Its good to read these comments but shouldn't you all be out today
protesting the war???
>From: Louis Kontos <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Social theory withithe social sciences
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: War as Submission
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:36:37 -0800
>
>Dear Richard,
>I see a point to the distinction you're making between aggression and
>submission to leaders (contra evolutionary psyc). However, the use of a
>sing term -- 'war' -- is problematic in this distinction since the motives
>for 'going to war' to resist oppression or occupation are obviously not the
>same as waging war for oil or land and then justifying this under the
>pretext of resisting oppression (or national security, or fighting
>terrorism -- the pretext just becomes thinner the more it's stretched out).
>With regard to the current situation, I doubt that many Americans would be
>following their leader (or Israelis following theirs) if this meant
>following into real war. There never was and never will be a war between
>the U.S. and Iraq. This is a one-sided massacre. We lost 150 men last time
>around, half by friendly fire, while they lost over 200, 000. If our
>soldiers had stayed home more of them would have died in car accidents. (I
>think Baudrillard was on to something when he wrote, after the Gulf war,
>'The Gulf War Did Not Take Place'.)
> There's also something intensely cold and sadistic about the
>willingness to massacre. In this respect, Deleuze makes an important
>distinction (in his essay on masochism --'Coldness and Cruelty'), namely
>both the masochist and the sadist appear to take orders but the masochist
>only wants to be free of internalized judgments and guilt by having someone
>else assume control, whereas the 'weak' sadist wants to become like strong
>one, therefore aligns with him, follows him, learns from him, etc. These
>are just interpretations -- not science.
>
>Regards,
>Louis
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard A. Koenigsberg
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 8:01 AM
> Subject: Re: War as Submission
>
>
> Reed Wadley cites Chagnon's description of a Yanomamo man leading
>a raid:
>
> Referring to Hukoshikuwa, a man out to avenge the killing of his
>brother, Chagnon
> writes, "Even he was not enthusiastic about going on the raid, despite
>the fact that the lectured the younger members of the raiding party about
>their overt reluctance and cowardice. He was older, however, and had to
>display the courage that adult men are supposed to show. ... Thus, the
>system worked against him and demanded that he be fierce, whether or not he
>wanted to be"
>
> This is my point precisely. The focus on the study of warfare has
>been "violence" and "aggression," whereas in my view the essence of this
>institution revolves around SUBMISSION TO THE SYSTEM.
>
> The system "demanded" that the man be fierce, whether or not he
>wanted to. He felt obligated to adopt a posture of aggressiveness lest he
>be accused of cowardice and lack of courage.
>
> In a study of soldiers in World War II, it was found that only 25%
>of American solders actually fired their rifles.
>
> Yet warfare continues to be conceptualized, not only in the mind of
>laymen but among evolutionary psychologists as well, in terms of
>"aggression" and its presumed "survival value." Nine million soldiers died
>in World War I and therefore did not pass their genes along.
>
> This is why I use the expression "warfare as submission."
>"Masculinity" in war is equivalent to SUBMITTING TO LEADERS AND DOING THEIR
>BIDDING.
>
> We prefer not to look at the ABJECT CONDITION of the "warrior."
>
> Best regards,
>
> R. K.
>
>
> Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
> Director, Library of Social Science
_________________________________________________________________
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
|