Week 6 Readings
The readings this week discussed how war rhetoric has become deeply embedded into our society. Through the use of rhetoric combined with overt and often unconscious symbols, phrases, and images, US militarism has invaded most aspects of our daily lives. The readings look specifically at Support the Troops rhetoric during the Global War on Terrorism and the material effects it has had on the ways in which we fight the war and the ways in which we support the war.
Stahl’s analysis of “Support the Troops” explains how the phrase represents a type of war rhetoric larger than itself. Support the troops rhetoric shifted the way in which war is discussed, stifling any criticism or debate and in turn making “support the troops” synonymous with “support the war.” Stahl explains how the trope of deflection has created the narrative of war as a fight to save our own soldiers. This narrative is promoted through war films that are often void of the political realities and policies behind war and instead focus on the soldier themselves. The focal point of the soldier is mirrored through the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action myth and the motif of captivity in films like Saving Jessica Lynch. Through these films and symbols like Yellow Ribbons the role of a civilian is also outlined, a role that includes being a supportive bystander. The trope of dissociation further constructs the role of citizens, distancing them from the military and painting deliberation of war as an attack on soldiers themselves. Dissociation tells the story of two clear and natural enemies: soldiers and protesters. Any discussion of why we fight is seen as anti-troop and anti-soldier, suppressing conversation about actual war policy and reasons for war.
Butterworth and Moskals’ article on The Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl explains the public’s acceptance of a culture in which the military is at the center of society, also known as militarism. The Armed Forces Bowl, sponsored by a corporate military entity presents an intertwined narrative of football and war. The event turns war into an entertainment spectacle, giving out awards and medals and incorporating active duty military into the sport rituals of the event. A fan fest awaits outside for spectators to have fun exploring the largest assortment of military equipment. The event claims to honor servicemen and women but in turn exploits them. It commodifies soldiers in order to promote consumption of services, the sale of products, and promote enlistment. The game encompasses a sense of empty patriotism in which rituals and rhetoric are used to show support through identification but no real action. The game forces citizens to adhere to a certain identity, to identify as sports fans and spectators but also to identify as a citizen complicit with the culture of militarism.
Vicaro’s article on deconstitutive rhetoric explains how three terms, “failed state”, “unlawful enemy combatants”, and “enemy killed in action” worked to deconstruct a person’s rights and identity outside the lines of international law. These phrases created by the Bush and Obama administrations were rhetorical loop holes in order to fight the war on terror, a war not against a nation or regime but against individuals. These phrases function outside the definitions of soldier vs. civilian. Instead they lawfully devoid any human identified as a threat of their rights in order to expose them to practices of indefinite detention, torture and execution.
The readings this week emphasized my ignorance to the ways in which our society is centered around the war and the military. However it also showed me how important and impactful language is. The precision of language and the strategy behind Support the Troop rhetoric is fascinating. Our society is shaped and molded by the reiteration of these ideologies through all forms of culture such as media, entertainment, and sports. We are almost brainwashed into thinking a certain way, told to fall in line and take on a certain identity. I was unaware of the wide scale power of this militarism narrative and the ways in which the rhetoric behind it is meant to work.
I found the Vicaro reading about de-constitutive rhetoric to be particularly interesting because it demonstrates the immense power that rhetoric holds in shaping not only how we speak about certain individuals but how we act on them as well. Like Claire alludes to, the idea that words and titles given to people can determine the way in which they are treated in society is a dangerous concept as it can lead to practices such as indefinite detention, torture and execution. Our realities are constituted by the language we use to describe people and events. We spoke about dehumanization of enemies and civilians in last weeks readings which is also a theme in this article. By labeling people with terms that do not exist in the legal universe such as “unlawful enemy combatants” we take away part of their humanity and act on them in ways we wouldn’t other humans. Similarly, by referring to someone’s death as an “enemy killed in action”, as a general description without truly knowing their status as civilian or combatant, we further dehumanize and dissociate ourselves from the responsibility that comes with killing innocents. This article in particular was eye opening for me and adjusted my view on the reports and specifically language used reports about our “enemies” in the ongoing War on Terror. As the Butterworth and Moskal article spoke about how citizens are regulated to spectator status, especially during events such as The Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl, I also think the Vicaro article alludes to this same concept. When the language we use to describe people and events remains in the hands of a powerful few the rest of society falls into a position of spectatorship.
I agree with Mia that deconstitutive rhetoric can lead to dangerous consequences. The Vicaro reading shows how language can be manipulated in order to achieve a goal, whether that goal be good or bad. In this case the Bush and Obama administration’s goals were to deconstruct human rights in order to treat soldiers and civilians in whatever manner they wanted to. I do understand that the War on Terror is a new and different landscape and must be handled in a different manner. However, I think it is an extreme abuse of power to take away all the rights of person and to deem them “incommunicado” without rights to speak or to those like lawyers who can advocate on their behalf. As Mia hits on Vicaro also explains the phrase “enemy killed in action” which is set up to justify killing of civilians or anyone in the vicinity of drone strikes. Those killed in collateral damage even if innocent or unintentionally killed are deemed enemies, simply because they were killed. This rhetoric plays on itself to cover the United States bases when ordering drone strikes. It dissociates the US and it’s citizens from the guilt of killing innocent people by naming them enemies. By using deconstitutive rhetoric The United States leadership and in turn its citizens justify and distance ourselves from the realities of war.
I found Butterworth and Moskals’ article to be particularly interesting, and applicable to my final project. The idea that patriotism is something that can be bought and sold, especially at sporting events, represents the idea of the commodification of the nations identity. The article said, “Thus, rather than snack foods and insurance, college football audiences are sold an image of national identity that depends on war.” (413) I found this interesting because we see acts of “patriotism” at almost every sporting event – the National Anthem, American Flags everywhere, and the frequency of having soldiers being presented. I then make the argument that elements of our national identity are being bought and sold at nearly every sporting event. I also found the idea that using soldiers as “props” to fans makes them less human. By making these soldiers tokens of war, they are being dehumanized. Butterworth and Moskals argue that soldiers are being represented as democracy and freedom instead of the brutal and violent reality of war.
I agree with Taylor that it’s interesting how the game commodifies servicemen and women. The article talks about how typically companies that promote sports teams or big bowls have a product to sell, but obviously Bell Helicopter can’t sell military grade helicopters to average people. So instead of promoting their product they are promoting ideologies of war. The company profits off of the continuation of the War on Terror and as Butterworth and Moskal note, the public support of war is an incredibly important factor on winning the war. Taylor explains that the Bell Helicopter bowl perpetuates the war centered aspect of our national identity. The soldiers within the war themselves are not benefitting from these acts of empty patriotism that actually are promoting the ongoing war effort. Instead they are being deployed and put in harms way every day that the war continues. The events honoring them are merely shallow tactics for companies to align themselves with the military for positive public sentiment and their own benefits.
War, on the surface, is about defeating enemies that threaten our safety and democracy. Underneath the surface, however, war is about money. Our readings from past weeks and especially this week confirm some of the ways in which money influences our obsession with war. Butterworth outlines the very concrete ways we economically benefit from war with the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl as a very good example. As Taylor mentioned in her comment, there is a very real impact of the commodification of war—buying and selling war memorabilia creates a cycle that industries now depend on. This commodification, therefore, reinforces our dependency on war as well as our obsession with it. This reminds me of what we discussed last week about the materialism of ideology; it seems arguable that our commodification of war represents patriotism, power, and strength, which are very much ingrained in our nation’s identity and ideology.
The “support the troops” mantra is, in my opinion, part of the reason war is so perpetual and never-ending. Supporting the troops creates a cycle that reinforces the need for war. On the contrary, as we’ve discussed, not supporting the war implies not supporting the troops, which is the most anti-American characteristic. Because of this, as Claire’s post and Stahl’s article mention, Americans cannot have discussions about policy, war, and our future. Ultimately, we have become obsessed with war, soldiers, and what it means to be patriotic, all the while ignoring our dependency on war and it’s commodifications.
I think Erin makes a really good point that war is not about defending democracy but instead about money. As Butterworth and Moskal discuss, many companies want to advertise throughout and align themselves with the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl. Being pro military is seen is economically beneficial in the United States. As we have discussed in class it is one of the most Bipartisan political issues and companies capitalize on opportunities to be seen as “Supporting the troops”.
This leads to me to Erin’s second point. Like the Vicaro reading that uses phrases like “failed state”, “unlawful enemy combatants” and “enemy killed in action”, Support the Troops is a phrase that plays and relies back on itself. To support the troops is to support the war, which would lead to more troops needing support. Support the Troops rhetoric ignores the issues behind the war itself and leads to a society of complacent citizens. We adhere to a culture of empty patriotism instead of expanding on the idea of support. Support the troops how? Support the troops why? These are questions that need to be asked.
I found the Stahl article to be really interesting, and actually pertaining to a reading I did for another class that discussed how POW/MIA rhetoric actually served as propaganda to increase support for the Vietnam War. I see that especially so when Stahl discussed how the story about the wife tying a ribbon on the tree actually transformed into songs and media entertainment. This notion of the ribbon has come to mean dedication and unending loyalty, and that is still perpetuated now.
I really enjoyed the Butterworth and Moskal article that highlighted the the alliance between corporate and military interests. I feel that in sporting events, we often just accept that there will be an element of military appreciation at the event. When I attend a sporting event, I know that a member of the service will be honored in some way, and I know that we will sing the national anthem. I think our society so strongly ties these two together, without even realizing the implications of our actions. think that people like Colin Kaepernic are especially interesting because he has gone against the dominant discourse about sports and military. We take part in these actions almost has challenged this notions, and has forced us to take a step back and think about what these almost autopilot actions are really saying and doing.
I also found the POW/MIA myth really interesting. Before the reading I had not heard about the controversy surrounding the government decision to combine two rhetorical terms with very different connotations in order to promote the war efforts. I find that removing the distinction between the two is a clear manipulation of the public and their right to honest information. This captivity theme was intended to switch the narrative of war from fighting to win, to fighting for survival and fighting for others. Stahl also discusses how the theme of captivity was glamorized through war movies that idealized capturing and rescuing our “innocent” soldiers from enemies. Media, film, and visual images (like the Yellow Ribbon) are ways to weave war narratives into pop culture and and solidify them into national identity.
I agree with Candace that it is important for public figures like Colin Kapernick to use the platform of sports (and others who have public platforms) in a positive way. Companies like Bell Helicopter are praised when they take advantage of the widespread audience of sports arenas and fans to promote themselves and their ideologies. However when Kapernick used the platform to bring attention and light to a controversial subject he was criticized and berated for mixing sport and politics.
While reading the Vicardo article, I was struck how the dehumanization of the other was created through a tandem effort to dehumanize them emotionally as well as legally. All of readings I have done on this issue has focused on the emotional rhetoric used to dehumanize the “enemy,” but this was the first time I had ever learned about the legal precedent that was being created. I thought it was interesting how Vicaro described how “detention policy and the international laws of war could be described as articulated together in this double sense: a set of discursively produced, historically contingent connections that, although institutionally sedimented, are nonetheless revisable” (336). The current paradigm has been implicitly accepted as Truth without any sort of modern deliberation. It has been naturalized into our understandings of the world, but the Bush administration has exploited this unquestioning by manipulating our understanding of the world. The Stahl article allowed me to envision the shift from a general moral ambiguity of the war to the personal moral ambiguity that became indicative of the “New Patriotism” films. This allowed the viewer to ignore the bigger questions of why we are participating in a war and instead shifts to a much narrower support of the singular troop which is then expanded to include the support for all troops. The Butterworth/Moskal article was helpful in giving me a working definition of “militarism.” The idea that the military has moved beyond an institution meant to protect the United States and is now working just for its own self-preservation was one that I could intuit, but never had the language to define. What I thought was most important about the article was the normalness of the conditioning of militarism. Butterworth and Moskal were sure to point out how none of how the articulation between the military and football was constructed to stand out on its own. None of it was meant to be explicitly questioned and because of this it was easy to accept as is.
Alexa makes a good point that we’ve discussed dehumanization in terms of emotional response before in class but not of legal. None of the articles we’ve read deal with how our War on Terror is conducted, how it is legal, what are it’s parameters. Looking at the actual legal reasoning behind the dehumanization of terrorists is a new and important perspective. It’s interesting how war and international law has been cemented through history however the trust and understanding that has been built upon this is exploited by Bush and Obama. Their manipulation of language in order to exempt our war practices and methods has a material effect on people that turn them from subjects to objects. I also agree that the Stahl article allows readers to see the strategic use of centering film around the soldiers in order to promote a narrative surrounding saving the soldiers. This story overshadows any discussion on why the troops are needed in the first place. This connects to Alexa’s last point in which the Bell Helicopter article shows us how war ideologies are so embedded and drilled into society, further stifling discussion on why we fight instead promoting a sense of blind allegiance and support.
Like Claire and some of my other classmates discussed, I thought that the Vicaro article discussing deconstructive rhetoric was really interesting. I thought it really connected with what we were discussing in class about ideologies and what makes them material. What makes these ideologies material is the actions of the people who believe in them. Vicaro writes “deconstitutive rhetoric is the name for speech texts that materially transform the individuals identified therein” (Vicaro 335). They shape the way individuals physically go about their lives, and real material consequences come from these ideologies. Vicaro also discusses the effect of the rhetorical acts in terms of the public’s view on the war on terror, and I think it is also really important to note the emotional reaction that occurs in the public’s reaction. We learn about pathos, ethos and logos in the 100 level rhetoric classes as something that a rhetor should use when writing an effective speech, but we don’t necessarily the reaction of the audience. Support the Troops, as the readings all discussed, has such an emotional reaction to the public, and that contributes heavily to all of the things that are associated with “Support the Troops” in the dominant discourse. In terms of Vicaro’s article, the emotional appeal of first appealing to how great America’s democracy is and then posing entering the war as necessary to grace Afghanistan with our great democracy is a very strong, effective statement.
As Julia hit on, Vicaro emphasizes the idea that constitutive and also deconstitutive rhetorical is a force that has material and measurable consequences. Deconstitutive rhetoric deconstructs the legal parameters and rights established within a society or institution. This destruction leads to dehumanizing on a scale we haven’t seen before. Julia mentions the public and I think now in the War on Terror the public has such a distant and detached involvement in the war. People adheres the role that has been set for them, that of a supporting bystander. They identify with a national identity surrounding war. They don’t question it’s methods or means. They also have no mercy on those who they deem terrorists, the stereotype of a typical terrorist plagues the United States. It is constantly perpetuated throughout media, news, and now seen constantly echoed in the White House thanks to President Trump.
Out of the three articles we read for this week curator, I found Michael Paul Vicaro article, Deconstitutive rhetoric: The destruction of legal personhood in the Global War on Terrorism, especially interesting because of his repetitive use of the term deconstitutive rhetoric and its relation to the War on Terror. Throughout his article, Vicaro uses the term deconstitutive rhetoric when talking about “a rhetorical act that undermines or dismantles the existing legal and/or political status of those to whom it refers to”(Vicaro, 347). An example he portrayed in his article of deconstitutive rhetoric was Bush’s administration in their decision on whether or not to go to war with Afghanistan. As Claire pointed out in her blog post, the phrases that were used by Bush and his administration on the war on terror weren’t against any specific nation, but against certain individuals, specifically those who took part in the attack on 9/11. I also found it important when Vicaro points out the certain demographic our nations look for when targeting these terrorists and the constant assumption that these individuals seen in the same religious affiliation or look a certain way are always seen as the enemies. As Claire pointed out in her post, we are brainwashed and infiltrated with a certain theory about the identities of these terrorists based on the media and ideologies use of strong language. This language is easily impactful to Americans due to their on-going fear against terrorism.
I agree with Alexa that the distinction the Bush administration used to define their intervention into Afghanistan is noteworthy. As the article discusses, the precision of language was a key factor in this loophole. The Bush administration needed to work outside the lines of the Geneva Convention, and create parameters that would label Afghanistan a non-state. The simple distinction between “determine” and “interpret” that the Afghanistan was a failed state. Bush was advised that determine had a stronger and more definite power that would not be questioned legally. The tone of determine leads to a complicit acceptance from the public. It creates a new reality that is not questioned or discussed instead it seems final. The question arises, who and what is in place to check this power? If the government is a system of checks and balances why does it not apply to rhetoric? Why is it that what the President says, goes?
What I thought was really important with Butterworth’s article was the new identification rhetoric that he introduced. As students who study rhetoric, we are taught that rhetoric is persuasion, although we still acknowledge that it is not always explicit. However, identification rhetoric brings it to a whole new level, where citizens cannot even realize the rhetorical power present. With the Armed Forces Bowl example, they essentially take something they know the American population loves and intertwine it so heavily with military spectacles that this coupling creates citizens who cannot realize the distinction between their positive reactions to football and their positive reactions to the “militainment.” I think one of the most important messages from this article was that identification rhetoric makes the whole concept of the military easy to like. People can symbolically support the military just by attending football games or playing video games without being given the opportunity to actually question anything. The rhetoric has clearly evolved, as Stahl points out, because if citizens focus too heavily on the purpose of war rather than heroic soldiers as the agents of war, then there is no way to distract or deflect blame if the mission fails. When we take these two articles that encourage and glorify the plight of the soldier and compare them alongside Vicaro’s explanation of the rhetoric that casts the enemy outside of the universal umbrella of established rights, we can see how all these rhetorical purposes are co-opted by those in power with the goal of maintaining their own (mainly monetary) interests. The design to promote a lack of consciousness about the war is disheartening, and it seems that with such masked rhetorical strategies we need more people in power willing to look at the big picture and question real purpose.
I agree with Alyssa that war propaganda has done a good job in strategically planting itself into the discourse and activities of our everyday life. No one questions why the military is such a huge part of sports- and that was their intention. The military becomes aligned with companies, topics, cultural events that it simply does not have a connection with but no second thought is given. Events like football unite us under one flag, we watch as spectators and adhere to what it means to be an American citizen. In doing so we adhere to the ideologies of war woven throughout the games. This blind allegiance as Alyssa mentions is shown in Vicaro and Stahl’s articles also. The articles outline the complacency of citizens who accept without debate the narratives and decisions surrounding the military. Thinking about it now this design is seen in our culture not just in terms of military rhetoric. We see it in gender identification. What does it mean to identify and “perform” a gender, why are girls taught to have long hair and wear make up. Status quo norms like gender and militarism are reiterated and intertwined into culture incessantly. To speak out or disrupt the norm and defy expectations is seen as radical. It also comes with inherent labels and assumptions, girls who cut their hair short are deemed lesbian, those who say support the troops bring them home are called anti-soldier and not true Americans. This framework intended to stop questioning or deliberation also in fact causes consequences and judgement for those who do not adhere to it.