Distribution: limited SHC-75/CONF .608/6 PARIS, 5 November 2975 Qriainal: French, Fnglich UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL , SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERT MEETING ON THE STUNY OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE Paris, 12-15 November 1975 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH APPLIED TO RESEARCH ON THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE BY Alain Joxe Maitre-Assistant Groupe de Sociologie de 1a Défense Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris The views expressed in this document, the selection of facts presented and the opinions stated with reaard to those facts are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Unesco. (sx0-15/comP.608/001L.8)A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH APPLIEN TO RESEARCH ON THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE The study of the causes of violence generally leads to the forecasting of the risks of antagonistic conflicts for the purpose of controlling, preventing or healina them. This matches the pratica? concern of existing political systems or international organizations bent on mainvaining peace in their search for stability. There are all sorts of studies available on the subject thus defined: peace research studies, strateaic studies, international relations, as well as criminal studies ordered by justice and other Interior government departments. To crown it all, there 1s 2130 a large collection or studies which treat, from an empirical point of view, the relatianships between "external violence” (among states) and "domestic violence”. To account for their decisions, whether by democratic procedures or by decree from one power center to another, and to lend an objective and Spolitically neutral” basis to measures which are for the most part pblitical in nature, public authorities usually demand that researchers use a language as "scientific" as possible, that is that they base their findinas on the compilation of statistical data. Yet, this quantitative step does not yield only a more or les* convenient lanquage, but is also a path which can fundamentally alter the creative process of conceptualization from its very outset. For this reason, doubts are regularly raised, especially in the social sciences most closely related to policy makina in different countries as to the relevance of several heuristical procedures and to the theoretical presuppositions hidden behind these methods. One could go so far as to show that in some cases the conclusions of such and such a study were already established in their premises. Finally, one can ask whether the conclusions of such studies are used by the political authorities or whether, hardly inclined to philosophize on primary causes, the authorities use this sophisticated research merely as a simple source of data to which they can refer in order to avail themselves of a praxology which is completely autono- mous compared to the concepts which were proposed to them. (2) (1) Deodato RIBEIRA, Georges MENAHEM, Michel DOBRY, Janet FINKELSTEIN contributed to this document. (2) "Discover" with COLLINS ("Foreian Conflict Rehavior and domestic disorder in Africa", APSA paper 1969, for example, that “Foreian violence is related to conditions of domestic disorders more so ‘n African states than elsewhere." Isn't this just another way cf saying in a new kind of bureaucratic language that African borders divide the ethnic groups, which leaves open the possibilities for an imperialist power to stir up nroblems and interfere in a specific way? The motives of the researcher are not being questioned - only the perception of the political authorities.=2 Accordingly, there is a whole area of applied research in the social sciences which needs to he investiaated. To treat such a crucial theme in less than 20 pages, it would be presumptous to do anything more than open the debate. It is not our intention to review the existing literature. Initially we will set forth a certain number of princinles which explain and moti e the critical approac h that was asked of us. Secondiv we will rapidly take a look at: 1 = the origin of quantitative methods in social sciences; 2 - a definition of certain types of dilemmas based on a series of examples; 3 - we will then conc lude on a definition of some alternative approaches to quantitative research which would he essential for creating a new approach to studies on the determinations of violence. 0, SOME PRINCIPLES 01. Analysis of two quantitativisms | It is not the quantitative methods themselves, but the quantitativism that is questionable. Under this assumption, the con- vergenc e of two different schools, some “critical " branches of empirical socioloay and critical Marxism, especially in Furope, Latin America and the Middle Fast in recent years, demonstrates the relative impass of both quantitative methods and theories. On the one hand, behavioral and empirical sociology cannot scientifically account for class conflicts :and national liberation struaqies when restina on a macro- or meaa-sociological level. The functionalist or structuralist system analysis cannot make-up for the fact that this approach janores the specificity of political polarization at the very level of the formation of aggregates which subtend the production of concepts. On the other hand, a certain form of Marxist economicism suitable for the macro-economic levelW4n the industrialized-"Center", reaches an impass in-its:analysis of: local socio-political conditions of the “Periphery* whencexplaining the specificity:of-social formations in ight of the persistance of precapitalist relations of production. Me e€] that the specificity of non-European social formations can be perfectly grasped by the Marxist approach. However, this implies a further development of ‘Marxist theory on precapitalist formations. As a theory of the capitalist mode of production (CMP), Marxism is still badly equipped for analysing what is not enc ompassed in this mode o° production and -what-is. opposed to-1t within formations which are® dominated by the CMP but where the historical blocks are profoundly different from-those found-in Europe. - The Furocentrism of Marxism is tied to-an.economicism-which reflects-the dominant ideology in the CMP suchas it emerged in, the."Center* formations. Economicism (sa quantitativisn and probably the model for a1] the others, historically. 02, "Cause" 2 “behavior”, "violence" The scope of the subject is considerable, especially since we must also include an analysis of the very formulation of the subiect. Whatever one has to say about quantitative studies which seek to define the causes of violence, could no doubt also be said about studies on “social tranquility" or fertility. In an epistemological sense, we are dealing with the application of quantitative methods to the“causes of social behavior". Resides an examination of the relevance of methods and of the concept of violence, which we will deal with below, it is necessary to tackle the theoretical analysis of the concent of "cause". “Causality” has been the object of seme interestina recent enistemo- logical studies. Causation is hardly considered any more to be but one of the cateaories of determination. It is the "determination of the effect by an effective external cause (a shot fired at a window causes the window to break). Interaction (cr reciprocal causality), struct- ural determination (of the parts by the whole), teleological deter- mination (of the means by the ends), statistical determination (of the end result by the joint action of quasi-independant entities), consti- tute the principles of a set of categories of determination which can enter into various combinations. From a Marxist viewpoint, one would have fotshow that the dialectical determination encompasses them all. In any case, the major point of the following remarks is to acknowledge that the question raised by the determination of violence and by quantification as the approach to this determination poses a fundamental problem because here one is immediately in contact with the Marxist concepts of contradiction and c lass struggle and the essence of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. This w ould not be the case if our obiect were “the determina tion of aesthetic behavior", for example. 03, Methodological or meta-theoretical analyses Quantitative mathematics in the social sciences cannot be merely examined as a method. The social sciences call upon certain mathemat- ical theories. One should ask first why, what for, how and when such and such a limited branch of mathematics is considered capable of supplying the causal explanation or the determination of certain social phenomena. Next we should take stock of the fairly explicit meta- theories, or failing that, of the dominant ideologies which are the basis of these determinations. Ne know how much quantitative social science mathematics is indebted to the physicist's approach, including the most currently accpeted causality or determinations. One has hardly explored the paths to a mathematics more "biologically" orientedy How could this question be treated in all its subtlety? Ye would have to ask mathematicians and statisticians to replace the fairly poor mathematical techniaues used by empirical sociologists both the present body of mathematics and the historical formation of tts concepts ey wou te us je meaning o TS poor ThvasTon tfon to the richness of t 9 . Such a study would have to be accompanied by a more systematic historical anthropology of interdisciplinarity (1.e. the role of military request in the development ofeperation-ai research). This would also imply the development of a discipline which has to date barely been formulated: the study of mathematical development in terms of historical TT) See Marto RUNGE, A clarification of Meaning, p. 17 ff.-4- materialism and the relationship hetween mathematics and dialectical materialism. a . et The problem involved here is not the adequacy of mathematical models for the designated obiect.. Rather, it 1s the coupling of two heterodentous proc esses of rroducing concepts and theories. -Hence at the outset. we would have to provide and.then analyse the theory of this, coupling in order to question the adequacy of this meta-theory for the referent of the research. Mere we can-do -40 More than NTRE RE ‘this problem. S problem. 04.” Refining the techniques or returning to History It is in no way our intention to criticize quantitativism in order to return to something as mystifying as the absolute superiority of the qualitative, or of the historical. or-anthropological languaae. Rather, we must fill out;the contours. of :the actual: theoretical state by proposina strategies of reflection. Pouahly speakina, there are two natural tendencies. One seers to improve-the situation hy perfect- ina the mathematical techniques,.in an exploration of existina mathematics, to find other-usable items or stimulants forthe sociolog- ical imagination. On the other hand, and in coniunction with this, one would refine the concepts used for imoroving the theory, to adant it for modelizina situations of class viclence and "imperial" violence while not losina the continuity of the emnirical approach. The other tendency is to bring about a rupture by a thorough requestioning. of the.essential technicues and-to try to show hv case studies that b efore formulating a new auantification, it is necessary to reexamine the most. concrete and commlex:historical processes - (contemporary or not). If we want to further the study of the-causes of violence, without repudiating. the accomplishments of ‘the empirical social sciences, we should first .qo back -to research based on»"evenemential" history, and develop anthropological research ‘for analysing the political momentum. -These are the necessary tools to compliment the Presentation of theeconomicsarticulations of conflicts. ‘In this way we could take a new look at the study of the causes of violence by studying the history of dissatisfaction. 05. From a control-oriented to a'liheration-oriented mathematics “Only by carrying out -new.tvpes of research-will-we-eventually he able to quide quantitative methads toward methods makina-use of a brand ‘new mathematics, compared to ‘the rigid one of aqqreaates and Correlations,’ gauss curves and pay-off matrix. : Each ‘era gets the social mathematics that ft warrants.’ “We can raise our hopes that... through critical analysis. of quantitative methods, we will emerae from mathematics of control and oppression to set forth upon a new math- ematics of self-control’ and liberation. 1, An Anthropology of the Violent-origins of quantification 1.1. Quantification and atomisation of the individual 1.1.1. "Violent behavior" or “concept of the state” Directed against political violence in general, but favorino "regulating mechanisms of society” which often proceed from police“5. violence, the psycho-sociological behaviorial sciences in the United States (which is a specific social formation wherein violence was in no way the legitimate monopoly of the central state), often reduced the concepts of state and war to the level of “violent behavior" of concerned groups. Ina la number of cases, research hypotheses and methods assimilated human violence and animal aggressiveness. The opposite approach raises the same theoretical problems. Directed against military and police violence in general, but favoring self-requlatory mechanisms for qroup conflicts, and a Fourier-like exaltation of a free democracy of pleasure. some analytical psycho- sociological approaches and recent anthropological studies assimilate non-violence(and non-animal aggressiveness) with a faculty lost by politicization and even more specifically, lost by the formation of the state. Whether one should go about condemning violence in order to repress it or to condemn the state in order to supress it, in hoth instances perhaps it touches upon moral progress. However, it is a point of departure which constitutes a scientific rearession when compared to Machiavelli, Clausewitz and Marx, not to mention Sun Tzeu, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. As long as it is not completely separated from catégories of “behavior” with its individual connotations, it is indeed the concept of violence itself which is questionable in its current status. 1.2 Structural v iolence and imperialism The concept of violence has been progressively separated from its behavioral matrix. It went through functionalist, and finally structuralist experiments. The definition currently given to “structural violence" appeared in the late 1960's. However, as SENGH- AAS points out (1), it 18 somewhat based on the concept of “institut- fonal violence" as used in the document issued at the Conference of Latin American Bishops at Medellin in-1969. - This concept "sprung up” from the acknowledgement that in some cases "people aren't merely killed by direct violence, but hy the social order as well." One must admit that the opinion voiced in the Medellin document is:in a way more political ‘than that of “structural violence", which 4s preferred by “critical peace research". Rased on the Thomist notion of rightful disobedience of the tyrant, it connotes and denounces not-a structure, but a power. In.this way, the Latin American clercy clearly raise the question of class violence, as exercised by the state and of hegemony (in the Gramscian sense) on the civil-socievy.. Yet, one is still dealing with violence as exercised on persons.: Moreover, refer- ina to"instituticns", the concept hardly helps one to cover this violence, whose origin is not always institutionalized, i.e. the imperialist system. The term “structural violence” tries thus to thoroughly cover up that of the “imperialist system" in as much as imperialism links the whole set of latent or operational repressive practices which lead to "injustice and deaths". However, under the same concept, 17 becomes possible to study "Violent and unjust" political relationships which can emerge in socialist countries or in countries in transition. There is still then a'very: theologic al.comppt left which is insepar- able from a Thomist definition of justic (1) D. Senghaas, Peace Research and tne Third World, IPRA (5), p. 186.6- The epistemological question is not whether the governments of socialist countries ge’ just or unjust, but whether the exercise of political violence, which is inherent in every state power, can be Bnalysed starting from the sane concepts as those for the capitalist states, What is the theory of the state, not what is the theology of justice. 1.1.3 Destruction of history and conquest of the Periphery Transforming war into "international violence", civil war and class struggle into "domestic violence", criminality within the pro- letariak labor reserve army into “individual violence", is generally inseparable from its designation as source-- that is, as the cause of violence of "trouble-maker nations", "marginal groups", and "deviants" respectively. Building the concept of “structural violence", one reverses things, attributing the origin of violence to structure (read structure of domination). However, we do not need to go further into detail more than before as to what this system is, from where it comes and when it occurs. By definition a structure is a-historical. In spite of well meaning intentions, the translation into non-Marxist language of a Part of the Marxist problematique is a considerable restraint. It is only possible through the destruction of everything in Marxist language that is based on the historical approach. It is true that this oper- ation makes a reconversion possible in an anti-imperialist sense of a whole "professional ability to quantify! But history is lost in the process. This loss of history seems to be exactly the fundamental operation of quantification. Furthermore, the destruction of history is tied to the conquest of the periphery by the imperialist center. In fact, the destruction of history plays a very definite role in the weakening of precapitalist structures which subsist both as reactionary economic forces and popular classes’ anti-vapitalist. ideologies. The paucity of historical knowledge is the rule amongst a large number of quantitativists. It is well known that as a result of the predominance of psycho-socioloay over the other disciplines in the majority of the dependant countries, the newly formed middle class technicians are unable to understand the societies from which they emerged and whose traditional values they reject. It is the revolt of Latin American sociologists before this amputation which is at the origin of the renaissance of contemporary Latin American historical studies} but much remains to be done. s What does the destruction of history have to do with the atomization of the individual, and with quantification? 1.1.4 The “reification” of the individual Today one observes that the dispossession of history is on a par with the destruction of ideological superstructures which precedes man's transformation into a free labor force available on the market. This contemporary operation is reprcduced(with differences and specificities which can be explained by an understanding of the various stages by which the capitalist system is transformed) at the moment which marks the genesis of the CMP. The rise of empirical sociology, its objectives and its methods, is inseparable from the framework of atomized man and from the appearance of management of the free labor force as a factor of capital. It is also important to note that the rupture with communalor feudal precapitalist structures, the isolation of the individual on the labor market, his rearticulation within a company as proletariat, the final production of goods; this whole process is isomorphous to the very isolation of an individual who ia interviewed. It is also isomorphous to the rearticulation of its elements of behavior into the elaborate data-producing machinery represented by the empirical survey. This isomorphism between capitalist production and empirical research production establishes a solid legitimacy and makes any analysis more difficult, even of course for those social formations in transition toward socialism, in which the social relations of capitalist production are not entirely abolished. Empirical quantification in human sciences so tied to the object of the study on which it is modeled on, no doubt possesses a heuristic value. Marx himself, studying the capitalist system, extolled surveys through individual questionnaires. We are not saying either that quantitative methods are necessarily tied to the "pacifier" goal of bourgeois society. The knowledge of "free" individuals and their relationship to such and such an aggregational system of social relationships of production can seek to release counter-aggregates: i.e. the "proletarian class consciousness". esearch on the determin- ations of individual violence can facilitate the reorganization of this violence into liberating collective violence. 1.1.5 . Class vidlence and quantitative sociology Needless to.say.the whole history of empirical sociology and of the sociology of violence (quantified on the basis of individual behaviorisms). is concretely ‘justified owing to the level on which the bourgeoisie, from the dawn of its hegemony, choses as a class strategy to deal with social conflicts; the "micro" and "intra" sociological levels; delineations which oppose respectively the appearance of class consciousness and proletarian internationalism. This choice is-a violence in-itself and is :reprodused, when necessary, -by armed .violence,.even inside the “Center” countries. Outside the "Center" countries, this-choice was the deliberate product of the colonial conquest wars. The majority of political struggles, even in cases today of individual or inter-community violence cannot be explained outside of the historical framework of the development of capitalism, in so far as-it,can only be developed by destroying commun- ity structures which still subsist in the world. . : In this sense, one.can say that all of sociology is a.search for the determinations of violence. All quantified sociology is a violence as well, reproducing the object of its own.research: the individual isolated, then incorporated, into the process of capitalist production. It is not surprising then.that the quantitative school faces insurmountable difficulties in following through its own analyses" right to the end.: Seeking to avoid extraordinary. limitations on the “micro-intra" level, it hurled itself.onto the "macro-trans" level, fetishizing its methods in order to be equal to the task.of the global problematique of the power system. . It then produced research branches which are definitely at an impass. “ 1.2 , The requality of nation-states" and the cuzcent impass of quantification The formal equality of individuals necessary to the creation of the proletariat carries with it as well some corrolaries which establish the rules of bourgeois democracy: the ritualization ofconflicts by vote: universal suffrage. It is not by accident that the quantitative methods in political sociology appeared first of all with the studies of Stuart Rice (1) in 1928. For a long time the principle area of application was the study of electoral behavior patterns. Without this formal and leqal equality, the idea of seizing upon the individual as the legitimate base of statistical aqgregations, which in turn helps understand the complex totalit,’ of the system, hardly appears, except in medical surveys and experiments. In societies thoroughly dominated by precapitalist ideology and social relations, the individual questioned often replies with "stereotypes" of a specific kind, which depend not on his belonging to a "group", but directly on his being a part of a social relation of production which does not rest on “free” labor. (2) Starting from this formal equality of individuals in as far as it corresponds to a reality on the level of the econcmic infrastructure, the human sciences develop using methods comparable to those of the physical sciences. Behaviorism, positivism, functionalism, and structuralism develop in successive hut not contradictory layers in order to perfect this approach, as the capitalist system moves progres- sively from the competitive to the monopoly and imperialist periods, and then to the.present stage of transnationalization. What is the significance of this new phenomenon which appeared in the 1960's, along with the mu)tiplication of studies which no longer use individuals for their base, but states? The answer is not immed- jately forthcoming. We are in an era in which the transnational space begins to be dominated by the American “multinational corporations", at the exact time when decolonialization is abruptly ended. The number of independant member states of the United Nations reached and went beyond 100." The temptation arose to consider this collection:as a "population". The legal framework: of "formal equality among states is on the same order as that which established equality among all cit- izens'at the dawn of European capitalism.. The play on words, "Third World"/"Third Estate" made'a fortune. Yet it should be obvious to everyone that compared to the equality among states, which corresponds to'nothing outside the legal framework and\Principles of sovereignty, equality among individuals seems to he a concrete reality. We have clearly gone from a myth whose analysis is subtle to a legal principle which doesn't reflect any sociological reality. In order to attain this new quantitative production, a first fetishism is necessary - that which transforms the partition desired by the dominant fraction of the bourgeoisie (in this case the nation~ states) into a natural'datum, paving the-way for enumeration. Yet a second fetishism is necessary - that which transforms into an absolute scientific method the method which has Ien developed for the manip- ulation of quantified data based on individual survey. Beyond the sociology of state voting in international organi- zations, we come to'aberrant studies which try to make this population- sample of nation-states say something about violence in the world, in the’ same way they try from a sample of 100 people to say something ~ T) 5. RICE, Quantitative methods in politics, 1928. (2) what is known as "frontal responses“ in Paul Vieille, La féodalité et l'Etat en Iran, Anthropos, Paris 1975.-9- about inter-action and agqr iveness within a group. This double fetishism explains the total impass in which is round a part of the studies on the determinations of violence. It may be possible to make progress at one level of ideologicism. However, not with two of them mechanically combined. 2. Types of Impasses We feel that the compiling of statistical series as coherent, as possible on military spending, arms transfers, the intensity of ” conflicts as measured by their duration andthe number of deaths, 16 very useful because it enables one to arrange and compare the data that is furnished by the statss. By refering to indexes such as.the percentage of GNP devoted to military spending, one can make a precise and synthetical account of that part of state policy known as the defense effort. The one question which must.be raised is whether, by accepting ‘the nation-state as the elementary cell of the study, it is possible to accomphish anything othef than describing and arranging the data in several different ways. This in no way touches upon the completely different problem, that of the determination of violence. If this determination were in no way situated on the inter- state level, how would we grasp it? This question ‘cannot even be clearly raised if we stick to an approach based on the grouping of states. For this reason, the majority of quantitativist studies in this field simply miss the point of the analysis of determinants. Below we have chosen some examples to illustrate a few kinds of approaches: the quantification of cycles of violence and the cause of periodicity, the quantification of national interests and the 2. causes of the escalation of conflicts; the quantification of military efforts and the causes of wars. We will then conclude with a few remarks on the ideological‘basis of, the approach. * Quantification of cycles of violence and ‘cause of persodizity Seeking regularities in human behavior Patterns throughout history, a typical study takes into account: 1) a rather. long period (1400-1900) 2) a;fairly large grouping.of states. 3) a grouping of enough variety of facts to establish by aggregates something like an “Index of violence® (numberof battles, bellis- erants, deaths, etc.) (1): J: é war eg Ce we a Note that this long period covers precisely the history of the: creation of nation-states and that herein lies the or question. :However ,. this question vanishes in statistical categories... Thanks tothe multiplication: of: registered data,*one-seeks to construct a whole:set of data which can be treated statistically, which result in graphs and indexes. Not only does the methodology mask the theorct- ical emptiness of the enterprise,,but it, compels it to remain:void in the problem of the nation-state. On the other:hand the willingness to build an aggregate connoting "violence" removes the possibility of (1) Frank H. DENTON, Warren PHILLIPS, “Some patterns in the History of violence", Journal of Conflict Resolution, .1968 (12) 182-185=10- evoking the nature of the conflict, the conqueror and the conquered, the quality of the stakes, etc., even at the most elementary level of the grouping of the facts. Tt 4s true that all these problems are not the object of the research, which shows simply that "There is a 25 year cycle". We cannot forget that we are dealing here with the law of world wide violence, as registered between 1400 and 1900. Next we ask what is the cause of this incredible regularity (which only exii tic= ally)? 16 cal mentioned are merely "the successicn of generations", and more specifically, that "the political leaders who, from one generation to another, forget the horrors of war". Everything occurs as if the author had never heard of economic cycles, which would have helped him at least to separate his sample and his periods, as if moreover he was ‘unaware that ‘in the 15th century wars were not counted by a world wide elite. What is more, the elites then viewed war as something like their raison d‘étre in a-large number of cases. 2.2 Spent sieation of national interests and causes of the escalation ~-@rying to approximats the analysis of interests at stake, other quantified studies deal with the in’ on among states and ¢! existence of contradictory interests, problems of communication and perception” of the ennemy sand finally the determinants of the process of escalation. One can attain a certain fi: but go beyond the gengription in so far as the agents ied with the institutionalized decision-making cente: Of all of these studies, we can single out this terribly sterile sentence: 1 » “The relations of atates may be studiéd from the viewpoint o: the world as a whole by locating states in an analytic field of which the coordinates indicate their values and their capabiliti . Relations of conflict , competition, coexistence, or cooperation may exist in varying degrees between the menbers of a pair of states Because (our emphasis) of their changing objective and subjective ‘stances from each other in the fields" (1) We stress the kind of research and definition of causality implied in this passage. The rhetorical construction, even imaginary Of a system of coordinate axes and quantification is enough so that one can place without any effort the cai in that mystified \d where “the variabl ict_ and react". It is enough to call “caus variation of variebles-so that the need to define “what mak vary" disappears. The cause of escalation has become the relative movement of “states” in this space, and is no longer ‘the growth of contradictions. The subtle pedagogical instruments of Schelling (2), the deformations of the enalytical utility functions of his'2.2 matrix and the neighbor-systen derived from it, as an‘escalation ladder, at least do not claim to be useful for empirical research on causality. 2.3 Quantification of military efforts and causes $f war A third type of study regroups those studies which consider as Primordial quantified data on arms acquisition or military budgets. Research on the most varied correlations can lead to the production Ti tainey WeYaer. "rhe escalation of international conflict®. ‘Journal-ul- of articles which try to establish empirically whether and how the arms race is a cause of conflicts. In this instance the research of Newcombe is particularly significant. It establishes that war is a statistically predictable Phenomenon. It is based on a study of the relative variations of military budgets by percentage of GNP of different states over 16 years, (With 4.63% of the GNP devoted to military purposes, a state has a 6.618 greater chance of having a war within 5 years than with less than 4.63¢ (1) ° The cause of this phenomenon is not clearly evoked; the author says that he doesn't “know why this is so". The problem raised is whether the elaboration of this statistical determination ‘s a real contribution or a numerical tautology. ‘The conclusion of the study is found in the following propos- ition, "If you prepare for war, you get war". . This adage should be held up to reveal the emptiness of the Roman adage, “If you want peace, Prepare for war". Newcombe's conclusion,in his form of adage, places the origin of war clearly in the nt, Even without wanting to define ci notion of anteriority. Under th teriority, of one "fact":upon another * & coordinated set of concerted decision: ing to prepare a complex action, with respect to the action itself. (war)..-Under the guise of a “statistical determination", there is really only the summation of a series of teleological determinations.» The determination of ware is in this hypothesis located in the decision to prepare for them by arming. “Bverybody knows beforehand that statistically the arming Process and war must have a-certain degree of correlation. One then giv number, 4.63% and 6.618, and one repeats is in a conclusion which is desguised in the form of an but the anteriority of This 1s not adequate. It is clear that it must be explained why one is ready to prepare for war on the level of the state appara- tus. Newcombe is then compelled to present - explicitly - another conclusion in the form of: an:hypothesis,: which this time is derived from a "mechanical determination". (2) "A nation's foreign policy changes when, it becomes too heavily armed", in the same way that "the personality of.a man changes.after he acquired a gun". What is the relationship between the: minations and what contradiction meskes the autho! hesitation? The teleological explanation is forced to consider the syate as the source of sovereign decision. “You are preparing for war" is directed at it) this. way, any mention of arns suppliers vanishes, though we know they are al)-powerful in a way. . The mechanical explanation: is forced t> consider the state:'as a person, behaving: like a,juvenile delinquant. There the sovereign decision vanishes.in the input-black box - output system and the delicate Personality of our juvenile delinquant is dominated and therefore determined by the one who can give him the gun.-12- ‘The considerable amount of work that has been provided by statistical manipulation can thus only lead to a double question mark. It cannot even help in correctly formulating hypotheses on the determination of wars by the arming process. This impotence is derived precisely from the fact that behind the whole approach, there no theory of the state and no.theory of war. Any.kind of theory would be preferable. ...For example, :"the state is a political organi- zation divided into two branches, civilian ami military". This would almost be an adequate theory.. But why isn't it mentioned? +The circle closes up: at the level of manipulatable statistical data, there is only a single series, that of military spending, which is a military- civilian decision. .The numbers available do not ‘require and do not allow for,’ the: introduction of any theory of the state. Therefore they cannot furnish any:progression in the determination of wars, but merely numerical tautologies. 2.4 ind_ideol of tI ab firat glance, the approach of quantitativists who question and account for diplomatic history seems more modest end better defined. To compile huge registers of "facts" not always based on. the New York 1: index, to discover correlations between:all kinds of ‘Storicel series which.can be'quantified:in.the field of internat- ional relations» (on, the basis of national statistics), facilitates the verification ‘of: cextain"ideas put forth by historians as a side remark and not always “empirically founded" in'the statistical sense. The number of ctates worthy of being listed in the. international system, the number of treaties of alliances or neutrality, the number the number of conflicts They are manipulated, correlations ‘and are established which one hopes are significant. The first study mentioned can be especially criticized becai its object is too broad (violence), covering a huge span of time (the world, 1400-1900). Because it 1s caricaturial however,.it helps to identify the essence of the whole approach. -Even in more refined studies, and hence of a-certain analytical interest, it means submitting historical material to the same effort of disarticulation of signifi- cant units without synchronics or atian actual short term, the nation- om. It’ 4s:a question -of production, by constituting of new facts", ‘which are supposed'to be somewhat monstrou- wae, use are , these. ‘tens, this. putting side: of ‘evenanential! history? : No doubt 'in order -to destroy ‘history, which di: completely, as the:science:of the interests at stake of the forces which concretely acted at'’a:given moment in.the past, and should the: cease completely to exist: as ‘knowledge of ‘the sequence of contradict: ions and of conflicts in which the actors ar provid led with pemory. This 18 not the goal pursued by thie type of research. Rather » & much more: positive and:conrate one,; which: is:expressed:in an ideological form.t: For example. .accordina to Navid. @inaar-inna.a¢ sha13- for us, because a larger number of value conflicts will be trans- formed into conflicts of prediction. This really means, "liberating our predictions from our preferences". (1) The we here represents the same thing as the you in the last example, that is, the group of states which are treated like persons and for which, by destroying their past considered as a vague ideology, one could facilitate access to liberating psychoanalysis in the form of analytical accounting, and access to wisdom of those who can distinguish the phantasms from reality. For an historian of ideas, it is clear that this approach corresponds to the ideology of détente, that the we involved is first formed by both camps, East and West, the USSR and the USA, and the praiseworthy goal is peaceful coexistence. For a Marxist analysis however, it is clear that the approach helps to establish an ideol- ogical community belonging to the new transnational fraction of the dominant classes and their supporting classes, by blocking off the historical paths of the struggles of each people. However, that is not the epistemological problem. At the most, an ideology which represents the power of the dominant fractions of the world wide bourgeoisie should have a certain scientific effectiveness somewhere. In fact, this is a dead-end. Wars are implicitly treated as the result of a poor knowledge of the history of conflicts among nation-states. One is carried back in time to the psycho-sociological problematique of the "mis-perception”. History would be but an immense misunderstanding which awaited American quantitativism in order to escape from its hazy dramas. The old puritanical hatred of tyrannical and cynical games of the Europe of the Congress of Vienna reappears in its own fashion. We stressed this processing of history because we want to propose for discussion the idea that this is exactly what we do not need in order to make progress in a useful way toward the understand- ing of the struggles of the contemporary world. The incredible pretension of quantitativists will never manage to confuse "the habit of thinking operationally” with the exact requirements of the historian and the ability to produce clear and productive concepts. Most of the time, quantativists have had little serious discussion with Marxists because their polemic was waged with the "traditionalists", who are only capable and only want to counter them with arguments of "common sense". (2) As for the most critical within the quantitativist group itself, they are capable of elaborating more thoroughly than we did here, the vices of form and the absurdities of the mania for quantify- ing. (3) The only outcome that they can imagine is a better exact- ness in the elaboration of concepts and methods. [ey SINGER, IBID. (2) For this debate, Particularly H. BULL, "International Theory, the case for a clawsical approach", World POlitics. April 1966.-14- To, the following remark of Singer, ridiculing the preoccup- ation of the traditionalists confronted by quantification, “There's nothing hard about adding up apples and oranges as long as it's a matter of fruit ," we feel it is just to reply, "There's no purpose in adding up fruit when it's a matter of better understanding the relationship between the Red Pelicious and the Golden through the bee that both fertilizes and cross breeds them, and how the seed develops in the ripened fruit.”