Analysis of The Ecstasy of War

In her book Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War, Barbara Ehrenreich utilizes various literary factors to make a compelling argument concerning the nature and evolution of warfare. In chapter one, Ehrenreich discusses two competing theories concerning the aggressive behavior of generations of warriors: the rational and irrational explanations. She describes the relative merits and problems with each explanation and argues that war cannot be explained through a ‘killer instinct’ that comes naturally to men or women. This essay will analyze her argument in terms of rhetorical modes, completeness, underlying assumptions, and bias. Ehrenreich’s argument, though not perfect in all aspects, successfully utilizes these four factors to raise doubts about the ‘killer instinct’ explanation of warfare.

The rhetorical mode used by Ehrenreich is argumentation, or persuasive writing. Ehrenreich seeks to demonstrate that war is more than merely the execution of political policy, but also that it cannot be explained by a killer instinct that comes naturally to mankind. She achieves this, first, by showing that modern warfare requires calmness and level-headedness rather than emotional aggression. “In the case of action-at-a-distance weapons…emotionality of any sort can be a distinct disadvantage” (Ehrenreich, 1998, p. 9). Ehrenreich shows that contemporary forms of fighting benefit from a kind of emotional disengagement, rather than hot-headed rage. She further discredits the killer instinct theory by reminding the reader of the long, tedious, bureaucratic requirements of war, which precede any actual battle. “There is no plausible instinct…that impels a man to leave his home, cut his hair short, and drill for hours in tight formation.” (Ehrenreich, 1998, p. 9). By providing examples in which emotional reactiveness is both detrimental and irrelevant to warfare, Ehrenreich successfully uses the rhetorical mode of argumentation to make her point.

In terms of completeness, Ehrenreich’s essay contains some drawbacks but ultimately achieves its argumentative goal. Ehrenreich gives herself precious little room to address the complex issues arising from such a contentious topic as soldier psychology. She briefly refers to the large body of work surrounding this issue and concedes that “this is not the place to summarize that debate” (Ehrenreich, 1998, p. 8). In the absence of such relevant research, the reader must take Ehrenreich’s argument with a grain of salt. However, Ehrenreich is clear that her goals are somewhat more modest than a complete review of the literature. She states simply that “…there are reasons to reject [killer instinct] as the major wellspring of war.” (Ehrenreich, 1998, p. 8). Ehrenreich does indeed provide several reasons to reject the explanation of warfare as an expression of killer instinct. For example, the high rate of suicide amongst soldiers is reason enough to debunk the killer instinct theory, yet those facts are left out. In this way, her essay falls short of completeness while still achieving its stated goals.

Ehrenreich’s essay displays some underlying assumptions, as well as biases, which mildly detract from the overall effectiveness of her argument without seriously undermining it. One way she seeks to make her point is by presenting examples of cultures that use elaborate means, including drugs, to induce a violent state in their warriors. She argues that men enter battle “…only by entering what appears to be an "altered state"--induced by drugs or lengthy drilling” (Ehrenreich, 1998, p. 12). Ehrenreich presents the use of drugs and ritual as evidence against the killer instinct, yet she may be importing the assumption that such measures produce an artificial state, rather than amplifying a natural one. It seems just as reasonable to assume that the cultures in question respect and value their inner aggression, and simply use drugs and rituals to amplify those instincts at the specific moments in which they are required, much as people use fiction or sports to amplify feelings of excitement or competition.

Ehrenreich might also be guilty of some level of bias, given her presumed lack of combat experience. Her perspective on the motivations of soldiers would surely be expanded by spending time in a combat theatre, where some soldiers certainly express instinctive aggression and affinity for violence. Yet Ehrenreich stops short of discounting this entirely with her concession “So if there is a destructive instinct that impels men to war, it is a weak one, and often requires a great deal of help.” (Ehrenreich, 1998, p. 11). In this way, she makes room for the complexity of soldier psychology and refuses to deny the killer instinct outright.

Ehrenreich’s essay successfully achieves the modest goal of demonstrating evidence against the explanation of war by means of a killer instinct. While it suffers from some imperfections regarding bias and imported assumptions, the essay is not undermined by these. By accepting the limitations of her research and argument, Ehrenreich is able to raise some doubts about the killer instinct theory, while respecting the complexity of the issue.

Reference

Ehrenreich, B. (1998). Blood rites: Origins and history of the passions of war. New York: Holt Paperbacks.