A fascinating account of the relationship between war and primitive society, primarily in South America. It is a series of essays that all approach the topic from a slightly different angle. Clastres´ main premise here is that war is not just a part of these primitive societies, it is inseparable from their existence. He separates societies into undivided and divided societies. The former are "primitive," even though this implies that they need to progress to "civilized." Civilized societies, on the other hand, have allowed themselves to become divided into a ruling class of some type and the class that allow (even desire) themselves to be ruled. This inherently results in a ruling class dominating a ruled class, however mildly it may be. Every society from the "primitive" kingships of Africa to the most totalitarian Nazi Reich (including our democracies) have been this "divided" society, a society with a State, where people voluntarily give up their freedom. True egalitarianism, Clastres posits, can only be found in so-called primitive societies, where even the chiefs do not have power to rule but can only advise as the society already wishes.

Some of the more memorable essays are: the first, a first-person account of Clastres visit with Jacques Lizot to the Yanomami tribes of Venezuela; the second, a review of a biography of a Brazilian girl who was kidnapped by a tribe and lived with them for 22 years before returning to "civilization;" the fourth, a fascinating treatise on the term "ethnocide," the killing of a culture; then comes a fabulous treatise on Etienne La Boetie, the man who was writing 200 years before Rousseau on the nature of power, liberty and the social contract; the penultimate (and titular) work, a comprehensive summary of the entire process of war, and how it transforms itself into the method of maintaining societal autonomy while preventing the rise of a State; and finally, an essay on the less common "warrior societies" along with the harrowing plight of the privileged/cursed warrior, a "being-for-death."

Lest this sound like a ridiculous romanticization of primitive life, as has become popular lately, I gladly contradict the notion. Clastres does indeed come across as defensive of these societies, but he is defending them against the academic arrogance that allows people to consider them "pre-civilized," when in reality their societies seem to be almost as sophisticated, just in another direction. If anything, Clastres´ position is one of deflection and enlightenment, trying to shift the paradigm of how we consider these people -- not heathens to be "civilized," but rather a completely alien society that have developed distinct methods over thousands of years and can be respected in their own right, without being compared to us.

Indeed, just reading the book will disarm you of any illusions of romanticism. The picture he describes of a permanent state of war is distinctly unappealing as a modern reader. Too much tension and uncertainty, and he never even comes close to suggesting that we should return to such a way of life. His questions are more concerned with origin: Assuming all societies began this way, how did the first divided society arise? How and why did people voluntarily give up their liberty? His perspective is so interesting because he considers our divided society as the anomaly, not theirs.

It results that the essays gradually divulge more on the topic, and build on what you've already read, so you feel like their order is a logical progression, even though each was published several years apart during the 70s and early 80s. I can only suppose that´s a result of excellent editing. Sometimes the ideas get a little repetitive, but overall there is enough freshness in each essay that they are able to captivate you.
( )

The two last essays, the title one and the ravishingly titled 'Sorrows of the Savage Warrior', make up his start on a work about primitive war, unfortunately lost to us.

For the rest of the book I thought 'I've been here before' in Society Against the State. For me that one had more and hung together more, though it might just be that I came to it 1st.

On primitive war. He begins by undoing old answers to the question, why war? 1, that war was a result of poverty/scarcity (no: primitive societies are affluent, leisure societies). 2, that war happens when exchange fails (war is universal, essential to these societies -- not an accident). Clastres is a political anthropologist with a political answer:

"It is not war that is the effect of segmentation, it is segmentation that is the effect of war. It is not only the effect, but the goal: war is at once the cause of and the means to a sought-after effect and end, the segmentation of primitive society... In other words, primitive war is a means to a political end."

War is against the state, too. It follows a "centrifugal logic" and cannot cease. War is a permanent condition, active or in abeyance, and its function? Freedom. As always with Clastres, political independence.

'Sorrows of the Savage Warrior' is one of his lyrical, melancholy pieces -- to explain how warriors, even with their prestige, are prevented by society of ever upsetting equality. For one thing, they must be in a individualistic rivalry with each other. For another they are wedded to death. Clastres talks about the "infinite task" and the escalation of the exploit: "The glory won is never enough in and of itself; it must be forever proven, and every feat realized immediately calls for another."

While he talked, even though he's in South and North America, I thought of the sad glory-hunt of Beowulf, and of a couple of poignant lines from that heroic tradition:

I am led from a boast to another boast,
From a feat to another feat. ( )