Language: English
Subject(s): History
Page Range: 6-24
No. of Pages: 19
Keywords: , , , , , , , , ,
Summary/Abstract: The incentive for this paper is the lack of a clear distinction between war and crime. This implies that a profound theoretically defined concept of war is necessary in order for war to be definitely differed from crime. The author maintains that the culture of war is necessary way to separate the war from crime. In order to associate culture to war, one is supposed to find out a denominator which they share in common. The common denominator of culture and politics (security, war etc.) is land/territory/soil. An etymological analysis is provided in order to support the premise. Culture etymologically means the cultivation of land. Politics, originally meaning the ‘wall’, is the fencing and distribution of land, and therefore the struggle for land. This implies that politics (including war) is just a special form of culture. The war is to be cultivated in order to prevent its deviation into a crime. Paper provides the historical account of culture of land distribution. The account includes the cases of ancient Greece’s deme, ancient Rome’s ager publicus, Byzantine’s pronia system, Ottomans’ timar system, etc. The author starts his analysis of the war with the sources of war: conflict relationship, aggressiveness and security. The culture of war asserts to begin from the sources of war. This view finds strong support in Aristotle’s concept of the virtue of courage which is defined by fear. The novelty of this paper is the author’s concept of the culture of fear which is to replace currently ruling culture of unlimited courage as the cause of crime. The culture of fear is the most appropriate device thwarting the deviation of war into a crime. Article concludes with the concept of war, also relied on Aristotle’s view, which is defined by its purpose – peace.
Open access on CEEOL: NOT YET



Share this article
Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail