dagblog - Comments for "Violence, USA: The Warfare State and the Brutalizing of Everyday Life "

I'm actually working on a

Elusive Trope — Tue, 08 May 2012 18:45:46 +0000

In reply to It seem to me a key point to

I'm actually working on a blog that uses as this essay, in part because there is much that I agree with Giroux.

But I would clarify that the means I was talking about was the evidence that we have become somehow more barbaric culturally since 2001. My point is probably best made by the 1983 quote "Make my day," from the movie Sudden Impact, which was another in the Dirty Harry series that began in 1971. Dirty Harry and his .44 Magnum became cultural icons, along with the famous quip "You've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"

Looking at the rise of violent crime over the previous decade, the rogue cop who takes it to the criminal elements is understandable. A few years later we would get Bronson in 1974's Death Wish.

The point being, we have always had a deep does of violent tendencies in our culture. The opening scene of Hunger Games and the Saints scandal don't seem to me to be very strong evidence that somehow we are more barbaric than the audience that first thrilled at Eastwood pointing that gun at the "punk." I believe just as many then as today had a little hope that the "punk" did feel lucky and that Harry had only fired six shots.

There is little difference between those who thrilled at Harry standing on the wounded leg of the serial killer later in the film, in order to get a confession and those who thrilled over the torture scenes in the tv show 24.

We are not in disagreement over how culture influences people, nor that our culture is a vast improvement when it comes to peace and violence.

Again, the issue is whether the last ten years or so has made us significantly worse, culturally speaking.

While those who murder and rape are statistically a small segment of the population, they are still a reflection of the culture of which they are immersed. It is by no means the whole story, of course, when it comes to discussing how the affirmation of violence is reiterated through the cultural discourse and how that violence manifests itself.

I would say the people who are murdering and raping and assaulting one another here at home is more indicative of what the culture of America is than the actions of a soldier who has gone through a few tours of duty in a war zone. The response of those people back home to that soldier's actions is also evidence of that culture.

Greenwald puts it this way:

We’ve all been trained, like good little soldiers, that the phrase “collateral damage” cleanses and justifies this and washes it all way: yes, it’s quite terrible, but innocent people die in wars; that’s just how it is. It’s all grounded in America’s central religious belief that the country has the right to commit violence anywhere in the world, at any time, for any cause.

This central religious belief did not just emerge in 2001 or somehow become central as opposed to peripheral, which is what Giroux seems to be attempting to argue. Manifest Destiny and all that have been around along time. The difference between the wars today and the Vietnam War is simply the draft.

It seem to me a key point to

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:59:44 +0000

In reply to It seem to me a key point to

It seem to me a key point to his essay is that things are getting increasingly worse, that the American psyche is becoming increasingly more violent, brutal and desensitized because we are becoming increasingly militarized.

I agree, that paragraph describes a key point that Giroux is making. The American psyche is demonstrating these three characteristics. The most obvious and most dangerous of the three, IMO, is the great lack of sensitivity that is developing. The lack of sensitivity leads to a lack of critical judgment by citizens of the actions of our government. In some cases it could be a developing sensitivity that is misguided. That increasing militarization of our country is happening seems beyond dispute and, though it is a matter of controversy in some quarters, it is mostly accepted without notice, or with complacency, or with approval based on fear and ignorance.
The fear has many sources, one of which is real danger. To deal with real danger, the source and reason that danger exists should be determined and dealt with as peaceably as possible. That is not the American way. Our militaristic response to international problems has become a feedback machine that creates more problems which we respond to with more militarization. One of the things used to justify such a response is deliberate cynically developed propaganda, pushed mostly by those who 'need' an enemy, propaganda which demonizes the day's chosen enemy and and encourages the American population as a whole to accept whatever we are told needs to be done to deal with the threats.
Another factor in stoking fear which also affects the acceptance of remote killing, remote, so far, to almost all of us, is the nature of so many Hollywood movies which feed on the entertainment value of violence and use whichever group is our current enemy as their bad guy. Obviously they are shown in contrast to the good guy who usually wins by killing the bad guy, a bad guy who has been characterized a deserving death. Clint Eastwood made that mentality a three word philosophy, "Make my day". In this case the message is usually produced just to make a profit, but the affect is the same as the purposeful propaganda of the war mongers and other elements of the MIC who profit from its affects.

Giroux's agenda obviously included undermining the legitimacy of the wars being conducted by the US and the current economic system where the wealthy elites through wall streets, the banks, and DC are able to exploit the average citizen. There is nothing wrong with this agenda in my eyes, but as the saying goes, the ends don't justify the means.

What 'means' is Giroux using which you would describe as unjustifiable? Proposing and defending a thesis which you do not entirely agree with?

Giroux makes a good point that we find the order of honor and such through war when our lives are chaotic. It is for this reason that teenagers - in all of their angst and chaos of their emotional lives - are attracted to dystopias and vampires vs werewolves. But it would seem more of an issue about human nature and society, rather than the American culture in and of itself.

It seems to me that in the 'nature versus nurture' debate there is no question that humans have characteristics within their nature that are detrimental to the functioning of a modern civil society. It seems just as obvious and unarguable that these characteristics can be minimized by the culture in which a particular human develops or those characteristics can be encouraged. I feel strongly that it is easier to encourage a 'bad' instinct than to make it completely inoperative.

During a time of peace and economic boom of the 90s we were offing each other, attacking each other more than when we are now with more economic suffering and fighting multiple wars

Statistics of domestic rape and murder are indicators of a very small segment of the problem Giroux addresses. There are studies which indicate that viewing porn is an outlet for some which decreases their probability of committing a sex crime. Could be. If they are valid studies then they support the idea that televised sensory input affects our choices and actions. There is certainly more porn viewing now than in the nineties. Rape often results in murder. Reduction of rape is a reduction in murder which accounts for some part of the statistics though I won't try to research how much. Also, maybe there is an effect of vicariously participating in violence which soothes the beast in some men's souls and decreases other violent crimes including murder. Who knows? Anyway, rapists and murderers are outliers from the larger population which is the subject.

There are a few more recent essays which I think relate to this discussion. Here are two.

" American Atrocities: Not Who We Are? Really?
So Then Who in the Hell Are We?" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31262.htm

"US attack kills 5 Afghan kids
The way in which the U.S. media ignores such events speaks volumes about how we perceive them."

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

It seem to me a key point to

Elusive Trope — Sun, 06 May 2012 19:27:28 +0000

In reply to Giroux makes broad statements

It seem to me a key point to his essay is that things are getting increasingly worse, that the American psyche is becoming increasingly more violent, brutal and desensitized because we are becoming increasingly militarized.

"Agenda" shouldn't be a dirty word. Everyone has not just an agenda, but a multitude of agendas, some of which are hidden to our own selves, that we bring to the table each time we interact with people. These agendas are a bubbling mix of emotions, needs, passions, thoughts, experiences, ideologies, perceptions, beliefs, and so on.

Giroux's agenda obviously included undermining the legitimacy of the wars being conducted by the US and the current economic system where the wealthy elites through wall streets, the banks, and DC are able to exploit the average citizen. There is nothing wrong with this agenda in my eyes, but as the saying goes, the ends don't justify the means.

Giroux's task, set forth by himself, is to prove in the essay in that things are indeed getting worse - that 10 or 15 years ago we were a more civil and peaceful people. If things are as they always have been, or in some cases, maybe getting better, than his argument would fall apart.

It would seem to me that stats indicating a decade long trend of decreasing murder, rape and assault would be highly relevant to this topic. As the resident post-structuralist here, I am the first to go the mat about the nature of violence embedded in the textual discourse of our culture. In fact, I would argue that there is nothing-outside-the-text and the trauma of the violence is found inside the very discourse of the culture. America has a deep thread or two of violence in its various cultural paradigms, evidenced from the brimstone preachers to rappers to the sport stars to hollywood. (There is also redeeming value in American culture, but this comment can be only so long).

So the Hunger Games, and people's attraction to the violence they see on the screen, become evidence for Giroux of this increased militarization and violence of the culture, economy and political system. It is the "see what it is doing to us." Another variation of the tearing of the social fabric argument. I bring up the slasher movies because on one level it indicates the attraction to violence as entertainment, especially among the youth, and especially male youths, is nothing new in this country.

I also brought up the slasher films for another reason, which I did not elaborate upon. As one description of Hamlet goes - everyone dies in the end. One needs to look at violence as entertainment within context. The slasher movies were far more mere wallowing in gratuitous violence than from what I have heard of the Hunger Games, which one could argue has a more of a morality within it

Giroux makes a good point that we find the order of honor and such through war when our lives are chaotic. It is for this reason that teenagers - in all of their angst and chaos of their emotional lives - are attracted to dystopias and vampires vs werewolves. But it would seem more of an issue about human nature and society, rather than the American culture in and of itself.

During a time of peace and economic boom of the 90s we were offing each other, attacking each other more than when we are now with more economic suffering and fighting multiple wars. One might be able to argue that there is a counter response by the push of actual economic suffering and war, a counter response within the culture that taps in those values which affirm life, rather than death.

And for the record, I personally never went to see those slasher films. I am way to squeamish and prone to having nightmares, etc. So to whatever extent I do make excuses for the violence of the authorities, it can't be attributed to that directly. Although I would argue such films become part of the greater cultural discourse of which I unfold, as others had. So whether I saw them or not is irrelevant at some point.

But we are unfolding together within the same grand discourse. As I said, Giroux makes some good points in his essay. The issue is that he is attempting to attribute some cause and effect dynamic which reality does not seem to back him up on.

Giroux makes broad statements

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:47:19 +0000

In reply to There is a portion of what

Giroux makes broad statements about the psychology of American culture and how it has come to be what it is. Obviously there are exceptions to his broad brush description. This essay is a 4500 word document, fairly long but hardly a book length treatment which would be necessary if he did not make some assumptions about common knowledge.

Unfortunately, he lets his political and cultural agenda push him to draw conclusions that detract from his more salient points.

His salient points are about politics and culture and problems he sees within those interactive realms which feed back negatively on each other. His conclusions come from those salient points. His agenda is, it seems to me, the same as any essayist, and that is to try to make a convincing case. Saying, though, that he has an 'agenda' is to describe his attempt with a word carrying a negative connotation, so I do not agree with your use of it.

How can we have one hand a collapse of civility and on the other hand a decrease in murder and assaults?

This statement puts the boundaries of Giroux' cause and affect analogy within narrow, artificial, and illogical boundaries. No single event such as even a major foreign war can be the predictor or explanation for domestic murder rates and murder rates are hardly the sole measurement of domestic civility and how it plays out nationally and internationally.

His attempts to use the Hunger Games as some uber-symbol of the dynamic is off the mark. He focuses solely on Hollywood, ignoring the fact the Hunger Games was a massively popular novel series for teens already, along the line of Twilight. But to make his case, he would have to explain the slasher movies of my teen years.

His focus, in that instance when he uses "The Hunger Games" as an example, my be narrow but it is exactly on spot with his thesis which I see as follows along with the paragraph you highlighted.

It is this brutalizing psychology of desensitization, emotional hardness and the freezing of moral responsibility that is particularly crucial to understand, because it grows out of a formative culture in which war, violence and the dehumanization of others becomes routine, commonplace and removed from any sense of ethical accountability.

Hollywood movies are one transmitter of culture and they thrive on violent imagery as Giroux states. Pointing this out is not to say that they are the only causes of the affect he is describing. It is only one example he makes which falls within the example of Hollywood movies which are themselves just one of many examples of conscience deadeners he uses to make his point. As to the slasher movies you watched, I have no idea how they may or may not have affected your particular psychological makeup but I see you as someone who has very often made excuses for violence by our various authorities. That is one of the affects that Giroux is exploring as to cause. Surely slasher movies were not your only input.
Also, your last paragraph which says that the Saint's scandal is just more of the same ol' same ol' that is hardly worth mentioning rather than something which should cause you to say "Say it aint so Joe" seems to be more evidence supporting Giroux's thesis.

There is a portion of what

Elusive Trope — Sat, 05 May 2012 16:25:46 +0000

In reply to Violence, USA: The Warfare State and the Brutalizing of Everyday Life

There is a portion of what Giroux is attempting to articulate that I agree with wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, he lets his political and cultural agenda push him to draw conclusions that detract from his more salient points.

For instance, his conclusions do not align with the fact that the murder rate in the US between 2001 and 2010 per 100,000 has gone from 5.6 to 4.8. This is well below the 9.8 rate in 1991. Forcible rape between the same years has decreased from 31.8 to 27.5 per 100,000. Aggravated assault from 318.6 to 252.3.

Giroux makes the following claim:

In American society, the seductive power of the spectacle of violence is fed through a framework of fear, blame and humiliation that circulates widely in popular culture. The consequence is a culture marked by increasing levels of inequality, suffering and disposability. There is not only a "surplus of rage," but also a collapse of civility in which untold forms of violence, humiliation and degradation proliferate. Hyper-masculinity and the spectacle of a militarized culture now dominate American society - one in which civility collapses into rudeness, shouting and unchecked anger. What is unique at this historical conjuncture in the United States is that such public expression of hatred, violence and rage "no longer requires concealment but is comfortable in its forthrightness."

How can we have one hand a collapse of civility and on the other hand a decrease in murder and assaults? One would expect the stats to be similar to those between 1961 and 1975 when murder went from 4.8 to 9.6, forcible rape from 9.4 to 26.3, and aggravated assault from 85.7 to 231.1. Here one could argue the Vietnam War unleashed the dynamics Giroux talks about.

His attempts to use the Hunger Games as some uber-symbol of the dynamic is off the mark. He focuses solely on Hollywood, ignoring the fact the Hunger Games was a massively popular novel series for teens already, along the line of Twilight. But to make his case, he would have to explain the slasher movies of my teen years.

Even more weakly, he tries to use the Saints scandal as some sign of the collapse of society - ignoring that this practice has been around forever within the NFL and that it was just that the Saints got caught. If we look at football, we can see that this has always been a violent culture, and that culturally we are really not that much worse or better than we ever have been (which isn't necessarily a good thing).