JUST WAR THEORIES RECONSIDERED: Problems with Prima Facie Duties and the Need for a Political Ethic

This essay challenges a “meta‐theory” in just war analysis that purports to bridge the divide between just war and pacifism. According to the meta‐theory, just war and pacifism share a common presumption against killing that can be overridden only under conditions stipulated by the just war criteria. Proponents of this meta‐theory purport that their interpretation leads to ecumenical consensus between “just warriors” and pacifists, and makes the just war theory more effective in reducing recourse to war. Engagement with the new meta‐theory reveals, however, that these purported advantages are illusory, made possible only by ignoring fundamental questions about the nature and function of political authority that are crucial to all moral reflection on the problem of war.     

Terrorism and the New Forms of War

Abstract: The March 2003 American preemptive strike on Iraq and related events pose entirely new conceptual questions about the notion of a valid war. A “war on terrorism” goes well beyond any usual version of the “just‐war” concept, which is itself notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to apply in current international circumstances. The implications of the emerging forms of war are examined and are found to bear in an unexpected way on justifying war, “just war,” and justice in distributional and related respects.     

Political Authority and Unjust Wars

Just war theory is currently dominated by two positions. According to the orthodox view (Walzer), provided that jus in bello principles are respected, combatants have an equal right to fight, regardless of the justice of the cause pursued by their state. According to “revisionists” (McMahan, Fabre) whenever combatants lack reasons to believe that the war they are ordered to fight is just, their duty is to disobey. I argue that when members of a legitimate state acting in good faith are ordered to fight, they acquire a pro‐tanto obligation to obey which does not depend for its validity on the justice of the cause being pursued. However, when the war is unjust, this obligation may be overridden, under certain conditions, by the obligation not to contribute to the unjustified killing of innocents. This is because (contra Raz) the pro‐tanto force of the duty to obey the law is best understood in terms of “presumptive”, rather than “exclusionary” reasons for action. This approach captures the insights of both the orthodox and the revisionist view, while avoiding the problems that afflict each of them.     

When Validity Testing Lacks Validity: Comment on Levine et al.

The death of self‐construal research has been greatly exaggerated. Levine et al. (2003) highlight the alleged methodological limitations of the current body of the self‐construal model of culture. Their allegations, whether true or not, require a fair investigation. Careful examination of Levine et al. reveals pervasive logical flaws, methodological errors, and interpretation biases, which stem from ethnic stereotyping and other erroneous assumptions at various junctures. These fundamental errors, in turn, render their conclusions untenable. In testing their 1st set of hypotheses, which they proclaim to be “central to the validity” of self‐construal scales, Levine et al. bifurcate the participants into “Westerners” versus “Asians,” and then impose their a priori stereotype of how Westerners ought to be versus how Asians ought to be, which is scientifically unacceptable. This is an unscientific validation criterion (comparable to crude ethnic stereotypes such as “Asians are smarter”) and should not be used to judge the scales' validity. Next, in their discussion of priming, Levine et al. assert that the construct validity of the interdependent self‐construal requires that it must be susceptible to priming. This is an elementary logical fallacy. It simply does not follow from the definition of the interdependent self‐construal and therefore cannot be used as a criterion which reflects on construct validity. Their priming experiments are also deeply flawed by the unrepresentative sample of participants. Further, in their factor analyses, Levine et al. set up the “straw man” of a “universal a priori 2‐factor solution” although no self‐construal scholar or theory insists that there are precisely 2 universally applicable self‐construals or that the current self‐construal scales are perfect. The results of statistical analyses, such as those in Levine et al., crucially depend on the selection of presuppositions. Levine et al.'s presuppositions are untenable, yet they are passed off as self‐evident criteria for validity testing. Their article tries to create an illusion of finality, but is pervasively and fundamentally flawed.     

景颇族初中生的民族社会化觉察及其特征

民族社会化觉察是指少数民族孩子对父母向他们传递的有关民族特征信息的认知。采用问卷调查、情境实验和故事补全任务考察景颇族初中生对母亲传递的民族社会化信息的觉察及特征。结果表明：(1)景颇族初中生觉察到的民族社会化信息包含促进和睦、文化社会化、促使不信任和偏见准备; (2)景颇族初中生对不同信息的觉察存在差异, 对促进和睦的觉察显著多于文化社会化和偏见准备, 对促使不信任的觉察最少; (3)在冲突情境中, 有无偏见线索影响被试对偏见准备的觉察; (4)被试的民族社会化觉察存在性别差异, 女生更多地觉察到促进和睦, 男生更多地觉察到促使不信任。整个研究表明, 青少年的民族社会化觉察存在着文化差异, 与美国少数族裔青少年觉察到母亲偏重于传递文化社会化、偏见准备不同, 景颇族初中生觉察到母亲偏重于传递促进和睦。     

The “Islamized Stranger”: On “Chronic” Versus “Contextual” Salience in the Measurement of Anti‐Muslim Prejudice

There is an ongoing debate whether anti‐Muslim prejudice in Western countries is more widespread than prejudice towards other ethno‐cultural groups or general ethnic prejudice. Previous research used different methodologies and yielded contradictory results. In this article, we combine a population‐based split‐sample survey experiment (N = 1,323), where half of the respondents judged items about Muslims and the other half statements about strangers, with an open question probing which groups respondents thought of when thinking about “strangers.” We furthermore extend previous research by not only focusing on general ethnic prejudice, but to differentiate between perceived trustworthiness, economic, cultural, and security threat. Our results strongly support the idea that the difference between the “chronic” and “contextual” salience of the target of prejudice should be taken into account.     

Gender Communal Terrorism or War Rape: Ten Symbolic Reasons

This paper examines gender communal terrorism in past conflicts across the globe. Gender communal terrorism is a symbolic form of war rape. It was used systematically during the Bosnian War (1992–1995) and the Second Congo War (1998–2003), as part of a large-scale campaign to wipe out ethnic groups. In fact, war rape in the Second Congo War has been considered the worst in the history of humankind. To increase our understanding of war rape as a form of terrorism, ten symbolic themes (i.e., symbolic reasons) emerged from this analysis: (1) identicide (or ethnic cleansing), (2) punishment, (3) conquering territory, (4) proof of manhood, (5) wounded femininity, (6) wounded community, (7) rejection from family, (8) abjection, (9) ritual, and (10) fantasy. An important conclusion of this analysis is that all ten symbolic reasons of war rape have one purpose in common: the cultural elimination of the enemy. As such, gender communal terrorism is a weapon of war and an instrument of terror that cause profoundly negative effects on entire communities. Hence, a recurrent key word among those themes is the word “wounded”.     

Is this America? Unfinished business with the U.S. national imaginary,religion and violence

This article first proposes definitions and raises questions about what it means to be a nation. I then analyze the national imaginary of the United States, and suggest that at its deepest core we find “substitute ultimates” regarding America's sacrificial war‐culture. This cultural violence perpetuates destructive consequences, including the phenomena of “U.S. war‐culture,” and “moral injury” among military servicemembers and veterans. But widespread legitimation of the imaginary largely inhibits citizens from awareness about their own reality. Lastly, I inquire about the role of prophetic public theology to address nationalism, and engage in a thought experiment with an imagined community of diverse partners.     

THE ARTIFICIALITY OF GERMAN IN MODERN YIDDISH POETRY

One of the chief debates in Yiddish linguistics and literary criticism concerns the issue of daytshmerish (Germanesque). Specifically, scholars question the incorporation of lexical elements from New High German into the literary language of modern Yiddish. After examining the arguments of the major Yiddish linguists and literary critics who pronounced on this subject, this article will highlight examples of this so‐called “borrowing” in the poems of the American Yiddish “sweatshop” poet Morris Rosenfeld (1862–1923). In particular, it will show the way in which these Germanic elements, specifically lexical ones, function on a stylistic level in Rosenfeld’s poetry and contribute to his general poetics.     

Mixing against culture vs mixing against nature: ontologization of prohibited interethnic relationships

In this paper, we develop the theory of ontologization: Social representations that prevent members of minority and majority groups who are living in contact with each other to mingle. The process of ontologization consists of separating some humans from their own species, and anchoring them in another environment, that of an animal, for example. We propose that underlying the famous slogan “equal but separate” is the social representation of interracial mixing as a “counter‐nature” phenomenon. It is predicted that a sexual relationship between people of different “races” leads to a greater degree of ontologization, and, as such, this miscegenation will be explained in terms of biologistic thinking, like an instinctive nature or atavistic animal impulse. An experiment (N = 360) features the case of a woman who, though already in a stable relationship, is unfaithful to her partner. In a 2×3 factor design, the ethnic‐national identity of this woman (in‐group: Spanish/Italian vs out‐group: Senegalese) and the ethnic‐national identity of her lovers (in‐group: Spanish/Italian vs out‐group: Rumanian vs out‐group: Senegalese) were manipulated. In general, results fit the hypothesis of ontologization in interracial conditions better, rather than the customary in‐group favouritism and/or out‐group discrimination bias. We then go on to discuss the way in which a biologistic way of thinking enables a differentiation at the human level, in terms of culture groups and nature groups, in “races,” so that an interracial sexual relationship is seen as evidence of a wild and irrepressible impulse, which stigmatizes the people involved in these relationships.     

The “Hero‐Protector Narrative”: Manufacturing Emotional Consent for the Use of Force

How do political leaders manufacture collective emotions to justify the use of force? This article introduces the “hero‐protector narrative” as a conceptual model to analyze how political leaders try to manufacture specific collective emotions to encourage their audience to perceive violence as the only morally acceptable course of action. In our model, we formalize a set of distinctive narrative structures (roles and sequences), which are combined to activate compassion and moral anger as well as identification with “heroic” behavior. Furthermore, we argue that the resonance of this narrative draws on values of hyper‐masculinity in patriarchal societies. As such this narrative is to be found across different types of actors (state/nonstate) and culturally diverse settings. To test our model, we use a computer‐assisted QDA approach. We compare systematically discourses produced by political actors legitimizing the use of force versus actors opposing the use of force. We find that discourses supporting the use of force, such as those produced by George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in the context of the Iraq war, share the structural characteristics of the hero‐protector narrative. In this regard, they differ remarkably from violence‐opposing discourses, regardless of their cultural background.     

“Peace with the Earth” in the Context of the Decade to Overcome Violence

Abstract In this article, Guillermo Kerber situates theWorld Council of Churches' Decade to Overcome Violence against the background of debates about war and peace that have taken place within the ecumenical movement since the Second World War. He shows how this initiative has contributed to an understanding of the concept of “just peace” that goes beyond being the opposite of “just war, but rather demands the absence of all forms of structural violence, including gender‐based, cultural and media violence”. Against this background, this article underlines the need for an ecological understanding of “peace with the earth” to be an integral part of such a “just peace”.     

65 Jahre später

Research on the long-term emotional impact of World War II experiences is an important psychoanalytical issue and requires an interdisciplinary approach. In the project: “Witnesses of the ‘Operation Gomorrha (Hamburg Firestorm)’ (1943) and their families” long-term processing of and coping with war experiences of former children and adolescents are investigated by historians and psychoanalysts. A sample of 64 witnesses (34 women, 30 men, average age 75 years) and their families was recruited and investigated by semi-structured interviews. The interviews were analyzed by methods of “renarrated and interpreted history of coping” and group analysis against the background of historical, psychological and cultural approaches. A total of nine prototypical cases give insight into different biographically determined representations of the “Firestorm” and the conjunction with socio-cultural processes. Analysis of coping over the life-time has to take life experiences after the war and during the time of rebuilding into account. The research project attracts much interest among the former “war”-children.     

CONCERNING THE MORAL DIMENSION OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM IN A COMMUNIST-FREE WORLD*

The socio-economic “pro-democracy” revolutions which are currently sweeping the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the name of glasnost and perestroika have virtually stunned all but the best informed in the Western World. The demand for reform throughout the so-called “Soviet block,” and the concomitant impatience with the progress of these changes in the economic and basic social fabric of these societies, have come to exhibit an urgency which few observers, if any, had been able to forecast a few short years ago. The declarations by some members of the U.S. Congress that these changes are indicative of the fact that the cold war has been won by the West, and that we are now witnessing the precipitous collapse of Marxist ideology, together with the widespread sentiment that there is “no going back” to the repressive Leninist-inspired regimes of Stalin, Khruschev, and Brezhniev are all synergistic to the creation of a sentiment of optimism that indeed we have turned the corner in East-West relations. To a world which has lived under the long night of thermonuclear extinction for over four decades, the feeling accompanying the prospect of a possible end to the nightmare of Armageddon further enhances the euphoric sentiment.     

The Bilingualism of the Language of the Victim and the Language of the Victimizer

Inspired by a panel which took place at the 2018 IARPP conference in New York – this paper, which deals with the bilingualism of the language of the victim and the language of the perpetrator, offers a close reading of the panel’s three papers, trying to characterize their unique poetics of testimony through a differentiation between four modes of traumatic testimony which are distinguished from one another by the degree of the psychic motility they succeed to form in relation to traumatic memories: the “metaphoric”, the “metonymic”, the “excessive” and the “Muselmann” testimonial modes. The last part of the paper suggests a link between the testimonial language of the victim and the testimonial language of the victimizer, trying to understand these polarized languages as two variations of the refusal to mourn.     

Reframing the Catholic Understanding of Just War: Two Contrasting Approaches in the Interwar Period

During the inter war period, European Catholic authors exhibited two different approaches to the question of just war. One approach was articulated at the “Fribourg Conventus,” a 1931 meeting of French, Swiss, and German theologians, whose subsequent declaration (Conventus de bello, published in 1932) called for a reformulation of Catholic teaching based on the premise that the traditional just‐war doctrine had been superseded by developments in international law. A competing approach was articulated by the Dutch Jesuit Robert Regout, who maintained that the just‐war doctrine could contribute to the formation of international law by providing a much‐needed normative foundation for the use of armed force by individual states in redress of their violated rights. After presenting these two approaches and explaining how they differ, this essay shows how the outlook of the Conventus de bello is reflected in subsequent papal statements on armed force—to the detriment of the traditional terminology of just war.     

Does remembering past ingroup harmdoing promote postwar cross‐group contact? Insights from a field‐experiment in Liberia

In the aftermath of the Liberian civil wars, we investigated whether it is possible to systematically influence how people construe their group's role during the conflict and how this affects intergroup emotions and behavioral intentions. In a field experiment, 146 participants were randomly assigned to think about incidents of violence during the war that were either committed by fellow ingroup members (perpetrator‐focus) or against fellow ingroup members (victim‐focus). Adopting a perpetrator‐focus led to greater willingness to engage in cross‐group contact, greater need for acceptance, and greater intergroup empathy. The focus manipulation did not affect participants' need for empowerment. Key message: Appraising the ingroup as “victim” or “perpetrator” after conflicts with reciprocal harmdoing is largely a matter of psychological construction. A promising avenue for promoting positive cross‐group contact consists in widening the ingroup's victim role by also remembering the harm that the ingroup inflicted upon others. This amplifies the need of acceptance, which leads to greater intergroup empathy and greater willingness to engage in cross‐group contact. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

HOBBES AND GAME THEORY REVISITED: ZERO‐SUM GAMES IN THE STATE OF NATURE

The aim of this paper is to critically review the game‐theoretic discussion of Hobbes and to develop a game‐theoretic interpretation that gives due attention both to Hobbes's distinction between “moderates” and “dominators” and to what actually initiates conflict in the state of nature, namely, the competition for vital goods. As can be shown, Hobbes's state of nature contains differently structured situations of choice, the game‐theoretic representation of which requires the prisoner's dilemma and the assurance game and the so‐called assurance dilemma. However, the “state of war” ultimately emerges from situations that cannot be described by any of these games because they represent zero‐sum games in which the outcome of mutual cooperation does not exist.     

“淑女之争”与“君子协议”:回眸英国精神分析学会的“论战”

20世纪40年代,英国精神分析学会内部爆发一场影响全世界精神分析学发展的"战争"。以Anna Freud和Melanie Klein各自为首的精神分析师团体围绕潜意识幻想、本能与力比多以及精神分析培训与教学等一系列主题展开激烈争论,即历史上著名的"Freud-Klein论战"。这场"论战"就精神分析培训问题达成协议,并直接导致克莱因学派、维也纳学派和独立学派三"组"鼎立的英国精神分析时局。"论战"促使了客体关系精神分析与自我心理学的分离,推动了精神分析研究从驱力模式向关系模式的范式转变,奠定了后续精神分析运动发展的格局。