You are on page 1of 4

Verbena D. Balagat JD-II Activity No.3 Fiscal Julius P.

Babalcon 4/29/2021

Warfare is engagement in violent conflict or the activities involved with violent conflict.
Bombing places. Pitting one class of people against another, making the poor hate the
rich. War conflict is the action of waging war.

Warfare may be subdivided into a number of overlapping categories varying from


feuding among fraternal interest groups and raiding into foreign territory to large-scale
military actions and place-bound battles; its precise form, scale, frequency, and content
dependent on the specific societal and cultural setting. It makes good sense to
understand warfare as basically cultural encounter, both internally in a group as well as
externally toward other groups and not reducible to being merely a particular form of
violent collective social action. Rather, warfare is interaction, both violent and nonviolent
by character and comprising phases of persuasion, agreement, planning, and
cooperation in addition to the violent confrontations, and very often postwar rituals. If
warfare turns inward in the group (∼civil war; feuding) this has in effect already been
fractioned since warfare always seems to emerge from bounded social units. Warfare is
waged against outsiders and violent conflict as such tends to rise from the construction
of exclusionist identities, basically a question of us against them.

As a suitable entrance to archaeological inquiries, warfare can furthermore be


comprehended as a durée of intentional activities; a continued flow of interactions,
which ultimately imply violence and which produce unintentional consequences that are
again acted upon. As a form of social interaction warfare cannot be meaningfully
separated from the rules, norms, and resources of society as such. Besides, warfare
often connects to rituals and other social activities, which may in sum be regarded more
as a continuum of interaction than as separate practices. Not all conflicts end up in
violent confrontation, but are often solved by nonviolent means, which is an important
point to make.

Violence is at the very core of warfare, but is also a comprehensive concept comprising,
in addition to warfare, for example, interpersonal aggression like homicide, intrafamily
hostilities and wife beating, forceful kinds of sport, human sacrifice, and juridical or
political punishments such as torture, maiming, and death penalty. It may be difficult to
distinguish clearly between these forms of violence in every case based on purely
archaeological grounds. Moreover, the boundary between them can be quite subtle, and
ethnography suggests that a high occurrence of interpersonal and ritualized violence
other than strictly warfare quite often coincides with periods of intensified warfare. The
term 'war-related violence' can often serve as a preliminary classification or acceptable
compromise when archaeological data do not allow a precise categorization of the kind
of violence involved.

The fighters themselves, the warriors and their leaders, are the chief actors of warfare
whose roles rely on a considerable number of movements across landscapes and at the
places of fighting. War and warfare invariably produce death, suffering, and trauma, and
warriorhood can therefore be defined as an identity, or profession, that domesticates the
associated fear through a learnt scheme of skills and techniques, stored in brain, body,
and material culture in complex not divorceable ways.

The term ‘warriorhood’ is another key to understanding warfare in the past: it can be
defined as an individualized social identity closely connected to military actions, but also
motivated by myth and ideologies of men, glory, and war. Because it requires a physical
risk and offers a chance to display individual courage and bravery – warfare is in many
societies acknowledged as a route to social success in that it may generate social
capital suitable to invest in social strategies of power. Males may from early boyhood be
socialized into the warrior role, as in many parts of colonial Africa, Melanesia, Australia,
and South America. Here warfare was not necessarily conducted from firm military
units, but able males were momentarily committed to the task and engaged in fighting
on ad hoc basis. When, however, warriors organize in institutions of war, so-called
warbands, they do it in three different ways with access to the ‘club’ based on principles
of age (age grades) or social prestige and personal status, and in a number of instances
also distinctions of rank and class. In this latter case recruitment happens from the
dominant societal level or followers are more broadly appointed by a war leader of high
social standing. The aristocratic warband with special codes of conduct is described in
numerous ethnohistorical cases of chiefdoms and archaic states as well as in the
ancient written sources from Tacitus' Germania to the epic classics of the Rigveda,
Homer, and Beowulf; these are all rooted in Bronze Age and Iron Age worlds and
therefore important for the understanding of warfare from the third and second-millennia
BCE onward.
______________________________________________________________________
Helle Vandkilde, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
(Second Edition), 2015
In this video the most affected by war are the vulnerable, the helpless and the poor.
They are the ones who suffered a lot. Seeing the enormity of death and destruction the
entire world condemned the use of nuclear bomb. The world is full of them. This is
frightening. This must stop an must be avoided. War destroys communities and families
and often disrupts the development of the social and economic fabric of nations. The
effects of war include long-term physical and psychological harm to children and adults,
as well as reduction in material and human capital.
Among the consequences of war, the impact on the mental health of the civilian
population is one of the most significant. Studies of the general population show a
definite increase in the incidence and prevalence of mental disorders. Women are more
affected than men. Other vulnerable groups are children, the elderly and the disabled.
Prevalence rates are associated with the degree of trauma, and the availability of
physical and emotional support. The use of cultural and religious coping strategies is
frequent in developing countries. War has a catastrophic effect on the health and well-
being of nations. Studies have shown that conflict situations cause more mortality and
disability than any major disease. War destroys communities and families and often
disrupts the development of the social and economic fabric of nations. The effects of
war include long-term physical and psychological harm to children and adults, as well as
reduction in material and human capital. Death as a result of wars is simply the "tip of
the iceberg". Other consequences, besides death, are not well documented. They
include endemic poverty, malnutrition, disability, economic/ social decline and
psychosocial illness, to mention only a few. Only through a greater understanding of
conflicts and the myriad of mental health problems that arise from them, coherent and
effective strategies for dealing with such problems can be developed.

The occurrence of a wide variety of psychological symptoms and syndromes in the


populations in conflict situations is widely documented by available research. However,
research also provides evidence about the resilience of more than half of the population
in the face of the worst trauma in war situations. There is no doubt that the populations
in war and conflict situations should receive mental health care as part of the total relief,
rehabilitation and reconstruction processes. When war gave a big push to the
developing concepts of mental health, the study of the psychological consequences of
the wars of the current century could add new understandings and solutions to mental
health problems of general populations.

A number of issues have emerged from the extensive literature on the prevalence and
pattern of mental health effects of war and conflict situations. Are the psychological
effects and their manifestation universal? What should be the definition of a case
requiring intervention? How should psychological effects be measured? What is the
long-term course of stress-related symptoms and syndromes? All these issues need to
be addressed by future studies – Documents from Google Scholar
The usual strategies suggested by political scientists and international relations experts
to prevent war include arms control and diplomacy. Approaches to arms control and
diplomacy vary in their actual and potential effectiveness. Disarmament diplomacy and
human security: Regimes, norms, and moral progress in international relations. New
York, NY: Routledge. and beyond the scope of this chapter. Regardless of the specific
approaches taken, suffice it here to say that arms control and diplomacy will always
remain essential strategies to prevent war, especially in the nuclear age when humanity
is only minutes away from possible destruction.

Beyond these two essential strategies, the roots of war must also be addressed. War is
a social, not biological, phenomenon and arises from decisions by political and military
leaders to go to war. There is ample evidence that deceit accompanies many of these
decisions, as leaders go to many wars for less than noble purposes. Citizens must
always be ready to question any rationales given for war, and a free press in a
democracy must exercise eternal vigilance in reporting on these rationales. According to
critics, the press and the public were far too acquiescent in the decision to go to war in
Iraq in 2003, just as they had been acquiescent a generation earlier when the Vietnam
War began being waged. To prevent war, the press and the public must always be
ready to question assumptions about the necessity of war. The same readiness should
occur in regard to militarism and the size of the military budget. In this regard, history
shows that social movements can help prevent or end armament and war and limit the
unchecked use of military power once war has begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Breyman, 2001; Staggenborg, 2010). Breyman, S. (2001).

You might also like