v4i1.4130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As a social phenomenon, is war subordinate to politics, as Carl von Clausewitz argued in the early nineteenth century, or, instead, is it the product of an instinctive ‘warrior culture’, common to all peoples and times and beyond politics, as John Keegan suggested in the late twentieth? Should we emphasize ‘essential historical elements in the search for a tem-poral continuum in warfare? In this article, we stress the relevance of the ‘perennity of war’ thesis, and the impropriety of a dichotomy between political rationality vs. instinct. The results of the clash between these two strands of thought about the origins of warfare face limitations due to the absence of a temporal ‘play of scales’, so that short-term approaches emerge as incompatible with macro-historical views. We suggest that a deep understanding of the phenomenon of warfare must consider the interaction and the feedback between processes at different time scales.\",\"PeriodicalId\":326067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Big History\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Big History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v4i1.4130\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Big History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v4i1.4130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
作为一种社会现象,战争是否像卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨(Carl von Clausewitz)在19世纪初所说的那样,从属于政治?还是像约翰·基冈(John Keegan)在20世纪末所说的那样,它是一种本能的“战士文化”的产物,适用于所有民族和时代,超越政治?在寻找战争的时间连续体时,我们是否应该强调“基本的历史因素”?在这篇文章中,我们强调了“战争的永续性”论题的相关性,以及政治理性与本能之间二分法的不恰当性。这两种关于战争起源的思想之间的冲突的结果面临着局限性,因为缺乏时间的“尺度游戏”,因此短期方法与宏观历史观点不相容。我们认为,对战争现象的深刻理解必须考虑不同时间尺度上过程之间的相互作用和反馈。
Clausewitz, Keegan, and the Big History of Warfare
As a social phenomenon, is war subordinate to politics, as Carl von Clausewitz argued in the early nineteenth century, or, instead, is it the product of an instinctive ‘warrior culture’, common to all peoples and times and beyond politics, as John Keegan suggested in the late twentieth? Should we emphasize ‘essential historical elements in the search for a tem-poral continuum in warfare? In this article, we stress the relevance of the ‘perennity of war’ thesis, and the impropriety of a dichotomy between political rationality vs. instinct. The results of the clash between these two strands of thought about the origins of warfare face limitations due to the absence of a temporal ‘play of scales’, so that short-term approaches emerge as incompatible with macro-historical views. We suggest that a deep understanding of the phenomenon of warfare must consider the interaction and the feedback between processes at different time scales.