Living and Surviving. For an Eliasian Theory of Human Beings Acting in the Nuclear Age

When tackling the theme of conflict, and especially when analyzing that particular dimension of conflict which is war, Elias demonstrates its role in many types of figuration, how it is linked to the idea of survival, through which processes it stays alive, and with which consequences for types of action and social relations. In this paper, we discuss the new and serious menaces to peace and to the very survival of humanity which emerged for the first time with the availability of powerful nuclear weapons. The real threat of destruction beyond boundaries leads to a loss of faith in the old survival units and opens the path for the search for new ones. A possible answer to this situation is the creation of supra-national bodies and coordinating organs of various forms and sizes. From one side, there are clear evidence of a trend towards a possible global state. But, on the other side, world integration can be accompanied by another type of national disaggregation, which could assign the survival function to new social units: a disaggregation process which is always possible, and which brings back to Elias’ theory of interdependencies and conflicts as drivers of the figurational process. This process could be seen as a passage from a bipolar USA-USSR to a multipolar system, which now sees eight nation-states have nuclear weapons, although only five powers have the ability to "second shot". From a sociological point of view, it moves from a system mainly based on hetero-control (USA and USSR "control" each other through nuclear deterrence) to a system that requires a greater degree of self-control, due to the increased risk of nuclear war - with catastrophic consequences for the same states o states itself who threaten or trigger conflict. Following Elias, this process can be interpreted as a step in the process of civilization, because self-control implies a greater sense of responsibility as well as the adoption of a more respectful of human rights ethos. It's a parallel process, even if on another level, of that of nuclear and ballistic technology, which allows "clean" deaths and a sort of "distance" between those who use that kind of weapons and those who suffered it: characteristics that, according to Elias, have marked precisely the different stages of the civilization process. Finally, the paper evaluates the reversibility (if possible) of these processes, and in particular it discusses what could be the meaning of returning to a military use of nuclear weapons, abandoning its political use, i.e. the practice (nuclear deterrence and “security dilemma”) that has so far prevented the outbreak of a nuclear war.