Tweet
One Nation, Under Guns
What does it say about the ubiquity of modern violence that Amnesty International, arguably the world’s most notable pro-peace movement, organizes its central purpose around a “mission statement,” an organizational articulation originating in military strategy? (How about a statement of purpose???) Such an abiding paradox demonstrates the depth of the contradictory cultural cues that inform our civil conduct.Thinking about “the militarization of everything” in these dialectic terms forces us, for instance, to extend and reevaluate our understanding of “military recruitment.” Conscription into both obvious and occult militarized cultural norms, institutions, and interpretive frameworks is perpetuated at the most inconspicuous moments. From fashion (pea coats, camouflage), to exercise (military press), to entertainment (NCIS, Homeland, Call of Duty), to sports (military sponsorship of Dale Earnhardt, fighter jets over baseball diamonds), to card games (“war”), and even to unwitting martial tropes (“god’s army,” “spearheading a campaign,” “on my radar”), our very cognition seems bounded and branded by military metaphor and method.
It’s possible to argue that our imperceptible absorption of these contradictory everyday “ways of being” has generated a certain type of national neurosis. In light of the “militarization of everything,” why are we surprised that of the 64 individuals involved in “mass shootings”*** since 1982, 24 were serving, had served, or claimed service in the U.S. Military—a 3700% over-representation relative to the military eligible U.S. population share? Moreover, why are we bewildered that 55 of the 64 assailants used military-grade weaponry and/or donned military-grade regalia in enacting their violence?
Here’s the point: We say we want “peace” but when pressed to define it we can’t, and then remain frustrated by having not achieved it. This is the textbook description of neurosis. Neuroses are compromises with unconscious conflicts that generate satisfaction by their very perpetuation.
So, what do we really want? What do you really want? Is it peace? Freedom? Security? Bullet-proof backpacks? Armed officers in every school?
As major media networks continue to report on the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, maybe we need to turn off the television and step in front of a mirror. Any conversation worth having needs to begin by taking an inventory of our collective values and squarely confronting our national neuroses, those generated by preaching peace, but living, playing, wearing, and watching war.
***The FBI defines “mass shootings” as four or more murders occurring at roughly the same time.
Graphic from nordique licensed under Creative Commons
7 Comments
Naomi Wolfe says we are already in a police state. With the police owned by the elites.
I agree with what you’re saying here. Unfortunately, as a society we only want to look at how we can “solve” the problem of violence as opposed to having a serious dialogue about a hyper-militarized and violent culture.
I would only quibble with the characterization of our nation being neurotic. I think we’re well past neurotic and we’ve gone quite mad in response to living in a time of crumbling Empire. How do we deal with the issue of mental illness when we are also told to adjust to the normalcy of non-stop warfare? The scary thing to look at is how the most seemingly well adjusted person can be only inches away from the mentality of these mass murderers.
I’m glad you’ve opened up a dialogue that goes beyond the “NO GUNS!” or “GUNS FOR ALL!” debate that suggests there’s some simple way out of this terrible mess.
Most people can’t define words, period. Ask a lay person to define love or happiness, for example. However, that does not mean that no one can define those words. Many people have defined “peace.” Dictionaries define it. So does wikipedia. So do a variety of other writings, such as treaties.
Not being about to define peace, but being frustrated by the absence of peace is not a neurosis and has absolutely nothing to do with the textbook definition of neurosis. Nor is the definition of neurosis that you gave the textbook definition of neurosis. It’s not even the dictionary definition of neurosis.
All that said, I hate glorification of the military.
Forgot to address this:
Amnesty International is not the world’s most notable pro-peace movement at all. It is not a movement of any kind.
AI is a not for profit organization. And, it is not a pro-peace not for profit, though I am sure AI would be delighted if worldwide peace suddenly broke out.
AI is, as its website states, a human rights organization. It opposes things like torture, putting homosexuals to death simply because they are homosexual, etc.
I have no idea what the rest of the material that I quoted means. As best I can understand, your claim is that AI’s mission statement uses military terms.
This is what I found at AI’s website:
Even if it did use military terms, there must be better ways to demonstrate the prevalence of violence in today’s society than by reference to Amnesty International.
However, I believe that is a misuse of the word “movement.” It would be perhaps correct to say that AI spearheads or leads a global movement.
What is militarization?
I once had the popular view that it’s uniforms and guns and worship of all things military. Then almost ten years ago I decided to make some effort to stop wars. I had read about Smedley Butler and read his book War Is A Racket, in a military library of all places. So I learned html and did a very basic website for my Smedley Butler Society, dedicated to stopping war. I contacted some similar groups. One was COMD — Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft — in San Diego.
I corresponded with COMD, mentioning my traditional views on militarism, but the COMD respondent disagreed with my definition of militarism. Imagine that! He wrote that militarism, and its basic cause, goes much deeper than the normal view of it. It involves competition, and winners, and praise for the strongest. He was adamant about it. Shook me a little. I’d been in the military twenty years and I should know what militarism is.
The COMD definition of militarism includes: “Militarism is a value system that stresses the superiority of some people over others. . .Militarism derides cooperation, equality and nonviolence, and instead enforces strict hierarchical relationships.”
So I look at militarism differently now. In its more basic form, thinking of schools, it involves bullying and traditional male role models, for example. This might relate to Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook.
Your thoughts on this are very thought-provoking. Especially in light of a blog I read where the charge was that the reason Sandy Hook happened was due to the absence of any adult males on the campus. I sincerely don’t understand how that would have prevented anything but the idea of the militarism = hierarchical relationships may have been at the bottom of this argument (patriarchy > matriarchy supposedly).
But I like the idea that getting militarism out of our society and getting more of the cooperation, equality, and nonviolence is a far more likely way to reduce gun violence (or any violence for that matter) than the usual ‘quick fixes’ of gun control laws, or even more mental health care – although both of those are also needed in the short term as well.
Thanks for this perspective.