<[Bill Leach 951007.19:51 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]
[Brian D'Agostino (951007.0700 EDT)
Hopefully since Brian has engaged us in an interesting and thoughtful
dialogue I can comment without my comments raising too many feathers.
Reply: After reading this--what you call "the basic PCT picture of
conflict and how it escalates"--I realized something for the first
time. This "PCT picture" is _exactly_ what political scientists
call "threat escalation," which is the foundation of "spiral
theory," one of the most widely accepted explanations of war in
mainstream political science. (See Robert Jervis, _Perception and
Misperception in International Politics_, pp. 62-78).
A comment such as "This 'PCT picture' is _exactly_ ..." is quite likely
to "draw fire" from PCTers. It is most definately NOT exactly... though
I admit that it might _look_ like it is exactly.
I believe this theory is essentially correct as far as it goes, but
that it is not a complete or adequate explanation.
In this statement, I think that you will find complete agreement.
"Spiral Theory" is not a control system theory and thus while it seems to
"match" what PCT predicts when two or more control systems get into
conflict with each other the "Spiral Theory" is incapable of dealing with
the various ways that control systems can resolve conflict. Bill Powers'
"Spiraling example" presumed that each of the conflicted control systems
continued to control for the same perceptions that initiated the conflict
in the first place (among other things). For that case, if the parties
have the resources and a third party does not intervene in some way the
"spiral theory" prediction will be correct. However, how many potential
conflicts have not escallated to war in the past? Why not? What does
"spiral theory" have to say about them? HPCT offers plausible
suggestions.
I believe one of the most constructive and important tasks for the CSG
is to identify these implicit applications of PCT, and to weigh in on
the side of the proto-PCT theorists in their debates with proto-
behaviorist colleagues, showing how an explicit understanding of PCT
clarifies the debate to the advantage of the former. Your comments
about PCT and conflict escalation encourage me to do this with the
spiral-deterrence debate in political science.
The problem that I see (hopefully from a PCT perspective) is that this
"so called" debate is a debate about two theories that are not mutually
exclusive because they are both ignoring behaviour from a control system
view.
Spiral Theory assert as fact something that is just plain not true except
for a very specific set of circumstances. Because the "phenomenon" is
believed to have been observed it has then been assumed that this is the
nature of human behaviour without any consideration whatsoever for the
overwhelmingly greater number of times that conflict has not led to war.
Your own example for disarmament is a also a real beauty.
Deterrence has the same problem except that it is probably the case where
it actually is more often successful than not. Regardless, it is still a
situation where the principle of deterrence will only work for a specific
set of conditions. If any one of the condition does not exist then
deterrence as a means of avoiding war will fail.
Deterrence is based upon the idea that that if a potentially hostile
group perceives that the "cost" of war will be greater than the benefit
of war then they will not start a war. Actually this is (in my opinion)
a VERY GOOD PCT view. What is usually wrong with it in practice is that
the nation establishing the deterrence condition mistakenly believes that
they can correctly gage the potentially hostile nations references and
the absolute reference values for those references. Neither of which is
very likely even though it might be possible to "come close enough" for
the policy to work.
It is as much a mistake to believe that when a deterrence policy is in
place that such a policy is _the reason_ that there is no war as it is to
believe that being prepared for war (defense) necessarily has to lead to
war.
In trying to think of a good example of where deterrence could not
possibly work I thought about the Pacific war with Japan... The best
"real world" example then that I could think of were the Kamikazi pilots
of WWII. No "threat" of overwhelming force is about to deter someone
that fully intends to die when attacking you. I believe that the same
sort of problem exists when dealing with some religious "fanatics".
... _conflict_ could not lead to _war_ because all the potential
belligerants had beat their swords into plowshares.
The fact that this does not occur suggests that the majority of
policymakers in key countries such as the U.S. regard military
power as something more than a rational instrument of defense.
This is to me, an overly simplistic view of the matter. As a warning,
what I am about to say is not necessarily shared by others on csg-l. It
is most definately opinion except the following reminder: PCT has
nothing to say about ethics and morality or good and bad. Once values
and standards are set then PCT can aid in analyzing a postulated
situation for the probable behaviour with a given initial condition set
if the references for the individual(s) are accurately enough known.
Regardless, PCT still makes no "statement" itself about the "goodness" or
"badness" of the resulting predicted behaviour.
An inference that I have made concerning your own position about miltary
or defense concepts is that all such efforts are "bad" in that you seem
to believe that they invariably cause war. I infer this from what I
perceive as the tone of much of what you write about this matter. My
perception could of course be absolutely wrong and even if correct is not
itself at issue here as far as I am concerned except to the extent that
such a perception affects common understanding.
My own opinion is that there never has been and probably never will be a
complete lack of individuals that are willing to "prey" upon other
individuals. That is there are individuals that will attempt to get
whatever it is that they want without regard for the possible
consequences to other humans and war is one of the means that they will
use. I emphatically do not mean to imply that all wars are caused by
such people and indeed I believe that the greatest single cause for war
in misunderstanding. What I am asserting is that defense will always be
necessary if one has any belief in "rights" whatsoever.
In addition it seems that there are also people that will inflict injure
upon others for some kind of pleasure that they experience just in the
act without any apparent "other" motive. Again, if this is "unacceptable"
then defense is required.
The idea of defense (individual or larger group) is a moral matter. Most
people of western society believe that the individual somehow has a
"right" to life (that is has a right to not have their life taken by
another - at least not by an arbitrary decision of another).
I see your assertion that the "policymakers in key countries such as the
U.S. regard military power as something more than a rational instrument
of defense." as a value judgement by you that I believe to be
unsupportable. If the ONLY purpose of defense was to cause war you would
be correct (I think). OTOH, it is (in my opinion again) absolutely
irrational to presume that disarmament will prevent all agression. I put
this on the same plane as outlawing firearms.
Indeed, if there was some way to actually make it impossible to create
(or maybe use) any and all weapons of agression then yes disarmament
could be successful. Of course if fists and feet were not considered to
be such weapons you could still have war but maybe not such mass
suffering as is currently possible.
Targeting defense preparations and weapons is a futile attempt to solve a
problem. There will probably always be people that are willing to
inflict mayhem upon others as a means to achieve their own goals. If
they can not do it weapons then they will find other means such as
indirect use of force (laws) or even indirect-indirect use of force
(economic "clout").
My data suggest that many if not most "hawks" are unwilling to
relinquish military power because for them it has a positive symbolic
value associated with maintaining their personal machismo.
Your data might suggest this to you and even I don't doubt that such is
quite possibly the "motive" for some "hawks". I am sure that anyone that
has had sufficient contact with the police have had the "opportunity" of
experiencing or at least observing officers that appear to have become
police officers only because their job allows them to order people around
and even use physical force against people with impunity.
I suggest that possibly your own bias is strongly influencing what you
think is occuring.
This is clearly not an explanation of what motivates _all_ hawks,
but it is a step towards understanding why countries are unwilling to
relinquish military advantages regardless of objective conditions of
threat.
You appear (to me) to be justifying your conclusion with an assertion
that seems to me to be ONLY a matter of opinion. If in fact there were
NO "objective conditions of threat" then I suppose that you would be
right. I know however that I would serious question the sanity of my
government leaders and believe that most Americans would do likewise
should Uncle suddenly dismember the entire Department of Defense (and I
am assuming that it was done in such a manner that the economic
implications were not of concern).
I am willing to explore and test other plausible explanations of
militarism as well, if anyone wants to suggest any.
Well I HAVE suggested some other plausible explanations, so what now? I
feel that I must also state that I do agree with you in part. I agree
that when a person with a high degree of influence within an organization
such as the military is controlling for their own perception of power and
using their influence with or within the organization for that purpose
then a very serious problem exists. I also suspect that with about any
organization of sufficient size such individuals almost have to exist
even if I do doubt that this is the "major problem".
Other possible explainations for why "defensive" military organizations
can be beligerent are "justifying your existance" and efforts of
"outsiders" that stand to gain from armed conflict or even threat of
such.
... However, it should be noted that women and children have the most to
lose in an economic sense from unnecessary war preparations, since tax
revenues thus squandered are not available for child care, housing, etc.
This may be part of the explanation for the small but statistically
significant "gender gap" in public opinion data, which show that 7% to
9% more women than men are doves.
I don't think that I "buy" the significance of your arguement here. In
the first place, economic hardship is probably perceived by both doves
and hawks as minor compared to either the potential for dying or finding
oneself "without self-government" (as an example for the U.S. person).
The "hawk" may well believe war to be far more horrible than does the
dove but also believe that surrendering to the will of another is even
worse. General Douglas MacCarther was I believe an excellent example of
such a "hawk". The general invented some rather new and unique
techniques to avoid "blunt" confrontation during WWII -- that is his
actual behaviour indicated that when he said that war was bad he really
believed what he said. Even in the Korean "conflict" what he seemed to
continuouly attempt was to "win" with minimum loss of life on both sides
(just as he had done in WWII).
Neville Chamberlain was the pentultamate "dove". Avoid war at all costs.
Of course this is just opinion but no, I don't think that he was right.
Ben Franklin was considered to be a "dove" by many colonists because he
acted so strongly to attempt to reach compromise with England. Was he a
"dove", no not hardly. Franklin was a competent military leader with
considerable battle experience (successful) BEFORE he went to England to
negotiate.
I really feel that even the use that I have made of the terms "hawk" and
"dove" are very problematical. What IS a "hawk" and what IS a "dove"?
Is is ever proper to apply the term based upon observed behaviour without
knowing what is being perceived and controlled?
An additional comment about supporting "proto-PCT theorists"...
The effort may well be worthwhile if only because some actual
understanding of control theory may result. I believe that one can
expect however, anyone with a basic S-R belief (even if not explict,
which is usually the case) will balk when the same theory (PCT) showes
that other assertions of their's are incorrect. They will do much like
Glasser, Albus and so many others... deny the fundamental concepts of
control theory and attempt to adapt what remains to the support of their
existing beliefs.
Well, I hope that this did not come across as too much "flaming" and that
reasoned discussion can continue.
-bill