Week 5 Readings Ideology and War
The texts for this week discuss America’s pre-9/11 longing for an “epic struggle” combined with a World War II nostalgia that together laid the groundwork for the militaristic nationalism that has taken over present day society. As a symbolic state, preoccupied with imagery, America’s media and propaganda industries maintain a great deal of power and influence in our society.
The article by Althusser provides two theses that analyze concept of an “ideology”, laying a backdrop for the overarching theme about America’s military ideology present in the rest of the texts. The first thesis states that while we admit our ideologies represent largely imaginary world outlooks we also admit that these outlooks allude to a true reality that is reflected in the ideologies. The second thesis states that while ideologies are in some ways “imaginary”, they are representations of the real world that do exist through physical practices and material items which we see in our culture. This analysis of the term ideology confused me at first but as I read through the other articles it began to make more sense. I saw it relating to the myths surrounding America’s role in violent wars and in how our media has created false ideas of terrorism as a means to continue our military ideology.
Ivie’s piece “Making War Difficult” begins by discussing how America fell under the spell of militarism by romanticizing soldiers and fostering a nostalgia for military ideals, which has caused our national identity to become centered on an idea of military supremacy. He argues that the media and war/terrorist propaganda have played a central role in “making war easy” by manufacturing the constant presence of an enemy and dehumanizing the enemy in a way that is an abuse of evil. This abuse of evil leads to continued false rationalizations about war and can only be stopped, Ivie says, through countering the dehumanizing propaganda with “humanizing, peacebuilding discourses of identification”.
The online link by Hayes and Dawson provides comic book-like visuals for the written text of the other Hayes article titled “Good War on Terror”. These two texts present a theory about how our country came into this, as they call it, “strange brew of nationalism” that takes center stage post 9/11. They contend that it’s not what happened after the 9/11 attacks but what preceded them that evolved into our country’s militarism mindset. They describe Americans as longing for something “more noble” than the petty politics and feeling empty without an overarching enemy for the first time in decades. These factors inclined society to look back in time with a nostalgic lens to find America’s greater national purpose. The authors specifically point to popular media and books from the late 90s such as Saving Private Ryan and The Greatest Generation as representations of the country’s continued obsession with WWII and the generation that fought in it.
I found Hayes’ analysis of Saving Private Ryan to be particularly interesting as it countered the mainstream focus on the unprecedented realism of the war scenes by instead looking at the overall meaning of the movie, which Hayes argues revolves around Cpl. Timothy Upham. The message behind the character of Upham shows the audience that in struggle for freedom, intellectuals are weak and that only true soldiers can win the war. This narrative added to the ethos of the “Cult of the Soldier” which Hayes states came to dominate politics in years to come.
The Biesecker article also speaks about Saving Private Ryan and The Greatest Generation as well as two other “memory texts”, the World War II Memorial and the Women in Military Service for America Memorial. She argues that these reconstructions of the past act as civic lessons about the US identity and that societies often reconstruct the past rather than record it truthfully. This reconstruction occurs with the needs of the current culture in mind therefore often an ideologized past is used a means of molding the present. Her discussion of Saving Private Ryan takes a different route from Hayes’s article as it speaks about the idea of the “white male body in pain” which is exemplified in the famous opening scene, which recreates the U.S invasion of Normandy. I found her analysis of The Greatest Generation as a handbook for how to create a society schooled in the three classical American virtues: self-reliance, self-discipline, and self sacrifice to be particularly insightful as well as her theory about the positioning of the WWII memorial at the center of the Capitol as a representation of the ideological role it plays in the present US culture.
All together these texts provided me with new insights about how our country’s nostalgia contributed to our present position in the global world and how our attitudes about war and terrorism have been constructed overtime through the media and materialized versions of our American ideology.
I found it really interesting that the readings for this week kept reinforcing the point that fighting the War on Terror was not fully a product of 9/11, but more so from WWII nostalgia.
In particular, I really enjoyed the Ivie reading because I felt that a lot of what was written really held true, and I found myself nodding along in agreement. Ivie said something along the lines that we had these war-favoring mentalities before 9/11, and 9/11 just helped us move forward with them. I thought this was an interesting notion, because it makes it seem like even if 9/11 had not happened, America would probably eventually have found a reason to go to war in the Middle East.
I also found the Hayes article really interesting. I have never seen Saving Private Ryan, but I have always heard how great of a war movie it is, and I’ve never questioned it. The Hayes article challenged this belief for me, as did the Biesecker article. Biesecker’s notion of “memory texts” was really interesting and I could see the point strongly articulated not only in the examples from the reading, but also in every war movie that comes out in theaters. These movies tell us how we should feel about certain events, and we hardly ever question it.
I also found Biesecker’s point abut women in war interesting as well – that they are not often remembered for individual contributions, but rather collective contributions. I look forward to discussing women in war more thoroughly in the coming weeks. Biesecker brought up really interesting points about how although women are recognized, it is not to the same degree men are.
I agree with Candace’s belief that she feels was implied through the Ivie reading, that America would have found a reason to go to war with or without the 9/11 attacks. This idea was present in my mind too as I worked through the week’s readings and especially during the sections that spoke about our longing for an epic struggle and the militaristic mindset that connects our nation’s superiority to our military superiority. This idea was challenging for me to fully grasp at first because before this class I had thought of the 9/11 attacks as being pretty much the sole reason that we entered into the war.
I also have never seen the movie Saving Private Ryan but only heard about it and like Candace I have heard mostly positive reviews of it. I felt as though the readings for this week similarly challenged my perspective on what I have heard about the movie and I am now inclined to watch it myself and try to determine if I agree with or would have caught onto the analysis that Hayes presents in his article.
As Mia mentioned in her blog post, I also found The Good War on Terror an interesting article that analyzes the rhetoric and symbolism through World War’s II nostalgia in comparison to our altered nationalism post 9/11. Hayes used the films Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbor to portray this pop-culture phenomenon commemorating World War II that was on-going in the media of the late 90’s. Saving Private Ryan in particular, arose symbolism in the American flag which became a war symbol after protesters torched it in light of the Vietnam War. However, as Mia said in her post, in Hayes analysis, he points out how Saving Private Ryan depicted an underlying meaning more than showing the realism of the war scenes seen in the film. Through the character of Timothy Upham, Steven Spielberg was able to reconstruct the struggles that these soldiers experienced and the true patriotism that came out from fighting in these wars. As Hayes states in his article, “the unparalleled experience of unity that the Good War created” as seen in result of fighting these wars from Americans. As referred to the ‘culture war’, Hayes creates the argument that the cultural mood and obsession with World War II left the United States with an underlying predisposition of this continuous urge to go to war, especially as seen in reaction to the events of 9/11. In addition, Americans associate the events of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 due to their similarities that arise from both terrorism attacks that are so well known in history as being the start of the United States involvement in these long-lasting wars.
Alexa brings up the reference that the Hayes article makes to how public memory shifted back to Pearl Harbor in the days following the 9/11 attack. Hayes states that President George W. Bush documented this comparison in his diary on September 11, 2001 writing, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today”. Hayes continues that Bush was not alone in this though as over 13 articles published on September 12, 2001 mentioned the Pearl Harbor attack. This analogy stood out to me because it speaks to how rare these sort of attacks are in America. It made me think about how different our experience with terrorism is compared to the experience of individuals in other parts of the world such as the Middle East. Terror attacks occur on the daily in some areas of the world and the fact that we hastily drew up this comparison shows the difference between living in a place where the war is typically located far away verses a place that is the battleground.
I agree with Mia that both the Hayes’ article and the Biesecker article challenged my ideas of Saving Private Ryan. I feel like with movies like that and war movies, you don’t always stop and critique them, because you’re so busy falling into all of those dominant discourses of support the troops and making yourself feel better when you share something supporting the troops on Facebook after watching a war movie. In a lot of the research I’m doing for my entertainment as terrorism, there is a lot of commentary discussing the idea that shows like 24 are implicitly reinforcing US policy on terrorism, so I think it’s important to pay attention to the implicit messages that are being sent in movies like Saving Private Ryan and The Greatest Generation. Hayes’ argument that Saving Private Ryan displays that only a true warrior can win the war rings very true, because it almost acts as a free recruiting mechanism for the army. The implicit message reads, “You don’t have to be intellectual, you just have to be a true soldier and you’ll be successful”. With the Biesecker article, I think the same rings true. The implicit message of these films is saying that “if you go to war, you will ultimately be memorialized and you’ll be remembered as a war hero.” That being said, I loved Biesecker’s critique in while that may what is preached, women are often not remember for their individual contributions.
I like Julia’s comment about how war movies such as Saving Private Ryan can act as a recruiting mechanism for the army. I feel as though this is a very true statement and can be seen in other war movies and other rhetorical ceremonies surrounding the US military. We spoke in class about how glorifying soldiers through sports game appearances and other events can act similarly in that often they spark a desire in viewers to be recognized and respected in that way. It is hard, as Julia says, to not fall into the dominant discourse of these war movies but to instead be critical of the way that they present the military, which is something I thought about before when responding to Candace’s comment. I don’t know if I would have picked up on the message that Hayes argues is present in Saving Private Ryan, hopefully now that I have been exposed to this analysis I will be more aware of the potential for underlying messages in war movies that I watch in the future.
I found myself really interested by Hayes article, “The Good War on Terror.” For me, World War II seems like it was forever ago, and an incredibly distant war for my generation. When I first started reading this article my immediate thought was that there is no way people are still nostalgic in the 90’s. However, after reading the article my opinion changed a bit. Considering that the 90’s were the first time in quite a while that we did not have any immediate enemies, I suppose there could have been a lull and the feeling of “shouldn’t we be doing something productive?” I think this is a feeling that my generation has really never experienced considering most of us in the class were under the age of 5 during that time. We have never really known a lull in war and conflict, it is a constant in our lives.
I also think that Hayes had the right idea when he said American’s were, “longing for something greater,” in reference to going to see movies like “Saving Private Ryan.” I found this ironic because today it feels like we are almost searching for something greater through our current media consumption, although we are politically almost in the exact opposite position. It seems that people are seeking “feel good”and relatable kinds of television programs.
Like Taylor, I was also a little surprised when I first read about the World War II nostalgia but came to understand its roots and prevalence in society as I continued to read on. In our readings the other week, one of the ideas that stood out to me the most was the fact that our generation has never known a time where we weren’t involved in war, and specifically has grown up in the prime of the age of terror. Taylor alludes to this point in her post when she states that we have never really known a lull in war and conflict. This concept continues to challenge me for a few reasons. For one thing it is hard to grasp just how much war and conflict has taken place during our lifetimes because we are so removed from it and only really hear about it on the news. So while it is true that war has always been a constant in our lives, this is a much different constant than someone who lives in an area of the world where not only war has been a constant but also a reality in their everyday lives.
Something this weeks readings emphasized, and something I found most interesting, was how our “reconstruction” rather than “remembrance” of history is what ultimately defines our future. Not only this, but the ways in which we reconstruct history as sometimes a physical representation of memory is particularly fascinating. These points made in Biesecker’s article made me wonder how my generation will reconstruct history, specifically the wars in the Middle East. Already, we have the 9/11 memorial in New York City (Ground Zero) that physically and rhetorically solidifies the memory of the attack. Althusser argues that while ideology typically represents intangible beliefs, discourses, and morals, it also has a “material existence” (p. 318). Using Ground Zero as an example again, the US emphasizes the ideologies of power, resiliency, and citizenship through this memorial through its size, publicity, and properties that pay homage to those who died.
Considering the war that started immediately after 9/11 is ongoing, I wonder how (and if) we will see similar memorials to those we have for WWII. Similar to what a couple of the articles argue, we already have representations of the war through film especially, which in themselves make very specific statements, but it’s like that since the war is not over, we have not committed to how we plan to remember, or “reconstruct” it. Our memorials tend to make very political statements as well, and so I would hypothesize that future memorials about our current wars will do the same.
Erin raises a very interesting point about how we are going to reconstruct our historical memory of the time we are living through right now. It’s hard to imagine how and when this reconstruction will take place because of the fact that the war we are currently involved in seems as though it will never end. Never have we been involved in a conflict for this length of time, which I think will be a large factor in how our reconstruction will eventually occur. Althusser’s discussion of an ideology speaks to how our beliefs are often based on an imaginary relationship rather than a reality. This understanding of an ideology similarly points to our tendency to reconstruct the past in ways that are not attuned to reality. In terms of how we will memorialize the current war I think that it will have to do with what our state of events is in the future and how we will be able the memory of this period of time to advance it.
These readings sufficiently described the United States’ tendency to glorify World War II and the image of the “brave soldier,” while still maintaining the realistic perspective that it seems there needs to be a redefining of American ideology. It is interesting to me that the 90s, as discussed in Hayes’ article, did not foster a feeling of relief among the American public, but instead of feeling of unrest when they no longer faced any foreign enemies. Their feelings of hope were gratified, and their sense of patriotism was elevated with the success of our military and the projection of nationalism, which in turn reflects the state of our war on terror today. This newfound culture and identity as a country was carried on, particularly by President Bush, and was perpetuated to the extent that Americans no longer saw soldiers fighting in a war for what it really was, but instead as an embodiment of American values. Biesecker argued our collective memory was shaped by these examples of excessive glorification, like Saving Private Ryan, and it contributed to American’s view of themselves in relation to the rest of the world. Like Mia, the example of this movie helped me to better understand the mirror-structure of ideology that is presented in Athusser’s reading, visualizing those characters as subjects that represent the larger Subject, that, in turn, can be seen as both imaginary and based on truth. I agree with Mia in that after reading these articles, it is clear that the way we viewed World War II heavily affected the way we proceeded to project our idealistic military supremacy, and that looking at it objectively through a historical lens helps to illustrate where we are at today.
Alyssa’s comment about how instead of feeling relief during the 90s without an external enemy we instead felt incomplete or lacking a purpose resonated with me because I also thought about this throughout these readings. It seems as though we are always longing for a time of peace and without conflict yet the sentiment discussed in many of these readings contradicts this very idea. When Obama first came to office he won the Noble Peace Prize before even ending the wars, because of the hope that society had in his ability to do so and to bring us back to a time of peace. I wonder if after the war on terror eventually comes to an end, if it does, if we again will be filled with this same longing for an enemy or if the length and structure of this war will continue to instigate resentment towards our military involvement abroad.
We studied war propaganda strategies and tactics in Dr. Barney’s class and read a lot of Ivie articles so I was really interested in “Making War Difficult.” As Mia discusses, the article highlights a propaganda strategy of dehumanizing the enemy, creating a warped sense of disconnect from the people fighting on the other side of the war. This strategy also involves “othering” drawing a line between us and them, good and evil, democracy and oppression. This need to place blame and scrutiny on a specific person, nation or idea has been inherited through previous war rhetoric and societal norms passed to us. However, creating a scapegoat and replacing our fear with anger is consequently more problematic during the War on Terror than say in WWII. WWII propaganda created dehumanized versions of German soldiers but also recognized the innocence of the civilians. Civilians were left out of propaganda and even acknowledged in speeches and Presidential rhetoric as our friends who could not help their own oppression, placing the blame solely on the government and military. After 9/11 fear was transformed into anger at Al Queada, at Bin Laden whose face became a caricature of American rage and disgust. But what happened after Bin Laden was killed? Where was the anger and hatred and dehumanizing placed? It was wrongly placed onto the stereotypical representation of the other. An innocent Muslim or Arab or women in a burqa bear the weight of the “other”, of the negative perpetuated associations. I think Ivie’s reconciliation idea condemns enemy-making from a political standpoint, but I feel is also necessary to help society move on from these events and stop misplacing blame on those who feel the same fear as they do.
I really like Claire’s comment about this formation of the “othering” that Ivie discusses. She brings up a powerful comparison about how our current War on Terror differs from WWII looking specifically at our notion of who has taken the blame for the “evils” that we are attempting to work against. Our modern image of a terrorist resonates with a typical image of a Muslim man or woman whereas during WWII we did not implicitly associate all Germans with being Nazis and were able to differentiate combatants from civilians. This difference has created a dynamic in our modern society that dehumanizes people who are completely innocent by associating them with our anger and disgust that 9/11 left us with. I am glad Claire juxtaposed these two different outlooks and hope to discuss this more in class with everyone on Wednesday.
A comment that stuck out to me in the Biesecker article was how “popular texts, best understood as technologies of national cultural transformation, promote social cohesion by rhetorically inducing differently positioned audiences – by class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender – to disregard rather than actively seek to dismantle the inequitable power relations that continue to structure collective life in the United States” (394). This reminded by, more broadly, of the concept of a “post-racial” society. I think that much of the rhetoric surrounding the armed forces and the military as a whole is that once someone enters, they are stripped of their identity as civilians and are remade into the Soldier. These soldiers exist without difference in identity and are rather celebrated as units of a singular, massive entity. This unity in similarity is celebrated, rather than seen as a point of scrutiny. This attitude kind of extends to the larger American society as a whole. We’ve all seen the bumper stickers of “We All Bleed Red White and Blue” or something along those lines, where our identity as American citizens is brought into line with our capacity to bleed or otherwise sacrifice for our country. This sacrifice can be read as a military sacrifice. Biesecker discusses this melding again on page 400 when she talks about “The Greatest Generation” by Tom Brokaw. She writes that, “allegiance to the nation or interpellation into the national is to be secured by a willed disregard for certain particularities of self..” This entire concept reminded me of the Hamilton article that we read a few weeks ago where she is discussing “Supporting the Troops.” She describes how the Interim Steering Committee commented that they do not want to support a war that uses “our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, many of whom are from communities of color” as “mercenary killers” (24). I think that there is an overarching unity in the military where once you enter, you leave behind any intersectional identity you may possess to take one a singular identity of Soldier.
Alexa brings up one of the aspects of Biesecker’s article that I also found interesting. While this idea that a person is stripped of their identity and left with just their title as a solider seems dehumanizing it can also be appealing to some because of the honor and respect that comes with the position. Biesecker discusses how the inversion of the sequence of events in Saving Private Ryan is rhetorical in that the opening scene promotes the audience’s identification with all the soliders rather than a specific one because we are faced with their anxious waiting and brutal deaths before getting to know any of their individual histories. This further demonstrates the “idea” of the American solider rather than the reality of any one of the individuals as a soldier.