Today in the cultural hour we watched a documentary about a German camera man who caught on film the ravages of the First World War. What particularly left an image in my mind was this footage of this one particular young man. He had been awarded a medal and with a smile showing all his teeth, he stood proudly, posing for the camera in the hope that his face would make it to the German broadcasts. This smile and excitement that this boy showed to the camera is what seemed to be the drawing force to join the army forces. This particular romantization of being a soldier for your nation was the leading deceptor to the brutal realities of the First World War. We saw in class the posters that were produced to market this very idea of bravado, brother-hood, and honour that would in grave deception be the great benefits of being a soldier of war. The camera man changes-much like the soldiers whom he was filming from an excited 23 year old man to a bitter and angry man that had seen beyond the romantic notions of war.
This led me to think of similar patterns of deception that are occurring in our world today. I thought of the recruitment slogan for the Australian Army: the Army, The edge. The edge of what? The edge of excitement, of living your life on the brink, of pushing new boundaries? This sense of adventure connected to war is still very much present. War is still glorified, as it has always been. Deception, rhetoric, call it what you will, is still the driving force of the masses.
This led me to think of similar patterns of deception that are occurring in our world today. I thought of the recruitment slogan for the Australian Army: the Army, The edge. The edge of what? The edge of excitement, of living your life on the brink, of pushing new boundaries? This sense of adventure connected to war is still very much present. War is still glorified, as it has always been. Deception, rhetoric, call it what you will, is still the driving force of the masses.
3 comments:
This reminds me of an interview done some time last year with a number of US soldiers ('Marines'!) on board the USS Kitty Hawke, during an R&R visit to Sydney Harbor. The interviewer went along the line of soldiers, asking each one what they did. The final interviewee in line was a fresh-faced young woman, 18 years old or so. When asked her job on the Carrier, she gave some long complicated title. The interviewer asked for clarification. "Oh - I'm the one that sets the bombs up ready for use" she grinned.
It was as if she had made no connection as to where those bombs actually ended up or what actual purpose her job really served. Rather - it was her pride in, & the glory of, 'serving her country' that dominated.
I don't think that many Australian servicemen & women naively seek glory, but rather they seek to bravely serve their country. However, what I do think is concerning is how this concept of 'glory' has been wielded by the PR Units of the ADF, the government & others to reject criticism of any political etc motivations behind ADF deployment. Free speech is gradually being diminished & open policy debate in society is lost as government, media and others aim (frequently successfully) to cast those who question Defence policy as 'Troop haters'.
This is obviously a dirty tactical trick, my favourite response to which was said by the ever-wise Dave Hughes: "I love our troops! I love them so much I want them to come home!"
(slight tangent - but more or less related! Sorry :) )
Hey Clare,
I agree:
"I don't think that many Australian servicemen & women naively seek glory, but rather they seek to bravely serve their country."
I find this notion really quite interesting. The example you mentioned of the young woman who seemed oblivious to the dire repercussions her job could have on the lives of others reflects this complete deception of reality on the lives of our youth (well, of everyone in society really).
I ask you this though: Do you think that the PR units of the ADF, the government and the other many powerful institutions are not prey to somebody elses deception? Are they not being influenced by somebody elses Public Relations units...?
I may jump ahead and answer my own question, and respond with a big fat YES. This leaves me with no satisfaction and a sense of great unease...
Well, I must say that Lucia's blog and Clare's comment raise some pertinent points. Perhaps I can shed some light on these issues.
In the first instance, 'glory' is not what draws people to the defence forces in the modern era. Whilst it certainly did in the past, particularly in the hey day of nationalism (WWI), such naivety is less apparent today. However, speaking from direct personal experience, the average Army soldier IS naive, and rarely gives any thought to considerations of the system of which they are both integral and contributing towards. This is unfortunate, yet largely unavoidable. The nature of military service attracts a certain persona, and realistically, it is those people who find the military attractive who should probably not be a part of the defence forces. A man with a weapon who does not consider why he is holding that weapon in the first place is hardly the right man for the job and unlikely to retain moral integrity in the volatile operational environments to be found in places like Afghanistan or Iraq.
With a background in PR and the military, I would point out that military advertising is characterised primarily by an appeal to people's desire for challenge. If you look at the graphics and accompanying text, military advertising usually functions by appealing to an innate desire to do something difficult - all in the service of a higher ideal - the nation. In essence, soldiers are tools of government, and I don't believe it is fruitful to criticise soldiers for their role in implementing political decisions. Certainly, they choose to be a part of the system, but it is the government which dictates foreign policy and thus the government which is responsible for the moral decision to wage war or otherwise.
I suppose what I am getting at is that the average soldier just doesn't care why he is doing what he is doing, and this suits the government just fine. But you cannot blame the soldier for taking up a secure financial proposition backed up by loaded nationalistic moral rhetoric. But you can indeed hold the government who utilises this human tool accountable for their actions.
It is the rhetoric of service which characterises the military, and in the modern era's religious vacuum, such ideals invariably give people a purpose which they otherwise would not have. Military advertising exploits this.
One final point:
I think you might understand now why I gave PR away and maintain a passionate distaste for the media.
Post a Comment