| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Breaking the Cycle | Main | The metabolic secrets of good runners »

May 27, 2010

Cyborg Soldiers and Militarised Masculinities

Masters_84x84Cristina Masters in Eurozine:

In "Fact and Fantasy: The Body of Desire in the Age of Posthumanism", Renée C. Hoogland (2002: 214) argues that "in the increasingly technologized age of posthumanism, bodily matters are, quite simply, too substantial to be left to the 'empirically' inclined minds of natural scientists", and therefore calls on cultural theorists to take up the weighty issue of bodily matters. Recent developments indicate, however, that bodily matters are more and more coming under the ambit of the "strategic" and "security" inclined minds populating military institutions and government administrative offices, in ways perhaps far more troubling and disturbing in all of its potential and real implications. In the post-9/11 context of the war on/of terror, one can scarcely overemphasize the dangerous possibilities signalled in this shift. Dangerous, in that bodily matters are being taken up by institutions primarily concerned with the defence and security of the nation-state in an increasingly biopolitical architecture of power.

For many, it is right that such matters should be taken up by the entity with which we have authorised to act in our name and in our defence – the state. Others, in particular critical theorists of international politics, have expressed grave concern over the deadly security practices at work in the US-led war on/of terror, including not only the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, but also and significantly, the new security measures around immigration and asylum, individual freedoms and liberties, search and seizure, and the power to detain indefinitely, to name but a few.

Feminists, as much as militarists, have pointed to the virtues of advanced technology in addressing some of the pressing issues of our day, whether explicitly those of identity politics or that of war. With regard to the latter, nowhere is this more apparent than in the US military, where technology has been lauded as the answer to the question of security and terrorism. With regard to the former, feminists such as Jean Bethke Elshtain (2003) have linked advanced military technology to just war practices, and a number of feminists have advanced arguments in favour of technology's transgressive potential both in terms of challenging the strictures of gendered regimes of power, and in support of women's participation in institutions such as the military.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 06:48 PM | Permalink

Comments


This article was lost in the sauce about the realities of the military for the typical soldier -taking what somebody like me sees as a some useful pieces of technology to be this grand transformation of the ___insert techno-scientific-politico-gender gibberish___. All this talk of fancy pants technology seems pretty scary, yet when I look at my gear I see really only the boring basics. Bulky and hot body armor, rifle, scope, ammo, knife, aid-bag, water and maybe my night vision equipment.

Our vehicles carry better optics, sure -but then again, being the scout medic that I am, you still gotta sit there and look through it for hour upon dull hour. Not a cyborg, just a man with fancy binoculars.

Understanding military technology as a "deep crisis in American representations of itself" misses the total point of military technology: to kill without being killed. Thats the reason is why we have armored vehicles, heavy weaponry, better optics and drones. Is it no surprise that a tank has better optics and firepower than the infantry man? So why is it so worrisome or whatever about the individual being able to scratch the surface of those same abilities? The author, Cristina Masters, wants a "reengagement with the fleshy body" -which I guess is an easy claim coming from somebody in a nice, comfy office. I'd like to see the author patrol the streets of a hostile town at night with none of the military's fetishized technology...see how far she'll last when she can't see anything, no air cover, no computerized map coordination or gps, or even body armor when the ambush starts. See how great the flesh is when you're stuck in a mounted patrol and need to pee in the bottle you just drank from or get the shits when you eat Iraqi food.

So while maybe in her non-military, imaginary world, the distinctions between body and machine are blurred and gender-some-thing-or-other. But in the military, the distinction is very real when the air conditioning in your vehicle breaks down again, when you gotta carry around 65 pounds of crap, when you are sitting in the back of a Bradley about to barf because of hot and nauseating it is back there and when the EFP easily blows through inches of super heavy armor and somebody has to clean the vehicle afterwards. Yes, its cool to watch the 25mm on the Bradley blast people on the computer monitor, or hear about UAVs blowing people up on TV, but after all fancy-pants talk is done, whats left is still the individual, organic soldier doing 99% of the meaningful, physically uncomfortable and dangerous outside work.

Also, "be all you can be" is not the motto of the Army. Was, a long time ago. What about the Marines?

One more point: Boot camp (basic training for the army), is not about creating killing machines. Its actually a ridiculously simplistic assertion. How do I know? Because I went there at Ft. Knox, and I'm still a human being. I can kill both with weapons and my bare hands, but I'm no machine. Truthfully, you're not really treated like a machine as you are a worthlessly stupid and useless animal.

Or maybe I completely missed her point.

Posted by: chris | May 27, 2010 10:44:45 PM

Chris, if you missed her point, then so did I. Thanks for this reality check.

These cultural theorists, they're not big on... evidence, falsifiability, authenticity, or any method of external verification of their ideas, are they? It's like the thought "what if I'm wrong" never occurs to them.

Posted by: Sagredo | May 28, 2010 3:37:37 AM

"Truthfully, you're not really treated like a machine as you are a worthlessly stupid and useless animal."

Chris, can we count on you for counter-recruitment when you get out?

Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | May 28, 2010 1:34:40 PM

Alice, no. People need to be treated like that when they enter the military.

Posted by: chris | May 30, 2010 11:31:20 AM

"in the increasingly technologized age of posthumanism, bodily matters are, quite simply, too substantial to be left to the 'empirically' inclined minds of natural scientists"

No, no, really, please, I insist: fuck *you*.

Posted by: Ken C. | May 31, 2010 9:39:19 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Elatia Harris on Here’s how to change the world

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Thursday Poem

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Jim Sanders on the hudson review

Ian Kaplan on Stephen Wolfram: Dropping In on Gottfried Leibniz

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

sjg on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

billy on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

Raza Husain on How do Finnish kids excel without rote learning and standardized testing?

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

DAS on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

czrpb on The case against empathy

Jesse M. on The case against empathy

Khader on Mourning (in)formation of Palestinian Collective Memory: A Mythopoetic Reclamation of Palestine, Part I

Dredd on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed