The Human Potential for Peace: An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence

by Douglas P. Fry

In The Human Potential for An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence , renowned anthropologist Douglas P. Fry shows how anthropology--with its expansive time frame and comparative orientation--can provide unique insights into the nature of war and the potential for peace. Challenging the traditional view that humans are by nature primarily violent and warlike, Professor Fry argues that along with the capacity for aggression humans also possess a strong ability to prevent, limit, and resolve conflicts without violence. Raising philosophy of science issues, the author shows that cultural beliefs asserting the inevitability of violence and war can bias our interpretations, affect our views of ourselves, and may even blind us to the possibility of achieving security without war. Fry draws on data from cultural anthropology, archaeology, and sociology as well as from behavioral ecology and evolutionary biology to construct a biosocial argument that
challenges a host of commonly held assumptions.
The Human Potential for Peace includes ethnographic examples from around the globe, findings from Fry's research among the Zapotec of Mexico, and results of cross-cultural studies on warfare. In showing that conflict resolution exists across cultures and by documenting the existence of numerous peaceful societies, it demonstrates that dealing with conflict without violence is not merely a utopian dream. The book also explores several highly publicized and interesting controversies, including Freeman's critique of Margaret Mead's writings on Samoan warfare; Napoleon Chagnon's claims about the Yanomamö; and ongoing evolutionary debates about whether "hunter-gatherers" are peaceful or warlike. The Human Potential for Peace is ideal for undergraduate courses in political and legal anthropology, the anthropology of peace and conflict, peace studies, political sociology, and the sociology of war and violence. Written in an informal style with numerous entertaining examples, the book is
also readily accessible to general readers.

Genres: Anthropology, Nonfiction, History

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Zena Ryder · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book fascinating and very readable, despite being an academic book in an area I'm not familiar with. I loved learning about the various cultures around the world, and their different methods for conflict resolution. The diversity of human beings is amazing.

Fry's view is that we have tended to over emphasize humans' capacity for violence, while under emphasizing our capacity for non-violent conflict resolution and peaceful living. We have emphasized the qualities we might have in common with (more violent) chimpanzees, while largely ignoring the qualities we might have in common with (more peaceful) bonobos, which are just as closely related to us. We have emphasized the war and violence in our history, while largely ignoring (or failing to see) the apparently peaceful simple hunter-gatherer societies of our more distant evolutionary past. (Not to mention the fact that, even now, most of us manage to get along, resolving our differences, every single day — without resorting to violence.)

Fry challenges assumptions that have been repeated in the academic literature and in mainstream society, about the innate violent tendencies of humans, and shows how such assumptions have, in many cases, coloured scholars' interpretation and/or presentation of the data.

A wonderful book, which left me feeling optimistic about humans' capacity for peace.

There's a review of the book here, as well as more info on a world without war:

http://www.afww.org/index.html

[Richard · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’m an Anthropologist. I read this book for my capstone class in anthropology. It is nothing more than cherry picked, pie in the sky, kumbaya garbage.

[Hugo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. The author argues convincingly that the human being is not inherently warlike. We have a great capacity to create peace and live in harmony. This may at first seem strange and an utopian dream, but, looking at the data that the author provides it turns out to be undeniable, the evidence is truly overwhelming. We see war and violence every day in the news, we study the history of our civilization and others and discover that they all had war. So, why wouldn't we assume that human is inherently violent? Our cultural beliefs, as Douglas P. Fry argues, constrain us in our search for the truth. Many times, we make the mistake of portraying sedentary agricultural tribes as windows of the past. These tribes are predominantly warring and hierarchical. Warfare, as Fry states, increases with social complexity. The truth is that, despite being a small minority today, all humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers until around 12,000 years ago and lived in a sparsely populated planet (the highest estimates say that humans numbered about 10 million at the time). There were plenty of resources back then contrary to our beliefs due to the low population density (1 person per 8 sq. miles). In the worst Australian desert conditions that's the exact density needed to support a hunter-gatherer. Surely there were much more abundant places than Australia's harshest desert back then. Hunter-gatherers are predominantly non-warring and egalitarian. Individuals may fight over women but groups don't. Normally, in these societies, women possess as much power as man Fry also demystifies many writings of the so-called "realists" with powerful arguments and evidence and denounces how they tend to overlook peaceful pre-industrial societies overlooking them or explaining them away as they constitute a nuisance to the theories of warfare. My favourite chapter is the one in which he criticizes (and, indeed, demolishes) some assumptions people make about the past. These are 'The assumption of warring over scarce resources', 'The assumption of warring over women' and 'the assumption of warring over land'. Moreover, in conditions where resources are scarce (such as access to waterholes in the Kalahari Desert), cooperation rather than fighting is the chosen option for nomadic hunter-gatherers and much more advantageous.

[Sharif · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fry approaches this subject through an anthropological lens, investigating both current and prehistoric cultures. His conclusion is that war is a relatively recent phenomena when we consider archaeological findings from 50,000 years ago.

“The belief that there always has been war does not correspond with the archaeological facts of the matter.... the earliest clear evidence for warfare dates from 10,000 years ago, and war becomes more common with the rise of the states several millennia later...” It is logical that war is closely correlated with the advent of states, rulers, and governments. While there was evidence of individual violence, state level conflicts gave birth to modern warfare.

“...Killing in war does not come naturally for either gender, and gender norms often shape men, women, and children to the needs of the war system.” I thought this was a powerful point. This statement suggests that killing is not an intrinsic aspect of the human experience. And war appears to serve not the interests of the participants engaged in it, rather our cultures and norms serve to fashion us to suit the demands of war itself.

I appreciated the integrity of the author in presenting opposing views countering his perspective, especially since I felt conflicted about some of his conclusions. Overall, a fantastic book researching our innate potential for peace.

[OvercommuniKate · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Human Potential for Peace is no different from The Better Angels of Our Nature, Sapien, and Francis Fukuyama's books. They ALL argue "primitive is peaceful" and that Rousseau state of nature is fact. That's just not true, and even if it was, small groups with low inter-personal conflict are often oppressive.

I do agree with the author's opinion that shared norms, cooperation, and societal structures all help us move towards peace, but it feels like the author is trying to have their cake and eat it too with Hobbes v. Rosseau.