Reed Wadley cites Chagnon's description of a Yanomamo man leading a raid:

Referring to Hukoshikuwa, a man out to avenge the killing of his brother, Chagnon
writes, "Even he was not enthusiastic about going on the raid, despite the fact that the lectured the younger members of the raiding party about their overt reluctance and cowardice. He was older, however, and had to display the courage that adult men are supposed to show. ... Thus, the system worked against him and demanded that he be fierce, whether or not he wanted to be"

     This is my point precisely. The focus on the study of warfare has been "violence" and "aggression," whereas in my view the essence of this institution revolves around SUBMISSION TO THE SYSTEM.

     The system "demanded" that the man be fierce, whether or not he wanted to. He felt obligated to adopt a posture of aggressiveness lest he be accused of cowardice and lack of courage.

     In a study of soldiers in World War II, it was found that only 25% of American solders actually fired their rifles.

     Yet warfare continues to be conceptualized, not only in the mind of laymen but among evolutionary psychologists as well, in terms of "aggression" and its presumed "survival value." Nine million soldiers died in World War I and therefore did not pass their genes along.

     This is why I use the expression "warfare as submission." "Masculinity" in war is equivalent to SUBMITTING TO LEADERS AND DOING THEIR BIDDING.

     We prefer not to look at the ABJECT CONDITION of the "warrior."

Best regards,

R. K.


Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
Director, Library of Social Science