16.1 Sociological Perspectives on War and Terrorism – Social Problems (2022)

Learning Objective

  1. Summarize the key assumptions and emphases of the functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives on war and terrorism.

The three major sociological perspectives offer some very different understandings of war and terrorism. You might agree with some of their assumptions and disagree with other assumptions, but together they capture the major dimensions of these two forms of armed conflict. Table 16.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes these assumptions.

Table 16.1 Theory Snapshot

Theoretical perspectiveMajor assumptions
FunctionalismWar and terrorism serve several important functions. For example, they increase social solidarity as a society unites to defeat a perceived enemy. Some wars have also helped preserve freedom and democracy.
Conflict theoryWar and militarism primarily advance the interests of the military-industrial complex and take billions of dollars from unmet social needs.
Symbolic interactionismSymbols such as the flag play an important role in marshaling support for war. Definitions of several concepts also play an important role in public opinion regarding war and terrorism.

Functionalism

Recall that functionalism emphasizes the usefulness of certain behaviors and social institutions for many aspects of society. One of functionalism’s most important insights is that social problems might actually be useful in this way, however many difficulties they might otherwise cause. To use an example from Chapter 1 “Understanding Social Problems”, crime certainly causes many problems, but it also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in law enforcement, courts and corrections, home security, and other sectors of the economy that deal with crime.

In this spirit, functionalism similarly emphasizes the ways in which war and terrorism are useful for society, however horrible they are in so many other ways. Perhaps the first sociologist to make this point for war was Robert E. Park, the 1925 president of the American Sociological Association (which was then called the American Sociological Society—a name that was later changed because of its acronym!). In January 1941, less than a year before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Park published an influential essay called “The Social Function of War: Observations and Notes,” in a leading sociology journal (Park, 1941).

Park’s essay outlined several functions of war. First, war helps resolve international disputes over matters such as territorial boundaries and religious and other ideologies. No matter what one might think of war, historically it has resolved disputes between nations, with the winner of the war winning the dispute. Even though very few people would say that war is a preferred method for resolving a dispute, it still has performed this function.

Second, war generates a stronger sense of social bonding and solidarity within the societies that are at war. Having a common enemy, people within a society at war “come together” with a shared purpose and feel more united and patriotic than before. This dynamic is called the external conflict/internal cohesion process (Markides & Cohn, 1982). Although Park did not discuss terrorism, this form of armed conflict can also create social solidarity. In the days and weeks after 9/11, Americans came together as one people, and the president of France famously said, “We are all Americans.”

(Video) Introduction to Sociology - Catastrophe, War, and Terror

Third, wars many centuries ago, such as those in which ancient Rome in essence formed and grew from conquering various tribes, led to the development of the nation-state as a political institution. As these tribes came under the rule of nation-states, their separate tribal identities weakened as they gradually identified themselves as one people belonging to their nation-state; Park (p. 569) referred to this process as “the coming-together and integration of races and peoples.” Moreover, the size and resources of these nation-states allowed them to generate scientific, cultural, and political advances that played an important role in world history. War, then, indirectly contributed to these advances. Although nation-states still might have eventually developed even without war, their development was accelerated by war.

Other functions of war can also be cited. Some wars, including the American colonists’ war against England and the Allies’ war against Hitler and Japan, have helped maintain and establish freedom and democracy. In the past and also today, war and military service have also provided important opportunities for jobs and career advancement for people of color and women. Related to this, the US military provides millions of jobs annually and is a ready form of employment for people who only have a high school education. More generally, the military and the defense industry are certainly important components of the US economy, and military spending in some eras has helped stimulate the US economy. In perhaps the most notable example of this effect, spending for World War II is commonly credited with helping to lift the United States out of the Great Depression (Shiller, 2012).

In a final function, weapons research and other types of military research have contributed to scientific and technological development in general. For example, military research played a key role in the early development of the Internet.

(Video) The War on Terror between Sacred and Profane

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory’s perspective on war and the military is decidedly more negative than that of functionalism. There are actually many different views within conflict theory about war and the military, but three related views stand out. The first view echoes President Eisenhower’s concern over the power and influence of the military-industrial complex. According to conflict theory, the United States spends so much on the military and even goes to war because military officials, defense contractors, and political leaders work hand-in-hand in a rather cozy relationship. Although they may profess that their actions are meant to keep the nation safe, their ultimate goal is to enhance their political power and financial well-being.

The most famous critique of the military-industrial complex from a conflict theorist is undoubtedly that of sociologist C. Wright Mills in his book The Power Elite (1956). According to Mills, the power elite is composed of government, big business, and the military, which together constitute a ruling class that controls society and works for its own interests, not for the interests of the citizenry. Members of the power elite, Mills said, see each other socially and serve together on the boards of directors of corporations, charitable organizations, and other bodies. When cabinet members, senators, and top generals and other military officials retire, they often become corporate executives; military officials in particular join defense contractors. Conversely, corporate executives often become cabinet members and other key political appointees, and defense industry executives often end up in the Pentagon. This circulation of the elites creates a rather cozy relationship that helps ensure their dominance over American life and in particular ensures that the military-industrial complex has an untold influence over economic and foreign policy.

A more recent critique of the military-industrial complex and foreign policy by sociologist Mark C. Worrell (2011, p. 51) bluntly stresses the role played by the desire for corporate profits: “War is business and it is profitable…What we learned in the aftermath of World War II is that mass destruction is great for corporate profits…War is driven by corporate profits and corporations drive politics.” According to Worrell and other contemporary critics of what they call the warfare state, the United States now has a permanent war economy. In their view, the war on terrorism after 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “have only deepened the trend toward ever more concentrated state, corporate, and military power in a society that ostensibly embraces democratic values” (Boggs, 2011, p. ix).

The second view of conflict theory concerns imperialism, or the use of military power and other means to extend a nation’s influence and control over other nations. This view, held by the more radical proponents of conflict theory, argues that war and other military ventures by the United States are done for the sake of imperialism rather than for noble goals such as the preservation and extension of democracy. In this view, the United States wages war and engages in other military actions to gain access to oil and other resources of other societies, with the ultimate aim of enriching multinational corporations and other parties. The characterization does not hold true for World War II, conflict theorists concede, but they argue it holds true for many and perhaps most other US wars and military actions, historically and today. In their view, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular were fought under false pretenses to maintain adequate oil supply and more generally to extend America’s military and economic influence around the world (Worrell, 2011).

A third view of conflict theory criticizes the size of the military budget and emphasizes the billions of dollars it takes from social needs such as poverty and climate change. As sociologist Carl Boggs (2011, p. 17) argues, “The war economy, for its part, devours roughly one trillion dollars in material, technological, and human resources yearly…, ensuring a pattern of waste, destruction, uneven development, eroded public infrastructures, and decimated social programs. Decaying American cities have become a supreme legacy of the warfare system.” We return to this issue later in this chapter.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionist writing on war features several emphases. One theme concerns the perceptions and experiences of people involved in war: soldiers, civilians, and others. There are many moving accounts, for example, both real and fictitious, of soldiers’ life on the battlefield and after they come home from war.

Figure 16.1 International Peace Symbol

(Video) What is a Social Problem? Objective and subjective elements.

A second emphasis concerns the use of symbols to marshal support for war or protest against war. Symbols such as the flag evoke feelings of patriotism, perhaps especially when a nation is at war. The president and other politicians typically display a flag when they give major speeches, and it would be unthinkable for a flag not to be showing when the speech is about war or the threat of war. During the Vietnam War, protesters sometimes flew the US flag upside-down (the international symbol of distress) to show their hatred of the war, and some protesters also burned the flag—an act that is almost guaranteed to provoke outrage and hostility from onlookers.

Other symbols can also be important. When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, millions of Americans put magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks to show their support for the troops. The largest manufacturer of the ribbons sold more than one million monthly a year after the war began. However, sales slipped as support for the war declined, and four years after the war numbered only 4,000 monthly (Ward, 2007). Another ubiquitous symbol during the Vietnam War was the so-called international peace symbol (see Figure 16.1 “International Peace Symbol”), originally designed in the late 1950s to symbolize concern over nuclear weapons. Vietnam War protesters wore this symbol on their clothing, and many put peace symbol decals on their motor vehicles, book bags, and other possessions.

A third emphasis of symbolic interactionism concerns how concepts related to war and terrorism come to be defined in ways that advance the goals of various parties. For example, a key goal of the military in basic training is to convince trainees that people they may face on the battlefield are the enemy and, as such, an appropriate target for killing. Related to this goal is the need to convince trainees that when they kill an enemy soldier, the killing is a justified killing and not murder. Similarly, the military often refers to civilian deaths or wounding as collateral damage in a conscious or unconscious attempt to minimize public horror at civilian casualties.

(Video) How 9/11 'Truther' conspiracy theories fueled the war on reality | Opinion

Another definitional issue concerns terrorism. As we shall discuss later, the definition of terrorism is very subjective, as actions that some people might regard as terrorism might be regarded by other people as freedom fighting or some other much more positive term than terrorism.

With this theoretical background in mind, we now turn to several issues and problems of war and terrorism.

Key Takeaways

  • War and terrorism serve several functions, including the creation of social solidarity.
  • According to conflict theory, war advances the interests of the military-industrial complex, while militarism takes money away from unmet social needs.
  • Symbolic interactionism emphasizes the importance of symbols in support for war and terrorism and the experience of civilians and veterans as victims of war.

For Your Review

  1. Which one of the three perspectives on war and terrorism do you most favor? Why?
  2. Why do you think the flag has so much symbolic importance in American society?

References

Boggs, C. (2011). Empire versus democracy: The triumph of corporate and military power. New York, NY: Routledge.

Markides, K. C., & Cohn, S. F. (1982). External conflict/internal cohesion: A reevaluation of an old theory. American Sociological Review, 47, 88–98.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Park, R. E. (1941). The social function of war: Observations and notes. American Journal of Sociology, 46, 551–570.

Shiller, R. J. (2012, January 15). Spend, spend, spend. It’s the American way. New York Times, BU3.

(Video) Radicalization, recruitment, and domestic terrorism: An expert's perspective

Ward, A. (2007, March 2). Yellow ribbons dwindle with war support. The Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4793da48-c8f7-11db-9f7b-000b5df10621.html#axzz1uqyZTxHR.

Worrell, M. P. (2011). Why nations go to war: A sociology of military conflict. New York, NY: Routledge.

FAQs

How does the conflict theoretical perspective explain war and terrorism? ›

According to conflict theory, war advances the interests of the military-industrial complex, while militarism takes money away from unmet social needs. Symbolic interactionism emphasizes the importance of symbols in support for war and terrorism and the experience of civilians and veterans as victims of war.

How does functionalism differ from conflict theory see pp 11 and 16 SOE? ›

Functionalism proposes that each individual contributes to the society's overall performance and stability while conflict theory suggests that the society is in a state of perpetual conflict.

Which perspective notes that war and terrorism can increase social solidarity as a society unites to defeat a perceived enemy? ›

Functionalism: War and terrorism serve several important functions. For example, they increase social solidarity as a society unites to defeat a perceived enemy. Some wars have also helped preserve freedom and democracy.

How does war relate to sociology? ›

Introduction. The sociology of war is a subfield of sociology that focuses on the macro-level patterns of war making, how societies engage in warfare, the meaning that war has in society, and the relationship between state structure and war making.

What are the three perspectives of terrorism? ›

THE CONCEPT OF TERROR AND TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES ARE VIEWED FROM THREE PERSPECTIVES: TERROR IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, TERROR IN A VIOLENT SOCIETY, AND TERROR IN A PLURALIST SOCIETY.

What is conflict perspective of terrorism? ›

Conflict theorists view terrorism as a reaction to injustice, which is probably created in the minds of terrorists due to misguidance, illiteracy, or unrealistic goals, and that violent behaviors expressed by terrorist organizations are the result of individual frustration, aggression or showing a readiness to fight.

How does conflict theory explain war? ›

In conflict theory, war is the result of a cumulative and growing conflict between individuals and groups and between entire societies. In the context of war, a society may become unified in some ways, but conflict still remains between multiple societies.

What are the 3 perspectives of sociology? ›

These debates merit attention to those within the field, however, sociologists would generally state that the profession is primarily focused on three theoretical orientations. These three theoretical orientations are: Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Perspective.

What are the four theoretical perspectives in sociology? ›

The four main theoretical perspectives in the field of sociology are symbolic interactionism theory, social conflict theory, structural-functional theory, and feminist theory.

What are the different perspectives of war? ›

They are the structural functionalist perspective, the symbolic interactionist perspective, and the conflict theory perspective.

Is war a social issues? ›

Yet contrary to this belief, war is a social problem rather than a natural or biological state of affairs. There are no genes destining humans to fight wars, nor has there been evolutionary selection for aggressive traits in human groups.

What are social science issues related to war? ›

Identify two social science issues related to war. 1- Soldiers returning with PTSD. 2- Sexism within the armed forces.

How is war functional to society? ›

The function of war has been (i) to extend the area of peace, (2) to create within that area a political power capable of enforcing it, and (3) to establish an ideology which rationalizes and a cult which idealizes the new political and social order.

What is social conflict war and protest? ›

Social conflict is the struggle for agency or power in society. Social conflict occurs when two or more people oppose each other in social interaction, and each exerts social power with reciprocity in an effort to achieve incompatible goals but prevent the other from attaining their own.

How does the conflict perspective view environmental problems and solutions? ›

Conflict theorists identify the inequality in the distribution of the world's resources as the source of environmental problems. To overcome these problems, the government and oil companies should take bold steps to arrest deforestation, oil spillage, gas flaring and sea encroachment.

What do you mean by terrorism in sociology? ›

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or its citizens to further certain political or social objectives. Law enforcement generally recognizes two types of terrorism: domestic and international.

Is terrorism a social issue? ›

Although there are such harmful problems which are called as social problems, one of them is terrorism. Terrorism is regarded as a social issue which causes violence and attacks in the society and upon its civilians living in that particular society.

Is terrorism a social phenomenon? ›

Thus, terrorism is a social phenomenon that has many criminal legal forms of manifestation – specific elements of terrorist crimes.

How does conflict theory explain war? ›

In conflict theory, war is the result of a cumulative and growing conflict between individuals and groups and between entire societies. In the context of war, a society may become unified in some ways, but conflict still remains between multiple societies.

What are some examples of conflict theory? ›

Examples of conflict theory

Global capitalism's effect on inequality and power. Pay inequalities between genders and races. The 2008 financial crisis, in which large companies and banks received government bailouts.

Which sociological perspective suggests that war benefits the corporate military and political elites? ›

Conflict theory suggests that war benefits the corporate, military, and political elites.

What is social conflict war and protest? ›

Social conflict is the struggle for agency or power in society. Social conflict occurs when two or more people oppose each other in social interaction, and each exerts social power with reciprocity in an effort to achieve incompatible goals but prevent the other from attaining their own.

Videos

1. Afghanistan War: How did 9/11 lead to a 20-year war?
(Imperial War Museums)
2. Mary Kaldor: New Wars as a Social Condition
(IWMVienna)
3. ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM | Full Free Documentary | Social Pathology, Peter Joseph
(FilmIsNow Movies & Trailers)
4. Conversations with History: John Mearsheimer
(University of California Television (UCTV))
5. Chapter 16: Urban Problems
(Dr. Victoria P. Panna)
6. Zeitgeist - The Movie | Sociological Documentary | Peter Joseph | Finance
(Moconomy)

Top Articles

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Geoffrey Lueilwitz

Last Updated: 12/24/2022

Views: 5505

Rating: 5 / 5 (60 voted)

Reviews: 91% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Geoffrey Lueilwitz

Birthday: 1997-03-23

Address: 74183 Thomas Course, Port Micheal, OK 55446-1529

Phone: +13408645881558

Job: Global Representative

Hobby: Sailing, Vehicle restoration, Rowing, Ghost hunting, Scrapbooking, Rugby, Board sports

Introduction: My name is Geoffrey Lueilwitz, I am a zealous, encouraging, sparkling, enchanting, graceful, faithful, nice person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.