In “Battling to the End,” René Girard takes a deep dive into Carl von Clausewitz’s famous book, “On War.” He shows how his ideas about imitation and history can help us understand the changing nature of wars better. Girard, who usually focuses on literature and human behavior, was surprised to find that Clausewitz’s thoughts on war and violence closely matched his own theories. This discovery helped Girard sharpen his ideas about how history has unfolded over the last 200 years.
Clausewitz changed the game by looking at war not just as battles but as a social tool for managing violence. He pointed out that after World War II, the old ways of keeping society stable through rituals and traditions started to break down.
Girard then looks back at the impact of the Napoleonic Wars on how Europe fought and governed. He talks about how these wars led to new ways of organizing armies and reshaped politics.
Clausewitz himself was critical of the military tactics of his time and hoped to see them improve. His most famous work, especially the first chapter, lays out his belief that war is essentially a fight to make the enemy do what you want. This idea was pretty revolutionary and showed Clausewitz’s deep understanding of war’s true nature.
Girard believes that Clausewitz’s ideas are not just about military strategy but also offer a critique of how violence has grown in the modern world. He argues that to really get what’s going on in today’s conflicts, we need to think about war in terms of human behavior and society, not just politics or strategy.
Clausewitz was also clear about the dangers of trying to be too gentle in war. He thought that being indirect or trying to limit violence was a misunderstanding of what war is all about. He believed in using full force to get results and saw war as an extreme form of competition where both sides push each other harder and harder.
However, Clausewitz also realized that there’s a big difference between the idea of war as an all-out fight and the reality, which is often limited by practical issues and human nature. He knew that wars could aspire to total destruction in theory but are always held back by the complexities of real life.
So, while wars might aim for total victory, they usually end up with compromises because of the unique circumstances of each conflict. Clausewitz’s work suggests that while the idea of pushing to the extreme exists, in reality, wars are shaped by the need to adapt to the opponent and the situation.
In the end, Clausewitz’s thoughts on war offer a mix of theory and practical advice, showing that while we might think about going all in, we always have to consider the real-world limitations and the political goals that come back into play once the fighting dies down.
Clausewitz’s studies show that war’s intensity and nature depend a lot on politics and how involved people are. He points out that the Napoleonic Wars were a turning point, leading to wars that involved whole countries and increased patriotism, making wars bigger and more intense. Yet, even these big historical wars didn’t reach the level of total war he talked about, showing that there’s always a gap between what we think war will be like and what actually happens.
In short, Clausewitz highlights a big contradiction in war: although in theory, it’s about pushing to the extremes, in reality, there are always limits set by humans, politics, and practical issues. This back-and-forth between what war could be and what it really is shows how complex conflicts are and how the way we fight wars keeps changing with society.
The talk between Benoît Chantre and René Girard goes into how war and politics are tied together by “reciprocal action” – this idea that both sides in a conflict influence each other, making things either escalate or calm down. This is based on the “mimetic principle,” where the desire to imitate each other in conflict makes rivals more alike. This was especially clear in the Napoleonic Wars, which changed European societies, leading to more militarized societies and setting the stage for the big, total wars of the 20th century.
They also discuss how war should be seen as something that affects all of society, pointing out how Clausewitz was ahead of his time in understanding how conflicts can spread and grow in ways that are hard to control. The idea is that war isn’t just a battle; it’s something that can shape the whole way a society works.
The conversation also touches on how fighting and defense in war are not just opposite actions but are connected in a complex dance aiming for a clear victory. Napoleon’s campaigns showed this complexity – he tried to achieve peace by constantly attacking, while his enemies looked for the right moment to strike back decisively. This shows that in war, the side that seems to be defending can actually be controlling the conflict, an idea that fits with Girard’s thoughts on how rivals end up imitating each other in conflicts.
This discussion highlights the tricky nature of warfare, showing how the tactics of attack and defense, driven by rivalry, determine how conflicts unfold and get resolved. Girard emphasizes the need to understand these patterns to see the bigger picture of how warfare affects society and human behavior, placing Clausewitz’s ideas in a wider context that looks at human society and conflict.
Wars get bigger and more intense today because they involve the whole society, leading to situations where everyone’s mobilized for war, as seen in World War I. Clausewitz’s idea that being on the defensive can escalate conflicts is shown in historical examples like the lead-up to World War II. This shows how trying to manage violence can end up making it worse, highlighting the role of reciprocal action in both causing and potentially stopping conflicts from getting even bigger.
Girard argues that in human conflicts, it’s not easy to say who started it because everyone feels like they’re just responding to what the other side did. This challenges the usual way we think about aggression and shows how deep-rooted rivalry makes conflicts escalate. It’s hard to tell attackers from defenders because both sides are driven by this need to imitate and outdo each other.
The talk also points out that human conflict is different from animals because it’s based on this back-and-forth imitation, not just one side attacking. Girard thinks Clausewitz missed how this imitation drives conflicts to become more extreme.
Today’s world, with its global connections and new technologies, makes it harder to manage conflicts that escalate quickly, from Napoleon to modern warfare occurring in Europe and the Middle East. Clausewitz’s work is still important because it shows the dangers of war and how hard it is to control escalation in a way that animals or traditional societies might have managed.
This discussion ends by looking at the big picture, questioning whether humanity can find a way out of this cycle of violence that doesn’t just end in total destruction. Girard points out that the massive violence of the 20th century shows a breakdown in the traditional ways of dealing with violence, leaving us in a situation where violence is becoming more direct and harder to justify with old myths.
Girard points out that recent massacres and ongoing conflicts show how the old way of blaming a scapegoat to solve problems doesn’t work anymore. Political mistakes, especially those that have made things worse in places like the Middle East, highlight this issue. He criticizes how politics often overlooks the deeper, imitative rivalries that keep fueling violence.
His ideas aren’t just high-minded theory; they help make sense of what’s happening in the world today by looking at the root causes of violence in history. Girard refers to historians like Ernst Nolte and François Furet, who have brushed against similar ideas without diving deep. He talks about how the concept of original sin reflects the endless cycle of revenge that sets humans apart from animals, combining smarts with violence.
Christianity, according to Girard, challenges us to think differently about violence. It shows that the old way of making peace through sacrifice doesn’t really solve anything, putting us at a crossroads. He suggests that societies used to rely on finding a common enemy to unite against, but we tend to forget that over time. Now, with everyone copying each other’s desires and actions, we’re speeding toward conflicts that can’t be fixed the old way, through sacrifice.
Girard finishes by saying that even though pinning blame on a scapegoat used to help avoid bigger troubles, Christianity’s teachings have made us see that this isn’t a real solution anymore, putting us in a tough spot regarding how we get along.
He also talks about how pandemics show the risks of our connected world, stressing the importance of fair access to vaccines to fight diseases that spread fast because of how closely tied together we all are now. The lines between different countries and cultures are getting fuzzy, just like the overlap between terrorism and global business, both of which come down to the scary sides of exchanging things back and forth.
Girard says we need a fresh way of thinking to deal with violence that’s beyond what current systems can handle, suggesting a shift from relying on military or political fixes to thinking about big disasters in a new, logical way.
This conversation is meant to highlight how looking at violence and sacrifice through the lens of mimetic theory, especially in the aftermath of Napoleon’s impact on France and Germany, can help us understand the role of war differently. Girard sees Clausewitz’s view of war as almost holy, reflecting a military mindset influenced by, yet questioning, the Enlightenment.
By putting Clausewitz in dialogue with modern thinkers and moving past a strictly military view, Girard wants to break free from a cycle of violence and sacred rituals that no longer work. He believes that a deeper grasp of Christianity’s critique of sacrifice offers a way out, calling for a big rethink on ethics and philosophy to tackle the roots of mimetic violence.