Changes in Attitudes Toward the Enemy in Modern Wars: Dehumanization of Russian Soldiers in the Perception of Civilians and the Military of Ukraine
Abstract
The article analyzes the possibilities and limitations of the classical sociological discourse of war for analyzing Russian aggression against Ukraine. It is emphasized that Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has created new challenges for the theoretical substantiation of sociological studies of war. The questions are raised whether it is worthwhile to fully rely on the achievements of the "new wars" theorists who argue that due to significant changes in the conduct of modern wars, Clausewitz's postulate of the secondary "paradoxical trinity" inherent in war: people, army and government cannot be applied; or whether the arguments of the supporters of the "old wars" theory should be accepted, who note that the fundamental characteristics of war remain unchanged, only the context of war becomes different. The author emphasizes the dehumanization of Russian soldiers by Ukrainian civilians and the military. Based on the analysis of the results of the author's empirical research conducted in March-June 2022 using the method of in-depth semi-structured interviews with Ukrainian civilians, as well as with military personnel and combat veterans, it is concluded that at the stage of the full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war, the attitude of Ukrainians towards Russian soldiers, in particular their dehumanization, has reached an extremely high level. The author emphasizes the differences in the dehumanization of civilians and military personnel by the enemy. It is noted that for civilians, the dehumanization of the enemy simultaneously serves to strengthen the self-identification of their own group as a conductor of humanistic values. The dehumanization of the enemy by the military is characterized by the depersonalization of Russian soldiers, and their destruction is perceived as part of their professional work. The military mostly avoids the moral context in perceiving the enemy. In both groups, both a normative aversion to violence and tolerance of aggression as a response to the enemy based on the desire to destroy it are recorded. The general conclusion is made that classical theoretical constructs on the peculiarities of interaction in intergroup conflicts, in particular in war, can be applied to explain the attitude to the enemy in the case study, which gives grounds to consider "old" and "new" wars as similar, at least in the context of the population's understanding of the events of the war. Possible further directions for theoretical and empirical research on the issues chosen by the author are identified.
Downloads
References
Weber M. Political Writings / ed. by P. Lassman ; trans. by R. Speirs. Cambridge University Press, 1994. 426 p.
Tilly C. Coercion, Capital and European States. Wiley-Blackwell, 1992. 288 p.
Simmel G. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. Free Press., 1964. 196 p.
Simmel G. The Sociology of Georg Simmel / ed. by K. H. Wolff. The Free Press, 1964. 445 p.
Coser L. The functions of social conflict. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956. 188 p.
Kaldor M. Elaborating the ‘New War' Thesis. Rethinking the Nature of War / ed. by J. Angstrom, I. Duyvesteyn. 2004. P. 221-235.
Schuurman B. Clausewitz and the «New Wars» Scholars. Parameters. 2010. Vol. 40, no. 1. P. 89-100.
Kestnbaum M. The sociology of War and the Military. Annual Review of Sociology. 2009. Vol. 35, no. 1. P. 235-254.
Рущенко І. Російсько-українська гібридна війна: погляд соціолога. Харків: Павленко О. Г., 2015. 266 с.
Хобта С. В. Соціологія війни як завдання української соціології // Вісник Луганського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка: Педагогічні науки. 2016. № 5 (302). С. 126-150.
Требін, М. П. Соціологія війни: український контекст // Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В. Н. Каразіна. Серія «Соціологічні дослідження сучасного суспільства: методологія, теорія, методи», 1148. С. 30-34.
Кудринська А., Лапан Т., Химович О. Мілітарна проблематика: соціологічний дискурс. Грані. 5(25). C. 53-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15421/172261
Лапан Т., Химович О., Черниш Н. Російсько-українська війна: теорія та практика соціологічного осмислення. Український соціум, 3. C. 28-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/socium2022.03.028
Пінкер С. Добрі янголи людської природи. Чому у світі панувало насильство і чи стало його менше. Київ: Наш Формат, 2022. 864 с.
Brighton S. Three propositions on the phenomenology of war. International Political Sociology. 2011. Vol. 5, no. 1. P. 101-105.
Barkawi T. From War to Security: Security Studies, the Wider Agenda and the Fate of the Study of War. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 2011. Vol. 39, no. 3. P. 710-716 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811400656
Roxborough I. Clausewitz and the Sociology of War. The British Journal of Sociology. 1994. Vol. 45, no. 4. P. 619-636.
McSorley K. Towards an embodied sociology of war. The Sociological Review. 2014. Vol. 62, no. 2. P. 107-128.
Bousquet A. War. Companion to Political Sociology / ed. by E. Amenta, K. Nash, A. Scott. Hoboken, 2012. P. 180-189.
Mann M. War and Social Theory: Into Battle with Classes, Nations and States. The Sociology of War and Peace / ed. by C. Creighton, M. Shaw. London, 1987. P. 54-72.
Shaw M. Dialectics of War: An Essay in the Social Theory of Total War and Peace. 1988. 92 p.
McDonald K. Our violent world: terrorism in society. Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. 230 p.
Clausewitz С. On War. New York : Oxford University Press, 2007. 284 p.
Villacres E., Bassford C. Reclaiming the Clausewitzian Trinity. Parameters. 1995. Vol. 25, no. 1. P. 9-19.
Creveld M. V. On Future War. London : Brassey, 1991. 254 p.
Metz S. A wake for Clausewitz: Toward a philoshophy of 21st-Century warfare. Parameters. 1994. Vol. 24, no. 1. P. 125-132.
Baumann R. Historical perspectives on future war. Military Review. 1997. Vol. 77, no. 2. P. 34-54.
Daase С. Clausewitz and Small Wars. Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century / ed. by H. Strachan, A. Herberg-Rothe. 2007. P. 182-195.
Smith M. L. Strategy in an Age of «Low Intensity» Warfare: Why Clausewitz is Still More Relevant Than His Critics. Rethinking the Nature of War / ed. by J. Angstrom, I. Duyvesteyn. 2005. P. 28-64.
Kalyvas S. N. «New» and «Old» Civil Wars: a valid distinction?. World Politics. 2001. Vol. 54, no. 1. P. 99-118.
Mello P. A. In Search of New Wars: The Debate About a Transformation of War. European Journal of International Relations. 2010. Vol. 16, no. 2. P. 297-309.
Гоббс Т. Левіафан або Суть, будова і повноваження держави церковної та цивільної Київ: Дух і Літера, 2000. 601 с.
Malešević S. The Sociology of War and Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 374 p.
Holmes R. Acts of War: Behavior of Men in Battle. 1985. 464 p.
Grossman D. Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1996. 416 p.
Bourke J. An Intimate History of Killing. London: Granta, 1998. 576 p.
Collins R. Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory. 2008. 584 p.
Kteily N., Bruneau E. Darker demons of our nature: the need to (Re)Focus attention on blatant forms of dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2017. Vol. 26, no. 6. P. 487-494.
French S., Jack A. Dehumanizing the enemy: the intersection of neuroethics and military ethics. Responsibilities to Protect: Perspectives in Theory and Practice / ed. by D. Whetham. Amsterdam, 2015. P. 169-195.
Not yet human: Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences / P. Goff et al. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008. Vol. 94, no. 2. P. 292-306.
Salzman M. Dehumanization as a prerequisite of atrocity and killing. Nonkilling Psychology / ed. by D. Christie, J. Pim. Honolulu, 2012. P. 107-124.
Dehumanization in Conflict Conference Report. The Neuroscience and Social Conflict Initiative: Dehumanization in Conflict Meeting, 16 February 2013.
Fabick S. Two Psychologically Based Conflict Resolution Programs: Enemy Images and US and THEM. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology. 2008. Vol. 1, no. 1. P. 72-81.
Rieber R. W., Kelly R. J. Substance and Shadow. The Psychology of War and Peace / ed. by R. W. Rieber. Boston, 1991. P. 3-39.
Smith D. L. Paradoxes of dehumanization. Social Theory and Practice. 2016. Vol. 42, no. 2. P. 416-443.
Vaes J., Paladino M., Haslam N. Seven clarifications on the psychology of dehumanization. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2020. Vol. 16, no. 1. P. 28-32.
Haslam N., Loughnan S. Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology. 2014. Vol. 65, no. 1. P. 399-423.
Giner-Sorolla R., Leidner B., Castano E. Dehumanization, demonization, and morality shifting: Paths to moral certainty in extremist violence. Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty / ed. by M. A. Hogg, D. L. Blaylock. 2012. P. 165-182.
The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization / N. Kteily et al. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015. Vol. 109, no. 5. P. 901-931.
Bar‐Tal D. From intractable conflict through Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology. 2000. Vol. 21, no. 2. P. 351-365.
Ісакова Т. Мова ворожнечі як проблема українського інформаційного простору. Стратегічні Пріоритети: Політика. 2016. № 4. С. 90-97.
Тараненко О. Міфологізовані маркери дегуманізації ворога в смисловій війні 2014 р. Інформаційне Суспільство. 2015. № 4. С. 65-69.
Haslam N. Dehumanization: An Integrative Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2012. Vol. 10, no. 3. P. 252-264.
Скороход К. Особливості дегуманізації в умовах гібридної війни: на прикладі ставлення населення до російських солдатів – учасників російсько-української війни. Вісник НТУУ «КПІ» Політологія. Соціологія. Право. 2019. Т. 52, № 4. С. 23-32.
