Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by alexdpar
Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace by Christopher Blattman
challenging
informative
slow-paced
2.75
I like a good chunk of Blattman's ideas, but the way they are laid out does not convey many, if any, of the final key takeaways. Moreover, half of the examples used ignore peacebuilding measures that drastically change the circumstances or conclusions being made. The only time it feels as if he talks about the idea of local actors, while he usually favors those top dogs like presidents, military leaders, and giant intercontinental wars, seems to be obscure. Overall, the very organization of the book made it hard to follow the ideas, even when I wanted to agree with them (I found myself struggling to keep up or even stay awake sometimes).
Most of my contention comes from his realist frame - and while I can understand where he is coming from, it seems to be exclusivist of a variety of factors. While he wants to portray all these reasons for going or not going to war as a calculated measure for obtaining and maintaining power, none of this accounts for irrational actors and it too readily dismisses opposing viewpoints, like environmental motivations for negotiation or even misrepresented psycho-social peacebuilding components.
But, despite these qualms and negative opinions (I find myself going into books like this as a pessimist looking to disagree), there are some great positives that make this book worth reading. For one, it introduces game and social theory in an understandable manner and in a new light. Unchecked interests, intangible incentives, uncertainty, commitment, and misperceptions all do negatively impact peace and the possibility for war. Second, the idea of using methods like interdependence and checks and balances tend to be backed by other peace and conflict researchers (but they don't really work if not supported). But again, the ways in which these are demonstrated are often using mismatched examples - trying to utilize a small conflict to make claims of international or national state violence or vice versa. Third, while many of the theories and general concepts are vague and basic, it is meant to be introductory and serves as an overview, which is really handy when trying to understand conflict and peace.
Most of my contention comes from his realist frame - and while I can understand where he is coming from, it seems to be exclusivist of a variety of factors. While he wants to portray all these reasons for going or not going to war as a calculated measure for obtaining and maintaining power, none of this accounts for irrational actors and it too readily dismisses opposing viewpoints, like environmental motivations for negotiation or even misrepresented psycho-social peacebuilding components.
But, despite these qualms and negative opinions (I find myself going into books like this as a pessimist looking to disagree), there are some great positives that make this book worth reading. For one, it introduces game and social theory in an understandable manner and in a new light. Unchecked interests, intangible incentives, uncertainty, commitment, and misperceptions all do negatively impact peace and the possibility for war. Second, the idea of using methods like interdependence and checks and balances tend to be backed by other peace and conflict researchers (but they don't really work if not supported). But again, the ways in which these are demonstrated are often using mismatched examples - trying to utilize a small conflict to make claims of international or national state violence or vice versa. Third, while many of the theories and general concepts are vague and basic, it is meant to be introductory and serves as an overview, which is really handy when trying to understand conflict and peace.