272 CHAPTER EigHT ■ War and Strife
compatible with that of sociobiologists who study animal be hav ior. Virtually all species
are equipped to use vio lence to ensure survival; it is biologically innate. Yet human
beings are an infinitely more complex species than other animal species. If true, these
presumptions lead to two pos si ble alternative assessments. For pessimists, if war is the
product of innate human characteristics or human nature, then there can be no
reprieve. For optimists, even if war or aggression is innate, the only hope of eliminat-
ing war resides in changing social institutions, socializing or educating individuals
out of destructive tendencies.
Of course, war does not happen constantly; it remains an unusual event. Thus,
characteristics inherent in all individuals cannot be the only cause of war. Nor can the
explanation be that human nature, indeed, has fundamentally changed, because wars
still occur. Most experiments aimed at changing mass human be hav ior have failed
miserably, and there is no vis i ble proof that basic attitudes affecting insecurity, greed,
aggression, and identity have been altered sufficiently to preclude war.
Thus, the individual level of analy sis, though clearly implicated in some wars, is
unlikely to stand as a good cause of war in general. Individuals, after all, do not make
war. Only groups of po liti cal actors (for example, clans, tribes, nations, organ izations,
states, and alliances) make war.
state and society: liberal and radical explanations
A second level of analy sis suggests that war occurs because of the internal characteris-
tics of states. States vary in size, geography, ethnic homogeneity, and economic and
government type. The question, then, is how do the characteristics of diff er ent states
affect the possibility of war? Do some state characteristics have a higher correlation
with the propensity to go to war than others do?
State and societal explanations for war are among the oldest. Plato, for example,
posited that war is less likely where the population is cohesive and enjoys a moder-
ate level of prosperity. Since the population would be able to thwart an attack, an
enemy is likely to refrain from attacking it. Many thinkers during the Enlighten-
ment, including Immanuel Kant, believed that war was more likely in aristocratic
states.
Drawing on the Kantian position, liberals posit that republican regimes ( those
with representative governments and separation of powers) are least likely to wage
war against each other; that is the basic position of the theory of the demo cratic
peace introduced in Chapter 5. Demo cratic leaders hear from multiple voices, includ-
ing the public, which tend to restrain decision makers, decrease the likelihood of
misperceptions, and therefore lessen the chance of war. They also offer citizens who
have grievances a chance to redress these complaints by nonviolent means. The abil-
ity to redress aids stability and prosperity. Ordinary citizens may be hesitant to sup-