Any misunderstanding or the state in which different countries or individuals are a conflict is referred to as war. In social life, war cases are prone because there must be differences between people or misunderstandings. For example, once striving for power, some people may become greedy; hence others can raise violence at individual or group levels. Scarcity of resources is another issue that may result in war since everyone must struggle for satisfaction. There may be individual levels of war since people act differently; some are greedy, aggressive, and selfish (Study, (n.d). In the fight for fair treatment, individual levels of war start since the oppressed individuals tend to use violence while fighting for their rights. Every individual’s contribution to a conflict results in war since the views and the progress is shared within the formed group. In this paper, both individual classes and group levels of war have been addressed. Individual and group levels are discussed in the paper, but one is given a higher priority for contributing to war.
There have been wars globally at individual or group levels, but group levels have contributed to high numbers. For a group war to occur, there must be individuals forming the group, each with a motivation to fight a certain feeling that they are against. Individuals share collective beliefs on what they feel is wrong at personal levels, forming a particular group for defense, from where group levels of war arise. Each individual is crucial in the management of war since the group cannot fight a war without collecting everyone’s views on the progress. In developing a peaceful negotiation or initialize war, human minds cook the idea of agreement or disagreement. A mixed reaction from men or women is the leading cause of war since they share ideas, making them strong while beginning the conflict. For example, group wars arise between different religions, such as Muslims and Christians, in religious matters due to differences in belief and reactions.
Both individual and group levels of war complement each other, but in my opinion, group levels are the most contributors to war within individuals and countries. Although individuals act as a group in most cases to come up with group levels of war, I believe that group levels have higher contributions since they get more robust by having the perspectives of each individual on causing conflicts. For a group war to take place, at some point, there is the implication of individual emotions, immoralities, or impulses against a particular group of people. For example, if people are against a specific political organization at a personal level, they are likely to form a group to be against the political coalition. The formed group will use violence to demonstrate each person’s negative attitude at individual levels, leading to a group war. People in nearly all the organizations fight for a change in groups, concluding that group levels mainly contribute to war. In his book, Lorenz explains the term ‘militant enthusiasm’ to point to collective action as the main reason for making war to scope in a broader way. Militant enthusiasm is people’s tendency to lose their actual inhibitions against acts of violence after being united with people with the same motivation (Kim, 1976). The enthusiasm encourages the group to act more violently since fellow members are motivated to form the group. For instance, the war in Afghanistan was accelerated by the Taliban’s ambitions to conquer them through their motivation as a group.
Being united with others who share the same motivations certainly affects one’s reactions to the surrounding circumstances; hence, group levels mostly create wars due to their unity. If individuals mix their reactions, their acts can bear violence since each has adverse emotions. A collective force often makes the group act more than how they could act if the conflict could be upon each one at individual levels. A group has a similar identity and objectives to be adhered to, make conditions according to their wish, or have the responsibilities they are fighting for. Guerrilla protested the employed to rectify imagined and real wrongs they had on people by foreign invaders or the ruling government (Asprey, 2021). At individual levels, guerrilla warfare could not have the impacts it posed; hence, group levels are prone to causing wars over individual levels. The implication is that once people form a group to protest against any actions, personal responsibilities are not considered but the group’s wish. For example, guerrilla warfare is a group war that has acted against several acts to motivate the members on their views; hence the group contributes over how individual levels could contribute.
Once individuals act with their direct responsibilities against oppression, they may be too irresponsible; therefore, group levels remain responsible for their objectives and cause war without any bother on personal levels. Within a group, all the members are anxious and ready to fight the others beside them because goals are shared in the group. People in a group collectively become conscious and do not consider the adverse effects of the actions to be done; therefore, group levels cause catastrophic war compared to individual levels. Group war is riskier since, in most cases, group war results in devastating losses to the involved individuals and, at times, third parties. For example, in the Afghan war, the group war with the Taliban resulted in the trials of reaching a peaceful negotiation (Crisis, 2021). The war negatively impacted the fighting groups of death cases, property loss, and people displacement. Another group of violence is the crisis in the Sahel, ethnic violence, which has become deadliest in 2020 compared to the times it has been continuing, which sets an example of how group levels of war are fatal.
Moreover, group violence can result from disputes between citizens due to voting; as in the case of Somalia, a war that could not result at individual levels but as a group, the protestations began. Somalia’s president faced a conflict with his rivals, and the Al-Shabaab war has been continuing for around fifteen years. The war between Al-Shabaab and the military forces is a group war that has negatively impacted trade and urbanization and left people without peace (Crisis, 2021). Since Al-Shabaab controls a lot of portions of Somalia, they remain a potent group fighting the people, affirming that groups are prone to causing devastating war over individual levels.
In conclusion, individual and group-level factors contribute to war but mostly, war results from group levels. Due to sharing motivation within the group, their efforts are complimented, and they work towards the planned goal. Although group levels mainly depend on individual levels of war, groups are likely to cause war from the conflicts that individuals may be holding. In a group, people share a mission and vision; hence through a collection of their views, they act exceedingly to how at individual levels they could perform. For instance, there are no differences in groups to avoid fighting themselves, but there may be challenges that can win over the individual easily at personal levels.
References
Asprey, R. Brown (2021, March 24). guerrilla warfare. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/guerrilla-warfare
Crisis Group (2021, January 8). 10 conflicts to watch in 2021. Crisis Group. https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/10-conflicts-watch-2021
Kim, S. (1976). The Lorentzian theory of aggression and peace research: A critique. Journal of peace research, 13(4), 253-276. Retrieved April 28, 2021, from http://www.jstore.org/stable/422494
Study, (n.d) https://study.com/academy/lesson/causation-of-war-individual-state-system.html
write