Ecstasy of war - Book Report/Review Example

Ecstasy of war Ecstasy of war The ecstasy of war is an essay written to inform about the transformation that undergoesduring a war. This essay was written by Barbara Ehrenreich, who is an American feminist. Also, she is a democratic sociologist and political activist. During the 1980s and the 1990s, Ehrenreich was one of Americans democratic socialists. This book is soaked with the blood of ancient dangers, rituals and practices that Barbara argues to be invested war with passions that still rule us to date. The torrent of blood here would be repellent, except that Barbara presents it only to serve her arguments. This paper discusses the ecstasy of war and gives and what it entails as the writer Barbara has argued. Also, I have discussed various factors such as tone, underlying assumptions, relevance, completeness and prejudice in relevant to the essay. Ehrenreich gives us an evolutionary account of the war. She also portrays the rationales used in various conflicts for the alignment of a naturalized genealogy of the phenomenon itself. There is a wide range in anthropological examples, but the concentration focus is on passions we bring to war. The passions are quasi-religious in nature and are neither blood lust. Barbara suggests that the death-drive is not the most characteristic, but it is a loved-up festival that leads to the feeling of oneness with the others (Ehrenreich, 1998). The book starts by discussing the prehistory of war. There is a different perspective of a war as an extension of our predatory instincts for Barbara argues that it is the past wars that have led the coherent that is now evident in various institutions. The exposure of being at the mercy of a powerful enemy which is responded by banding together for protection to predate our own predation shows that the pioneers were the victims. This victim status has haunted our rituals ever since as it is evident through blood sacrifices to initiation rites and then leading to war. The relevance factor is portrayed in this first part of the essay as it is true that the past war experiences have led to the shaping our institution directly and indirectly (Ehrenreich, 1998). In the ecstasy of war, it is evident that different wars have led to different theories of why men fight them. Napoleonic Wars that resulted to the rationalist spirit of the French Revolution inspired a Prussian officer Carl Von to suggest that war is an entirely rational undertaking unsullied by human emotions. He had an aphorism of war as a “continuation of policy by other means”. Nations were the leading actors on the stage of history and war were one of the tools they used to advance their interests against those of other nation-states. The factor of prejudice is evident in the Carl Van opinion of the war as a rational undertaking motivated by human emotions (Ehrenreich, 1998). When the World War I came after Napoleon’s sweep through Europe and northern Africa, it led to a different perception of the human impulse to war. The war was to conclude in any way as rational especially to the generation of European intellectuals such as Freud Sigmund. Though the history tells us that the imperialist states led to the war due to conflicts, there is no alignment with the actual blunders, accidents and miscommunication that led European nations to war in 1914. These were the underlying assumptions of the war and to people like Freud they took the time to think about the war to come up with the facts of its cause. He concluded that there is a perverse desire for destruction which counters the will to live (Ehrenreich, 1998). The author also outlines various theories that modern wars have developed. One is that war is risky that men tend to pursue their collective interests so as to improve their living standards. It is clear now that war stems from sub rational drives and that it does not lead to committing of violent crimes to humanity. Fallacy is evident in this essay where people seemed to hold both views at once of that war is a gainful enterprise which meets the needs of the groups involved in it and that it also fulfills psychological needs. Statistics has proven that wars are designed at least to secure necessaries as oil and geopolitical advantage, but for psychological grip it is just a wrong belief (Ehrenreich, 1998). Though it is true that aggressive impulses and murderous rage can take over in the heat of battle, there is the need to know different weaponry and fighting techniques. In the case of hand-to-hand combat, the emotions of range and aggression may be required. As for the action-at-a-distance weapons where arrows and guns are used, emotionally of any sort can be a distinct disadvantage as it is how you respond to the enemy firing that prevails. Military historian like O’Connell has aligned to this as he argued that the change in the ideal warrior personality brought by the advent of guns in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries has resulted from the ferocious aggressiveness to passive disdain. This now has led to the completeness of knowing that there are no personal emotions associated with warfare (Ehrenreich, 1998). Fighting is one of the components of the enterprise known as war. The author explains that, in war, fighting takes place within battles and that war do not begin by battles as they are not decided by them either. It is evident that most wars consist of preparation for battle, organization of supplies, marching and other forms of transport activities. As anthropologists Clifton and Fontana pointed out, that it was a large step from what may be biologically innate leanings towards individual aggression to ritualized and institutionalized group warfare (Ehrenreich, 1998). War is too complex and collective activity which the individual psyche cannot account. History has proven that individual men have gone to near suicidal lengths to avoid participating in war as they fled their homelands, hacked off limbs, some draw their teeth and also blinded themselves. The author also explains warlike instinct as when men are assembled willingly and unwillingly to take part in a war, fighting is not something that comes naturally to many. This hence calls for a transformation of the men involved in the war so as to boost their confidence. The results of the transformation were that the men became totally new beings that have the charisma, discipline and courage needed in a war (Ehrenreich, 1998). In conclusion, the ecstasy of war essay entails the prehistory of war that is remarkably timely. The author notes appear to have a life of their own which is shape-shifting, but omnipresent. The essay also provides food for thought to people interested in evolutionary psychology, philosophy and political science. It is evident that the author has out done herself in breaking with conventional history and the result is thrilling for one sees the world in a new way. References Ehrenreich, B. (1998). Blood Rites: History of the Passions of War. USA. Henry Holt publishers. Read More