AFTER VIOLENCE: 3R, RECONSTRUCTION, RECONCILIATION ...

as mentioned, structure and culture. What does war do to them?
Nobody will dispute that wars bring about cohesion both on
the military and the civilian sides because of the single-minded
devotion to one cause: winning, or--failing that--to bring the war
to an honorable end. How long-lasting is another matter.
The war may be used by societies threatened by general
atomie, atomization, fragmentation; today perhaps particularly
pronounced in advanced democracies with eroded traditional sources
of cohesion. Outgroup aggression, ingroup cohesion.
Nor is there any question that wars bring out such positive
traits as dedication, sacrifice, solidarity, discipline, team-
work, good administration. Those who prove themselves along such
lines will demand, and often get, high social positions after the
war. But these virtues are embedded in a casing of violence and
contempt for life that also may carry over to civilian life. War
provides mobility for the downtrodden, a reason why soldiers are
often from the underclass of society (including the unemployed and
the unemployable). But the result may be a lasting over-employment
of the under-qualified.
Culturally, war may also cure society of anomie, the absence
of compelling norms, substituting war-time norms about
God/History/Law/Nation. And that leads to the same question: does
this mean that post-war society is organized like an army,
responding to military culture? If we assume military culture to
be to culture what military music is to music, does that not mean
a belligerent Weltanschauung, filled with friend-foe ideas? If so,
society never demobilizes but remains militarized, war-prone, in
the sense of easily accepting war as an alternative.