Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace

by Douglas P. Fry

The classic opening scene of 2001, A Space Odyssey shows an ape-man wreaking havoc with humanity's first invention--a bone used as a weapon to kill a rival. It's an image that fits well with popular notions of our species as inherently violent, with the idea that humans are--and always have been--warlike by nature. But as Douglas P. Fry convincingly argues in Beyond War , the facts show that our ancient ancestors were not innately warlike--and neither are we.
Fry points out that, for perhaps ninety-nine percent of our history, for well over a million years, humans lived in nomadic hunter-and-gatherer groups, egalitarian bands where generosity was highly valued and warfare was a rarity. Drawing on archaeology and fascinating fieldwork on hunter-gatherer bands from around the world, Fry debunks the idea that war is ancient and inevitable. For instance, among Aboriginal Australians--who numbered some 750,000 individuals before the arrival of Europeans, all living in hunter-gathering groups--warfare was an extreme anomaly. There was individual violence and aggression, of course, but the Aborigines had sophisticated methods of resolving disputes, controlling individual outbursts, and preventing loss of life. Fry shows that, far from being natural, warfare actually appeared quite recently along with changes in social organization and especially the rise of states. But Fry also points out that even today, when war seems ever present (at least
on television), the vast majority of us live peaceful, nonviolent lives. We are not as warlike as it might seem, and if we can learn from our ancestors, we may be able to move beyond war to provide real justice and security for the people of the world.
A profoundly heartening view of human nature, Beyond War offers a hopeful perspective on our species and a positive prognosis for a future without war.

Genres: Anthropology, Nonfiction, War

352 pages, Hardcover

First published January 26, 2007

Reviews

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book falls very much into the popular category. I found it to be an enlightening and fun read, at times very funny. It is the sort of book that one will want to stop and explain some of the funny and interesting things to those around them.

Broadly the book argues that war is a relatively recent invention among humans, and animals, and that it relates to social and economic structures rather than any innate warring quality. That is not to say that violence doesn't happen, but that warfare as it exists in the Western imagination is not something universal to the human species as the Hobbesian idea suggests.

[Valentín Serrano García · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recommended by the renowned Robert Sapolsky, this essay is a fascinating read, particularly because it dismantles some of the ad hoc arguments of psychological-evolutionary reductionism (calling for greater caution from this hypothetical science) and serves as a counter-response to the biased opinions of Steven Pinker on the matter. Pinker himself admits to favoring his own perspective because he doesn’t want anyone to believe that a return to the past would be better, implicitly revealing his bias.

While Fry does not significantly expand our knowledge of hunter-gatherer societies (many essays have already tackled this topic), he does clarify key distinctions between different types of "primitive" societies, elaborates on forms of social aggression, and discusses certain methods of mediation. Although he is impeccable in demonstrating the "absence" of peace in gathering and tribal societies, his argument weakens when addressing the deeper roots of warfare in complex societies (ideologies, mass irrationalism, etc.).

In conclusion, this is an anthropological work well worth reading. Contrary to what some might argue, it avoids the error of ignoring that one homicide per 100 people is still a high number of deaths. In fact, what Fry avoids is the "ecological fallacy" that so many fall into (with Pinker being the most famous example), but not a devoted antropologists. The matter is more complex (and "incommensurable"). Just as you cannot equate a prisoner sentenced to life with a galley slave, suffering cannot be lightly quantified, either directly or indirectly. You cannot reduce the human factor to a mere number. Is the death of one hunter out of a hundred (due to adultery) comparable to the death of 10,000 soldiers in a country of one million (due to a war)? Further more, are the consequences, and subsequent suffering, truly similar?

[Danielle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be a very well-researched book; since a good portion of it at the end was notes/appendix, I finished sooner than I thought I would! It was reaffirming to learn that war hasn't "always been with us" with proof! I noted at the end the author said he meant to focus on the positive and I think that was accomplished. I appreciated the depth of knowledge that went into this book and encourage others to read it too. The world is ours to improve. Starting with our own misconceptions is key and this book helps!

[Angel 一匹狼 · Rating 3 out of 5]

In "Beyond War", Douglas P. Fry tries to justify that humans are not violent by nature, that humans have not a desire to wage war and kill each other, and that the Western view that explains war as intrinsic to humans is a wrong idea.

The book is an interesting read, that widens the view of things, and engages the reader in a broader understanding of human beings. Nonetheless, Douglas Fry repeats himself quite a bit thorough the book, saying the same thing four or five times. Doing so, his ideas become diluted. On top of that, he brings hunter-gatherers as an example of pacific societies, telling us some of them are more pacific than our ultra-complex world. But he forgets to explain two things: 1, how much structural violence may be in those societies (he just talks a little bit about more gender-equal groups), and 2, in numbers, one person killed in a group of 100 may seem little, bit if there was, in comparison, only 1 killed per every 1000 people in our Western world, would our society be better even if it wages war? It is a simplistic way of looking at things, but he does it too to follow his agenda.

It has, though, some interesting ideas, as bringing up the idea of more multiculturalism or better transnational organizations, as well as more gender equal societies. Would that stop people fighting and killing each other? Probably not, but it could make relationships smoother, and help in conflicts.

6/10

[Jill · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading for Nonviolence/Conflict Resolution class I'm sitting in on at City. Excellent anthropological evidence presented that debunks the myth that we are a naturally violent species with war being inevitable.

[Jeffrey Milloy · Rating 2 out of 5]

weak arguments

[Maxine · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was ok, the arguments were not too bad but honestly not much substance in it. For the last few chapters the author did not even bother to rephrase the thing when he repeats himself.