Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Weird, I interpreted him as saying the causes are NOT political. A guy killing another guy over a woman is not, on my understanding, a political act. People are impelled to violence by evolved psychological motives. Gat’s take is that the ultimate causes of war are these, no?
But then he gets into the 'web of desire' and we see rank, status, prestige, honour, retaliation to eliminate and deter and he's well into the sets of motivations we would understand as politics.
That said, I'd also say that, in reading the Clausewitz that started this, there is a risk of reading "the political object" too narrowly or understanding it in too modern a sense of 'politics.' The political object is merely the calculated end-goal of the conflict.
"Steal some food from that tribe over there" still qualifies as the 'political object.' Indeed, "steal some food" - or more correctly "steal some farmland with which to produce food (and ideally some farmers too)" is the quintessential political object.
When those motivations operate at an individual level, as all of them can, I resist the identification of them as political. Me being deterred from murdering a scary dude is not political: it becomes political when it the people involved are leaders of states. For me, part of...
Gat’s genius is that he identifies the origin of political reasons in a pre-political space. To me, the logic of deterrence that operates in cattle-raiding is not political, it is personal. Not saying I’m right on this! But the beauty of the theory to me is how politics emerges..
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
