How do human beings come to regard political communities as sacred objects worth dying and killing for?

The question posed by the Library of Social Science and the Foundation for the Study of Political Pathology—is actually one of the great questions of modern social thought. What makes Koenigsberg's formulation distinctive is that he places sacrifice, death, and the sacred at the center of political life. But many major thinkers have approached versions of the same question from different directions.

The Sacred and the Nation

Émile Durkheim: Durkheim argued that societies create sacred objects and then worship them. In religion, people believe they are worshipping gods; in reality, he suggested, they are worshipping society itself. The sacred is society represented symbolically. This insight lies behind much of Koenigsberg's work.  Durkheim's version of the question: How does society transform itself into something sacred?

Sacrifice and Political Religion
Carolyn Marvin and David W. Ingle

These scholars may be the closest intellectual relatives to Koenigsberg. They argue that nations are sacred communities held together through sacrifice and memories of bloodshed. Citizens are bound by the implicit understanding that they may be called upon to die for the nation. Nationalism functions much like religion.  Their question: How does blood sacrifice create and sustain national solidarity?

Paul W. Kahn: Kahn argues that modern political life is saturated with the sacred. Constitutional states appear secular, but citizens continue to demonstrate faith through willingness to sacrifice themselves for the nation. He famously asks why citizens are willing to die for the state when no rational calculation would require it. Political legitimacy ultimately rests on sacrifice rather than reason alone.

His question: hy are citizens willing to sacrifice their lives for political orders?This is remarkably close to Koenigsberg.

Girard explored how societies channel violence through sacrificial mechanisms. His question: How does collective violence generate social order? While Girard focused on scapegoating, Koenigsberg focuses more directly on warfare and national sacrifice.

Terrorism, Sacred Values, and Devotion

Scott Atran: Atran may be the contemporary scholar most directly connected to the LSS/FSPP project. His research showed that people often fight and die for "sacred values" that are immune to cost-benefit analysis. These values become non-negotiable and inspire extreme sacrifice.

His question: Why do people make costly sacrifices for sacred values?

Koenigsberg extends Atran's insight beyond terrorism to nationalism and warfare generally. In fact, Koenigsberg explicitly uses Atran's concept of sacred values to interpret World War I, Nazism, and modern war.

Rank explored how humans seek immortality through identification with heroic and collective projects. His question: How do people escape mortality through symbolic identification? Many themes in political pathology trace back to Rank through Becker.

The Thinkers Closest to Koenigsberg

1. Scott Atran — sacred values.
2. Paul W. Kahn — political sacrifice and the sacred state.
3. Carolyn Marvin — blood sacrifice and national solidarity.
4. Émile Durkheim — society as sacred object.
5. Ernest Becker — mortality and symbolic immortality.

What is unusual about Koenigsberg's project is that it attempts to synthesize all of these strands into a single proposition: that nations, states, ideologies, and other political entities become sacred objects, and that warfare is often best understood not as rational policy but as a form of collective sacrificial devotion.

In that sense, the LSS/FSPP question sits at the intersection of Durkheim's sociology of the sacred, Becker's psychology of death, Atran's sacred values research, Marvin's theory of sacrifice, and Kahn's theory of political theology.