Introduction
A scientific approach to sociology has been the concern of many sociologists and there has been extensive work on the way different social aspects. These can be described based on the theories developed in social sciences trying to describe the various social phenomenons. One such phenomenon which needs attention is the war on Iraq. The war started by the United States on suspicion that Iraq was helping terrorist organizations and Saddam Hussein, the autocratic leader, was planning to build a nuclear power. The result was American soldiers along with soldiers from other countries being deployed in Iraq and the war against terror.
The problem is to understand if the war an outcome of the “Iraq’s political culture had been poisoned by a crude theory of race and a racialist Arabism that had wrecked and unsettled Arab and Muslim life in the 1980s and 1990s” (Ajami) or was it American fear or hatred of the Arabs in a post-9/11 era? The basic question of race culture and war are again intertwined through America’s war in Iraq and that is what is discussed in this paper. From the point of view of Du Bois American war on Iraq was an outcome of the white supremacy that America while Parsons believes that all sociological acts are outcomes of a process of marinating a social equilibrium and are done to maintain stability in society. Thus, from Parsonian point of view, it can be argued that the war by America on Iraq was a process to maintain stability in the culturally discoursed institutional stability while Du Bois would argue that it is a process of establishing America’s white supremacy on non-white Iraq or the Arab world.
War in Iraq
The starting point of the war on Iraq was the terrorist attack of 9/11 on WTC, which presented America with the shocking event of demolished WTC and the whole country in the throes of terror. The consequence was President George Bush’s decision to strike war on terror, namely the Islamic jihadist who brought about the disaster. In the name of tracking down Al Qaida the jihadist organization, America attacked Afghanistan and then attacked Iraq under the suspicion of the country’s alleged sponsor of Islamic terrorism and the country’s plans to proliferate weapons of mass destruction (WMD). According to Ajami, Iraq’s political culture was the outcome of the extremist Islamic teaching which resulted in the country’s non-democratic government and the bitter fights amongst the Shia and the Sunni population. The Americans ousted Saddam Hussein from his autocratic and despotic rule and prosecuted him. The next was 2005’s Iraqi elections which showed the light of democracy to the country. But this came at the cost of more than two thousand American soldiers who had died in the war away from their country (Ajami). The American war in Iraq has been compared to the country’s attack on Vietnam with the same purpose of ending despotism has been criticized, as has been its venture into Iraq:
“The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war — but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies. Now, in urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, President Bush is challenging that historical memory.” (Shanker)
It has been argued that the cost of the war is not only in respect of the financial drain and the military loss but also the cost of innumerable refugees who are entering the war trodden Iraq into American boundaries (Shanker). The financial cost has been estimated to be $2.4 trillion by 2017 (Reuters) and so far 4,265 American defense service personnel have died in the War on Iraq (New York Times). Thus, the extensive cost of the war in Iraq has touched so many Americans are they be in the armed forces or are civil taxpayers. Given this cost of lives and financial burden of the war in terms of taxpayers’ money drain and refugee problem, the War in Iraq has posed serious sociological issues in America and has kindled new debates regarding the American values and tolerance about race and the policy of the government to intervene to save other nations at the cost of the people in their own nation.
So the main problem which is faced due to the Iraqi war is related to the view of race and American values. Was America acting in accordance with the general view of race and values that America as a nation harbors was the war a political agenda? If the American value system forced the country to go and help Iraq towards peace and democracy, then why there, should be problems of welcoming the refugees from Iraq? Given these questions, the paper now discussed the different theories of Talcott Parsons and Du Bois.
Theory of Talcott Parson
In regard to the problems stated above, the paper will discuss Parson’s theory of social change (Parsons) and American values (Parsons, A Tentative Outline of American Values). Parsons argues that the change of the system must be theorized through the distinction of the process to maintain the equilibrium of a system and ensure structural changes wherein the system transgresses from one system to the other. Parsons believes a disturbance in the external environment disturbs the equilibrium in the system. Parson believes for a social change to occur, the system must move from one system to the other, and one source of disturbance produces a vacuum for the other systems to fall into place. When such imbalances occur, there arises a social differentiation which acts as a process of structural differentiation.
Differentiation involves “normative reorganization” at four different levels:
- providing opportunity through setting free the institutional ties,
- “inclusion” of the different units into a collective and higher level of structure,
- “upgrading” of the custom to a generalized status, and
- “extension” of the systemic values to a new standard (Parsons, Some Considerations on the Theory of Social Change 219).
Thus, Parsons believes that in a society there is always a pattern of “desirable behavior” for a particular system in relation to its environment which is considered to be the normative pattern of the society (Parsons, Some Considerations on the Theory of Social Change 223). This system is stable with all its class struggles or differentiation within. Parsons believes that through equilibrium in the system the endogenous variables within the system are kept stable and within limits. This is defined as the stable equilibrium by Parsons. Disturbances from the external environment are required of enough magnitude will be able to overcome the equilibrating forces in the systems to bring about a change in the system. Parson believes that such changes can be brought about by endogenous, exogenous, or both kinds of forces.
In terms of describing the value system in America Parsons states, that value according to him is a “normative component of culture” (Parsons, A Tentative Outline of American Values 38). He believes that values are ingrained in the normative perception of the system and it is the system that makes the values work. Thus, values work according to the greater discourses and constructs of the system. Parson calls these the “cultural value” of the social system. He states that it is the social values that prescribe the “desirable kind of society” (Parsons, A Tentative Outline of American Values 51). According to Parson, the American value system n politics views the government as a necessary evil and should not be provided with any more power than is absolutely necessary. Further, he believes that the American society is not anarchist as the value system in America does not support it due to high stress on individualism and personal freedom.
Theory of Du Bois
Du Bois is well known for his theory of race and especially his work on the African-American community in America. Du Bois’s theory of race has been critical of the prevalent race theory. Du Bois rejects the biology-based concept of race as was argued by previous theorists (Shuford). He believes that people who argue that racism a=is a construct of racial oppression is wrong as a systematic process deeply ingrained in the socio-political and cultural consciousness of society (Rabaka). Du Bois rejected the “similarity” between races as was argued by race theorists (Shuford) and argues:
“[I]t is easy to see that scientific definition of race is impossible; it is easy to prove that physical characteristics are not so inherited as to make it possible to divide the world into races; that ability is the monopoly of no known aristocracy; that the possibilities of human development cannot be circumscribed by color, nationality, or any conceivable definition of race…” (Du Bois 137).
Du Bois argued that race and class are not the same for any particular group. They have a different story of origin and development. Du Bois has argued in Darkwater the commonality factor of race, class, or common concern which has shaped the saliency of race, class, and global imperialism. This indicates that the view of race has been used as a commercial tool by the imperialists to make profits of their own interests. Thus, there is a clear identification by Du Bois of race and capitalism (Shuford). Further, it is argued that Du Bois’s theories are highly strained with normative ideas (Monteiro). Monterio argues that Du Bois believes that the American policymakers failed to realize that race was the essential element of the American system and failed to realize this while bringing reform. Further Du Boise has always asserted the struggle for democracy as the main aim of the races.
Given this view of Du Bois, the paper will now discuss the essential difference and similarities in the theories of Parsons and Du Bois and the way they would interpret the war on Iraq.
Compare and Contrast
The main ideas presented by Du Bois and Parsons differ in their essential context. Du Bois believes that racism is a process of establishing capitalist or white supremacy for which the powerful race may aim to help the other races which they believe are in a constant state of crisis: “The world system, he argues, is profoundly and-democratic, dictatorial, and organized upon principles not that far removed from fascism. The while nations of Europe and America defend a world system that locks the majority of humanity in a perpetual crisis state, defined by poverty, disease, little or no education, and super-exploitation; which at the same time supports luxury for the world’s white minority.” (Monteiro 36) While Parsons believes that, the systems which are in equilibrium need to undergo change through impetus from exogenous or endogenous forces. As observed in the case of Iraq, the endogenous forces had succumbed to the autocratic rule of the despots and failed to restore democracy and peace in the country. America as an external force tried to restore it for the greater good of the Iraqis. The similarity between the theories of Du Bois and Parson is that both are normative in nature. Du Bois would call the American attack of Iraq a master nation’s attack on the deprived poor race for capitalist benefit:
“There are no races, in the sense of a great, separate, pure breeds of men, differing in attainment, development, and capacity … more and more common experience and interest drive back the common blood and the world today consists, not of races, but of the imperial commercial group of master classes of the several nations, white, yellow, and brown, with strong blood bonds, common languages and common history” (Du Bois, Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil 532)
Thus from Du Bois’s argument, it can be stated that the problem is in American policy against Iraq and its implicit policy of spatial expansion and the Iraqi people not cooperating with the American government and supporting the autocratic leader. This has affected the lives of millions of Iraqis and thousands of American troops who have been thrown into the war.
Conclusion
Given this argument between the two theorists, I tend to support the argument of Du Bois who successfully describes the race theory and the reason why a stronger race is driven to support a lower race. The idea is to the establishment of imperialistic power of the lower race and to gain supremacy in international politics. Even though the systems theory of parsons and the American value system state that the idea of American individualism and the need to establish a world that is right according to one’s value system is the impetus to wage a war against another form of government, but it fails to explain America’s continued presence in Iraq even after democracy has been established. Rather Du Bois’s argument that races are defragmented into various sub-races which are again in constant clash holds true in this case.
Reference
Ajami, Fouad. “‘The Foreigner’s Gift’.” 2006. The New York Times. Web.
Du Bois, W.E.B. Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Dusk and Dawn: An Essay toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1940.
Monteiro, Anthony. “Race and Empire: W.E.B. Du Bois and the US State.” The Black Scholar Vol. 37 No. 2 (n.d.): 35-57.
New York Times. “Names of the Dead.” 2009. The New York Times. Web.
Parsons, Talcott. “A Tentative Outline of American Values.” Robertson, Roland and Bryan S. Turner. Talcott Parsons: theorist of modernity. New York: SAGE, 1991. 37-65.
“Some Considerations on the Theory of Social Change.” Rural Sociology Vol. 26 No. 3 (1961): 219-239.
Rabaka, Reiland. “W.E.B. DuBois’s “The Comet” and contributions to critical race theory: an essay on black radical politics and anti-racist social ethics.” Ethnic Studies Review (2006): 1-17.
Reuters. “U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs.” 2007. Reuters. Web.
Shanker, Thom. “Historians Question Bush’s Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq.” 2007. The New York Times. Web.
Shuford, John. “Four Du Boisian Contributions to Critical race Theory.” Transactions of the Charles S. Pierce Society Vol. XXXVII No. 3 (2001): 320-337.