{"title":"Resilience before PTSD: or, Robert Vas vs The Bomb","authors":"P. Leese","doi":"10.1080/23337486.2021.1885597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Resilience today is a highly instrumentalized weapon of the neoliberal state. Its purpose is the reduction and privatization of responsibility for emotions that conflict with the institutional interests of the western armed forces. This development dates back to the recognition of PTSD as an official diagnostic category in 1980, and to notions of civilian resilience developed in the 1990s and 2000s. This article seeks to historicize and relativize modern-day conceptions of resilience by exploring an earlier mid-twentieth century iteration which is anti-militaristic, non-institutional, and profoundly humanist. This version of resilience is rooted in the experiences of the Second World War and early Cold War generations as they attempted to cope retrospectively with their own traumatic memories. To develop this argument the article draws on recent critiques of resilience by Brett T Litz and Anne Boyar, on Jens Brockmeier’s notion of ‘subjunctive thinking’, and on a case study of the Anglo-Hungarian documentarist Robert Vas (1931–78). Of particular interest is To Die – To Live: The Survivors of Hiroshima (1975), Vas’s film collaboration with Robert and Mary Lifton, in which the director speaks with some of the hibakusha – survivors of the 1945 nuclear explosions – to better understand how they survived and continued to live.","PeriodicalId":37527,"journal":{"name":"Critical Military Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23337486.2021.1885597","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Military Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2021.1885597","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: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Resilience today is a highly instrumentalized weapon of the neoliberal state. Its purpose is the reduction and privatization of responsibility for emotions that conflict with the institutional interests of the western armed forces. This development dates back to the recognition of PTSD as an official diagnostic category in 1980, and to notions of civilian resilience developed in the 1990s and 2000s. This article seeks to historicize and relativize modern-day conceptions of resilience by exploring an earlier mid-twentieth century iteration which is anti-militaristic, non-institutional, and profoundly humanist. This version of resilience is rooted in the experiences of the Second World War and early Cold War generations as they attempted to cope retrospectively with their own traumatic memories. To develop this argument the article draws on recent critiques of resilience by Brett T Litz and Anne Boyar, on Jens Brockmeier’s notion of ‘subjunctive thinking’, and on a case study of the Anglo-Hungarian documentarist Robert Vas (1931–78). Of particular interest is To Die – To Live: The Survivors of Hiroshima (1975), Vas’s film collaboration with Robert and Mary Lifton, in which the director speaks with some of the hibakusha – survivors of the 1945 nuclear explosions – to better understand how they survived and continued to live.
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.