Stuart J. Kaufman developed a model which can be used to explain various wars. This model explains various aspects of war and ethnic violence such as the prevalence of wars in some areas and not in other regions, terrorist activities, and periodic variations in international conflicts, nationalistic ruthlessness and related issues. War can be explained in terms of cognitive or psychological theories which further build the theory of symbolic politics, which is a conceptual framework for answering most questions (Kaufman, 2015). Also, this theory explains democratic peace, the high prevalence of international conflicts between rivalling states as well as the contribution of international relations in these wars. This model counters the international theorist approaches which Kaufman states that do not constraint biases but empowers them. Moreover, Kaufman argues that IR theorists base their arguments on the simplistic assumptions of humanity. This model incorporates the Neorealist beliefs that although human beings may not be naturally evil, they constitute the international systems which can be aggressive and anarchical. Also included in this theory is the liberal approaches which not only accept the imperfection of humankind but also acknowledges the need for pervasive cooperation. The constructivists, on the other hand, argue that a perfect international system can be achieved if humans became nice to each other.
Kaufman explains that conflicts, be it nationalist or ethnic, can take many forms ranging from nationwide civil disobedience and ethnic clashes to full-blown massacres and civil wars and genocides. While some of these wars have open causes, some of them apply complex Machiavellians principles. According to this model, several reasons can be used to map the prevalence of wars in some regions against others (Kau ff man, 1993). For instance, cosmopolitan and nationalist regions are prone to war, especially due to a perceived or reactive threat, or the existence of a distrusted rival in the close vicinity. According to this mapping, Europe, several regions in Africa and Northeast Asia are likely to engage in wars. This brings the issues of cultural assertion and international respect. Regions which fuse nationalists and Machiavelli’s ideologies are bound to be more prone to conflicts whereas constructivism and liberal ideologies are less likely to get into conflicts. Also important in this in this approach of war is the psychological foundation and assertiveness, primary prejudice as some of the predisposing factors to conflicts. Thus, this model explains Machiavellianism, nationalists, cosmopolitans and enduring rivalries as the key predisposers to international conflicts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The mental associations and networks which may be involved in double decision making may lead to non-rational and intuitive decisions which may alter the predispositions due to symbolic concepts and foreign policies. On these aspects, religion, party identification, ideological and racial prejudice may create universalism and benevolence, which may tilt security and power values. The big-five personality and traits may result in cooperation and psychological agreeableness (Westhoff, Yarbrough & Yarbrough, 1996). Despite the general knowledge on the benefits due to cooperation, mistrust and suspicion may lead to instability and defection. Also, this may lead to social dominance orientation, as other powers may seek to be politically and economically above the entire society. On this account, this model categorizes the world into leftists, cosmopolitans and liberals. Negative stereotyping, for instance, the assumption that some race, ethnicity or faith should be subdued, may also lead to conflicting ideations, distrust and prejudice. On this context, every decision may be treated as a product of deliberative policymaking rather than intuitive action.
Explaining the Armenian Genocide
The Armenian Genocide was a well-choreographed plot by the government of the Ottoman to exterminate nearly 1.5 million Armenians who lived in the then declining empire within the period of world war one. This plot started with the arrest and deportation of Armenian intellectuals from Istanbul to Ankara, after which the majority of them were murdered (Kifner, 2007). The first phase of the Genocide involved the massacre of non-disabled men, while those in the military faced hard labor. In the second phase, children, women, and the aged were forced to march through the Syrian Desert in the absence of food and water; thus, most of them died of harsh conditions. A similar policy was used in the Greek and Assyrian genocides to exterminate other ethnic groups. During this time, the waning Ottoman powers feared the prosperity of Christian Armenians (Grigorian & Kaufman, 2007). The Armenians were also rising in numbers (hence they could no longer be treated as a minority ethnicity) and they were becoming prosperous merchants, and this made the Ottoman Empire feel that they may change their loyalty to a more Christian government as compared to the Ottoman.
Kaufman’s model can be used to explain the predisposing factors towards the war. For example, the psychological fear by the Ottomans that the Christian sects of Armenians were rising in population and wealth made them (the Ottomans) feel threatened that they were losing their grounds. Armenians were treated as a minority and government did not deny them the freedom for upholding their religion. This created a situation whereby they were like enduring rivals to the empire (Grigorian & Kaufman, 2007). As the population and wealth of the Armenians increased, the Ottoman’s perceived them as stronger rivals hence the need to trim their growth. The Ottoman Empire was cosmopolitan with ethic groups from as far as Greece and Assyria, and these tribes were rising while the Turkish founders of the empire seemed to be collapsing rapidly. The inferiority fears and perceived threat from the rising tribes prompted deliberative action to exterminate the Armenians alongside other ethnic groups.
References
Grigorian, A., & Kaufman, S. J. (2007). Hate narratives and ethnic conflict. International Security , 31 (4), 180-191.
Kau ff man, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford , 3 (3.2), 3-4.
Kaufman, S. J. (2015). Nationalist passions . Cornell University Press.
Kifner, J. (2007). Armenian genocide of 1915: an overview. The New York Times , 7 . Retrieved from https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/timestopics/topics_armeniangenocide.html?module=inline
Westhoff, F. H., Yarbrough, B. V., & Yarbrough, R. M. (1996). Complexity, organization, and Stuart Kauffman's the origins of order. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 29 (1), 1-25.
