{"title":"Who Curates Recent American Wars? Looking in Arlington Cemetery and at The Wall That Heals","authors":"Christine Sylvester","doi":"10.1080/23337486.2019.1585653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT War, a central research topic in international relations, has traditionally been studied through the portal of states trying to manage an anarchic environment through war and diplomacy. Certain categories of individuals and groups routinely feature as war authorities while others do not at all. Ordinary people called on to execute state-led wars, made to suffer wars, grieve them, and die in them, are not usually credited with war authority. This article compares two American sites of war memorialization – Arlington National Cemetery and the (Vietnam Veterans) Wall That Heals – on the question of war authority. It finds that in struggles with the Arlington Cemetery management, civilians have gained the authority to present graves of soldiers deceased in America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Section 60) in ways that challenge state ownership of soldier bodies and histories. At the traveling Wall That Heals, a facsimile of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC, the current cultural tendency to heroize members of the military is on view in an extreme form that elevates ordinary soldiers to the status of Everyman executive authorities. Both sites show the importance of studying war as a decentralized site of authoritative war knowledge that encompasses civilian experiences with war.","PeriodicalId":37527,"journal":{"name":"Critical Military Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23337486.2019.1585653","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Military Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2019.1585653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
ABSTRACT War, a central research topic in international relations, has traditionally been studied through the portal of states trying to manage an anarchic environment through war and diplomacy. Certain categories of individuals and groups routinely feature as war authorities while others do not at all. Ordinary people called on to execute state-led wars, made to suffer wars, grieve them, and die in them, are not usually credited with war authority. This article compares two American sites of war memorialization – Arlington National Cemetery and the (Vietnam Veterans) Wall That Heals – on the question of war authority. It finds that in struggles with the Arlington Cemetery management, civilians have gained the authority to present graves of soldiers deceased in America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Section 60) in ways that challenge state ownership of soldier bodies and histories. At the traveling Wall That Heals, a facsimile of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC, the current cultural tendency to heroize members of the military is on view in an extreme form that elevates ordinary soldiers to the status of Everyman executive authorities. Both sites show the importance of studying war as a decentralized site of authoritative war knowledge that encompasses civilian experiences with war.
摘要战争是国际关系中的一个中心研究课题,传统上是通过试图通过战争和外交来管理无政府环境的国家的门户来研究的。某些类别的个人和团体通常被视为战争权威,而其他类别则根本不是。普通人被要求执行国家领导的战争,被迫忍受战争,为战争悲伤,并在战争中死去,通常不被认为是战争权威。这篇文章比较了美国的两个战争纪念地——阿灵顿国家公墓和(越南退伍军人)修复墙——关于战争权威的问题。它发现,在与阿灵顿公墓管理层的斗争中,平民获得了为美国在阿富汗和伊拉克战争中牺牲的士兵扫墓的权力(第60条),其方式挑战了国家对士兵尸体和历史的所有权。在华盛顿特区越南退伍军人纪念馆的翻版“治愈之墙”(Wall That Heals),人们看到了当前将军人英雄化的文化趋势,这种文化趋势以一种极端的形式将普通士兵提升到了普通人行政当局的地位。这两个网站都表明了研究战争的重要性,因为它是一个分散的权威战争知识网站,包含了平民的战争经历。
期刊介绍:
Critical Military Studies provides a rigorous, innovative platform for interdisciplinary debate on the operation of military power. It encourages the interrogation and destabilization of often taken-for-granted categories related to the military, militarism and militarization. It especially welcomes original thinking on contradictions and tensions central to the ways in which military institutions and military power work, how such tensions are reproduced within different societies and geopolitical arenas, and within and beyond academic discourse. Contributions on experiences of militarization among groups and individuals, and in hitherto underexplored, perhaps even seemingly ‘non-military’ settings are also encouraged. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to double-blind peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees. The Journal also includes a non-peer reviewed section, Encounters, showcasing multidisciplinary forms of critique such as film and photography, and engaging with policy debates and activism.