Terms of War: The Rules of Our Upcoming Engagement

As an amateur linguist, etymologist, and philologist, I care about the origins and meanings of words. Some say, “every word was once a poem,” and that’s a piece of how I feel, but mostly I care about words because I believe them to be living things, organisms tethered to the very life of humanity. No other biological creature communicates with language, because language is the communication of relational creatures—creatures who know how to love.

For the last decade, one of the primary debates in academia has revolved around the terms of war. I mean “terms” in the first and fourth senses—terms as in “the words or phrases used to describe the concepts surrounding war” and terms as in “the conditions under which war-like action may be taken.” The word “terms” comes from that Latin word terminus meaning “end, boundary, limit” from which we get our word “terminate.” We find terms wrapped up in a phrase from the book of Job:

Who shut up the sea behind doors, when it burst forth from the womb… when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt?’

“Halt.”

That’s what terms do. The problem is when we don’t keep our terms straight, when we don’t put limits to our conversations, when we don’t discipline our words like the unruly children they are, then our words overwhelm us like a sea without a shore. A friend of mine (he’s one of those fellow students I’ve mentioned before who loves Karl Barth) recently pointed out such a slippage on the terms of war. I’ll elaborate on what he said, but the gist was: if pacifists are termed as passive, Just War adherents may term themselves pacifists or “sapiential pacifists.” That leaves “just war” terms open for crusaders and jihadists. And that leaves the “holy war” terms open for colonial expansion and exploitation.

I’m not here to convince you of anything. I’m here to clear up the terms. I believe that ignorance is no excuse for rudeness, and most of the rudeness in such debates stems from ignorance. In addition, I have good friends who have, at one point or another, experienced the ideological framework of each of the following positions:

  1. Victims of Colonization
  2. Victims of Holy War
  3. Neutral Party / Passive Observer
  4. Pacifist
  5. Just War
  6. Crusader/Jihadist
  7. Colonist

These terms will frame up the next seven posts. My goal will be to clarify all seven terms so that the terms of war, war-like conflict, and war-influenced personal conflict will be clear regardless of the position one holds. I plan to represent all seven frames of mind as well as I am able, as unbiased as possible, asking a single question at the end of each post to push back against every frame of mind. In this way, I hope to represent all terms of war and, at least, the best counter-argument to each term in a single question.

Three points of housekeeping:

  • You DO have my blessing to ask me questions over a cup of coffee or via email if you’d like to have a legitimate, healthy discussion. I would love to talk and laugh and share with you about anything we cover in the next seven posts.
  • Comments will be disabled. “But Lance, I thought you liked discussion here?” I do. In fact, my love for healthy discussion disallows me from permitting comments for these particular posts. Most people don’t discuss these terms in today’s climate. Instead, they slander and verbally abuse one another over the conversation, at least in some of the social circles I frequent. Because of this, I will disable comments.
  • You do not have my blessing to start a violent debate elsewhere. You may share these posts as usual, but if a debate breaks out on Facebook or something, I’m asking you to shut it down. Immediately. Delete the share and the comments. In addition, you do not have my permission to start a debate on other posts around this site concerning these topics. Other topics are fair game, but this one’s off limits until further notice. My job here is to define the terms of war, not start a violent debate that alienates people to one another.

Here is my scheduled framework of each post:

  1. Anecdote or quote from someone in history who experienced the term
  2. Etymology of term
  3. List of three famous people who adhered to this term
  4. List of terms: Who? Where? When? Why? How?
  5. Three positive tendencies of this term
  6. Three negative tendencies of this term
  7. A fantastic creature or superhuman who practices this term
  8. A single “further reading” book

I’m looking forward to a healthy, joyful, sane approach to the terms of war.

Hugs, Kisses, & Battle Scars,

monogram new


Be sure to share and comment. And subscribe.

Comment early, comment often, keep it civil:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Terms of War: Victim of Colonialism | Lance Schaubert

    […] sure you know the rules of engagement before reading […]

  2. Terms of War: Victim of Holy War | Lance Schaubert

    […] sure you know the rules of engagement before reading […]

  3. Doberman

    Adorably pedantic…..

    1. lanceschaubert

      Haha, that sounds belittling, but I’ll bite: how so? Because of the terms or the breakdown or this particular post?

      I’d hope that the details matter, because the way in which a war is fought on every fronts shows what kind of war it is…

      Or did you mean the overall topic?

      (Side note: the number and type of debates in Joplin and places influenced by Joplin about this issue would probably surprise you…)

  4. Terms of War: Neutral Party / Passive Observer | Lance Schaubert

    […] sure you know the rules of engagement before reading […]

  5. Christina_BC

    Glad I read this post (and now the following posts as well). One of the first things any serious discussion should include are definitions of the terms one will use. For example, is I say “paradigm shift” to a group studying the philosophy of science, they will immediately jump to a very specific use of the term first contrived by Thomas Kuhn and referring to scientific revolutions. Whereas, if I use the same term in passing conversation with a friend who is, say, an English teacher, they will likely think I simply mean a “changing of the way I see something.”

    Sorry, I guess that was a long way to say that definition of terms is paramount to true understanding of what someone is saying.

    And here is where a discussion on war might be interesting. You have defined a “victim of colonization” rather broadly (as would I), as anyone oppressed and exploited for resources/land. Others would argue that someone is only a victim of colonization if that person’s homeland has been physically occupied by a foreign power (really the difference here would be in how someone defines “colonization”). Further, there are historically defined epochs of colonization. Modern imperialism is the framework in which you set up each of your examples, but many ancient historians would point out that colonization has occurred since forever and has taken many different forms (the modern form being predicated mainly on race and the supremacy of the “white man”). We can even get to the point of questioning what it means to be colonized — if our thoughts can be colonized and occupied as well as our physical being, etc.

    I would add a few further readings to your list on the colonized, mainly some central postcolonial texts. Only because I was forced to read them and I think other people should be, too 😉

    Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Eds. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. Urbana: U of Illinois Press, 1988, 271-313.

    Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, eds. The Empire Writes Back. New York: Routledge, 1989.

    Bhabha, Homi Jehangir. The Location of Culture: Critical Theory and the Postcolonial Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
    ***Impolite side note: Bhabha’s writing is very hard to wade through. Summaries of his ideas are way easier (I once spent an entire two hours in a graduate seminar trying to decipher his of “Mimicry and Men” essay along with the rest of my class…and our professor).

    Moore-Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Policies. London: Verso, 1997.

    Schwarz, Henry, and Sangeeta Ray, eds. A Companion to Postcolonial Studies: A Historical Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

    1. lanceschaubert

      Thanks for the first comment, Christina!

      Yes, I agree as far as definition of terms goes: logic before grammar, grammar before rhetoric.

      And I love what you had to say about the distinctions in the terms. I define them broadly so as to make them pliable in discussions specifically about violence and war whereas others have more sociopolitical ends in mind. Sociology (and any other ology) defers to my Christology and Ecclesiology which extend out of my general Theology, therefore discussions on war defer to general questions of it means to experiences life as a human and how that fits into the cosmos. Metaphysics (the classical kind), in other words.

      In any case, thank you for the reading lists. As you know, I’m quite fond of them…

  6. Christina_BC

    Also, I apologize for the lengthy comment!

    1. lanceschaubert

      No apologies needed. Your comment was neither the shortest nor longest and commentary of all kinds are welcome as long as it’s kind and decent to others. Some have written books in the commentary on this site.

  7. Terms of War: Pacifist | Lance Schaubert

    […] sure you know the rules of engagement before reading […]

  8. Doberman

    No, not belittling, more something I would say to one of my brothers. They would laugh, but keep talking. Hmmm…an exact definition is difficult. Sort of fondly pointing out I know the subject well, but carry on professor.

    It was not about the topic, more the mapping out and rules and everything.

    I am not surprised by the number and types of debates in Joplin or influenced by Joplin on this topic. I am certain it is a topic that is hotly debated all over the world.

    I have just had much instruction on the topic, both formally and in debates which had to be factually based rather than mere vomitous soundbytes. I have no doubt you are performing an important role in informing folks who may not be as aware of definitions or where a phrase might actually sit in a larger picture.

    We have never spoken of politics, that might be an interesting non literating communique, then again the thought of writing a letter abotu the subject exhausts me just thinking about it! HA! Not apprehension, but fatigue sarts settling in. I wonder why? Fascinating.

    1. lanceschaubert

      Haha, gotcha.

      Yeah, without a strict outline of purpose, many of those finding their way here from Facebook wouldn’t behave. The hope was that I could be painfully detailed (or pedantic ;D) in the definitions so as to open the way for me to talk about these issues in the future in a more learned/fact-based way. My hope is that with everyone on the same page, I can be freed up to speak freely. And then maybe we could get at some real dialog about the issues.

      I would LOVE to hear anything you have to say on these subjects both in comments or email, but as said the conversation is better suited for coffee.

      In any case, I appreciate the support as usual and hope you find this introductory material at least entertaining if not new. It’ll all be over soon like a good dental cleaning.

    2. lanceschaubert

      Side note: I’m teachable, so I’m sure your own literated words would teach me something…

  9. Doberman

    Obviously written before my tea and toast!

    1. lanceschaubert

      Tea and toast. Now we’re talking.

  10. Terms of War: Just War | Lance Schaubert

    […] sure you know the rules of engagement before reading […]

  11. Terms of War: Crusader / Jihadist | Lance Schaubert

    […] sure you know the rules of engagement before reading […]

  12. lanceschaubert

    As we process through these, I found the following relevant:

    Shane Claiborne helps “beat swords into plowshares”

  13. Terms of War: Colonist | Lance Schaubert

    […] sure you know the rules of engagement before reading […]

  14. 134 Brightwood, Lafayette

    Fabulous. I agree.

    1. lanceschaubert

      Thank you, 134, and thanks for the first comment.

      With what do you agree?

Quick note from Lance about this post: when you choose to comment (or share this post with your friends) you help other readers just like you.

How?

Well, see, your comments & sharing whisper a few things to those who come after you:

The first is that this site is a safe place to speak up & stay curious. That it's civil. That discussion is encouraged. That there's no such thing as a stupid question (being a student of Socrates, I really and truly believe this). That talking to one another and growing together is more important than anything we could possibly publish. That the point is growing in virtue and growing together and growing wise. That discovery is invention, deference is originality, that we all can rise together. The only folks I'm going to take comments down from are obvious jerks who argue in bad faith, don't stay curious, or actively make personal attacks. And, frankly, I'd rather we talk here than on some social media farm — I will never show ads and the only thing I'm selling anywhere on the site or my mailing list is just the stuff I make.

You're also helping folks realize that anything you & they build together is far more important than anything you come to me to read. I take the things I write about seriously, but I don't take myself seriously: I play the fool, I hate cults of personality, and I also don't really like being the center of attention (believe it or not). I would much rather folks connect because of an introduction I've made or because they commented with one another back and forth and then build something beautiful together. My favorite contributions have been lifelong business and love partnerships from two people who have forgotten I introduced them. Some of my closest friends NOW I literally met on another blog's comment section fifteen years ago. I would love for that to happen here — let two of you meet and let me fade into the background.

Last, you help me revise. I'm wrong. Often. I'm not embarrassed to admit it or worried about being cancelled or publicly shamed. I make a fool out of myself (that's sort of the point). So as I get feedback, I can say, "I was wrong about that" and set a model for curious, consistent learning, and growing in wisdom. I'm blind to what I don't know and as grows the island of my knowledge so grows the shoreline of my ignorance. It's the recovery of innocence on the far end of experience: a child is in a permanent state of wonder. So are the wise: they aren't afraid of saying, "I don't know. That's new: please teach me." That's my goal, comments help. And I read all reviews: my skin's tough, but that's not license to be needlessly cruel. We teach one another our habits and there's a way to civilly demolish an idea without demolishing another person: just because I personally can take the world's meanest 1-star review doesn't mean we should teach one another how to be crueler on the internet.

For three magical reasons — your brave curiosity, your community, & my ignorance:

Please comment & share with friends how you prefer to share:

Follow The Showbear Family Circus on WordPress.com

Thanks for reading the Showbear Family Circus.
  1. "I think you can write about yourself without the vain, self-focused naval gazing. Good storytelling is a gift from writers…

  2. "His fans didn’t just write fiction about it. One calculated the tensile strength of the material it was made of.…

  3. My mother was the volatile Italian and my dad was the calming influence when things went awry. Dad was our…

  4. Lancelot, thank you, for that congrats, but I fear that continues my jinxed lament - that the late Andy Warhol…

Copyright © 2010— 2023 Lancelot Schaubert.
All Rights Reserved.
If we catch you using any of the substance of this site to train any form of artificial intelligence, we will prosecute
to the fullest extent permitted by any law.

Human children and adults always welcome
to learn bountifully and in joy.