Blood Rites

Book: Blood Rites

Writer: Barbara Ehrenreich

Publisher: Granta / Penguin

Language: English

ISBN: 9781847083531

Page: 256

Format: Paperback


When the then Prussian military theorist and decorated soldier, Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz, termed war as “the continuation of policy by other means”; he achieved overnight popularity. The theory was part of his treatise ‘On War’ that he never managed to complete. But whatever he managed to write has divided theorists down the middle. The reason behind his immense popularity can be varied. However, the most plausible reason is that he offered an excuse to all those strategists who always considered war as a perfectly valid way of achieving the strategic goals. And that’s why his rather romantic conception of war suited warmongers and patriots alike.

One interesting aspect of his treatise is that he kept updating it all through early 19th century in the course of various wars that he fought. He thus de-constructed war from an engagement between two states or nation states to a “People’s War”. Clearly, the influence of the events of Napoleonic era hung too heavy on his mind.

“Blood Rite” is one of the many treatises that have tried to critically analyse war in the frameworks of anti-Clausewitzian point of view. It thus devoid war of all romantic pretensions and conclude it as merely a primitive, in essence masculine trait (or phenomenon) that is in fact a manifestation of 'Blood Rite' in a larger magnitude. It thus rejects Clausewitzian point of view that war is continuation of a well thought policy and insists that there is no rationality in war and it is human passion that drives them essentially.

The author, Barbara Ehrenreich, takes the discourse to a different level altogether by analysing the entire motive behind mankind's fascination of war. She insists that humankind has always held war as a sacred undertaking that needs to be fulfilled and it does not require any policy or strategic goals to wage it. She has also relied heavily on pre-historic discourse where she analyzed war primarily on two aspects; animalistic passion that human specie carried from their physiological forefathers and the ancient tradition of pre-historic man to perform the 'Blood Rite'. She gives her verdict in the favour of the latter one.

But how does that analysis change the perception as how a war should be seen. This is no secret now that revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao were impressed by Clausewitzian interpretation of 'People's War'. It is not for nothing that Lenin and much later Mao, advocated their aides and cadres to read Clausewitzian point of view . It helped them justify the revolutionary way as something that is not driven by madness but by the passion to 'do good for the masses'.

Broadly speaking, their interpretation of Clausewitzian point of view was not different from the earlier interpretations of war by first Aristotle and later Saint Augustine. This earlier interpretations were instrumental in shaping the discourse of war well after the completion of first millennia. While Aristotle interpretation, “We make war that we may live in peace” guided military adventures of his era, notably Alexander's conquest; Saint Augustine's version “The purpose of all wars...is peace” became a spiritual umbrella for the Crusaders.

In contrast, Ehrenreich's idea that it all started with the central theme of 'Blood Rite' by the warrior communities that latter acquired a freewill and momentum by itself, gives it a Frankenstein tinge. It also assumes that human race fall in line and war became an accepted phenomena rather than a taboo. But then, the question arises, why it seduced the human race so easily? Was the ground prepared? Were the human too vulnerable a race to resist its charm? The answer sadly is not provided by Enrenreich. This missing puzzle has been provided by a highly unlikely source: American career diplomat Francis Meehan. Meehan insists that “Men are at war with each other because each man is at war with himself.” In Enrenreich's interpretation, Meehan's idea fits as logical. But this, like others, is only a partial explanation.

Nevertheless, Enrenreich's interpretation of war as a 'Blood Rite' have had few takers in the past. Benito Mussolini's interpretation that “War is to man what maternity is to a woman” makes it essentially a basic trait of the man. Similar interpretation by Lucy Ellma, “Men like war: they do not hold much sway over birth, so they make up for it with death. Unlike women, men menstruate by shedding other people's blood” gives grounding to this idea. Closer home, poet Iqbal too interpreted it as a basic trait of the human race and not something that is acquired in the evolution process. “Hamam-o-Kabutar Ka Bhukha Nahi Main, Ki Hai Zindagi Baaz Ki Zahidana; Jhapatna Palatna, Palat Kar Jhapatna, Lahu Garm Rakhne Ka Hai Ik Bahana...”

The book indeed offers a fresh outlook. One might or might not agree with the interpretation. But one can only ignore it on one's own peril.