Nature Vs. Culture

The history of global conflict can be explained by examining the beginnings of interaction among men and what has caused them to behave in this way. The arguments of   nature and nurture are typical argumentative factors that may determine whether or not violence and the tendency to engage in war is an inherent trait of men.   Although the argument that nature is responsible for determining man's conduct, the cultural values of men is a better and more realistic means of   explaining the conflicts of man.
  David Barash argues on the side of nature in the article entitled, "Evolution, Males, and Violence".   Barash makes a strong argument because, as he explains, men are responsible for the majority of   random acts of violence and that women are not inherently violent and only are a physical threat when they are defending themselves (Barash, 6). Barash gives a parallel example of violence in animals, arguing that the males are usually responsible for violent behavior (Barash, 2).   Furthermore, he explains male violence on a very microscopic level.   Sperm compete to fertilize female eggs, thus this is supposed to justify that men will inherently by competitive through nature (Barash, 2).   As a result, the belief is that competition generates violence which becomes evident when males attempt to show domination for example.   Although there is support for this argument, there is much more evidence for contrary viewpoints that isn't addressed by a nature or biological argument alone.
George Mosse, author of Nationalism and Sex, believes societal norms are the key to an effective building of society that facilitates the creation of unity to create such things as an army.   However, the question then begs what the social norms were that allowed such development of societies?   Primarily, men demonstrating the traits of respectability such as proper gender roles and nationalism were necessary for proper construction of societies, according to Mosse (Mosse, 1-2).   Simply put,...