In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Rhetoric & Public Affairs 4.2 (2001) 323-324



[Access article in PDF]

Book Review

Honor, Symbols, and War


Honor, Symbols, and War. By Barry O'Neill. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999; pp. xiv + 344. $49.50.

The twin concepts of symbols and honor are often explicitly linked to international affairs, and war in particular. Unfortunately, social scientists rarely find means of measuring or even defining these terms, although they are central to the rhetoric of politicians and policymakers alike. Using the methodological tools of game theory, Barry O'Neill examines the role that symbolism and honor play in the conduct of international affairs.

O'Neill divides his book into three sections. In the first, he discusses the role that symbolism plays in our world. He distinguishes among three different types of symbols: message symbols, focal symbols, and value symbols. Message symbols are those that send a symbolic message that everyone can understand. In contrast, a focal symbol is one that induces observers to commonly expect a certain outcome in a game they will be playing with each other. A value symbol is one that tends to be reified, such as the flag of a nation.

Message symbols tend to be quite clear, O'Neill argues, and utilize the signaling function that game theorists tend to like when discussing different types of players. Focal symbols and value symbols, in contrast, are not as clearly understood by observers. They require greater care on the part of the sender in order to convey their intended meaning.

In the second section of the book, O'Neill links the concept of symbolism to that of honor. Contrary to much conventional wisdom, states in the modern era still exhibit a great concern with their national prestige in their interactions with one another. Through the use of relatively simple game-theoretic models, O'Neill demonstrates the conditions under which symbols can be communicated to project concern over honor, or insult another state's prestige. He concludes the section with a discussion of apologies and how, symbolically, they can be transmitted between states.

In the third and final section of the book O'Neill provides a synthesis of using symbols to protect honor, within the context of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe (INF) debate of the 1980s. He references game-theoretic concepts to demonstrate how the United States was able to use its actions to provide a strong deterrent to the Soviet Union over the stationing of missiles, and how the American symbolic actions eventually led to arms control agreements in Europe.

O'Neill is to be commended for writing a book that links two of the more commonly referenced, but rarely examined, concepts in international politics. In the first section he even provides empirical evidence, culled from newspaper reports, regarding the prevalence of symbolism in international politics today. The linkages he provides between symbolic behavior and national honor through the use of game-theoretic methods demonstrate that mathematical models need not be overly [End Page 323] complex and that they can account for psychological phenomenon that are often difficult to measure. In sum, this book will appeal to more scientifically oriented scholars interested in war and peace, as well as to those who take a more historical overview. The wondrous mix of theory, evidence, and anecdotes ensures that this book will be required reading in the study of symbolism and war for some time to come.

 

Christopher Sprecher
Texas A&M University

...

pdf

Share