修辞很重要:用牧羊犬来比喻军事扩张

Q2 Arts and Humanities
L. Lengbeyer
{"title":"修辞很重要:用牧羊犬来比喻军事扩张","authors":"L. Lengbeyer","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2021.1939925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Military personnel encounter analogies meant to help them understand their role and tasks. One such depicts military “sheepdogs” protecting ordinary-citizen “sheep” from predator “wolves.” But simple analogies of this kind combine surface appeal with ideological implications that make them hazardous. The sheepdog analogy's simplistic trichotomy is liable to undermine warfighters' battlefield restraint, both in how they fight and whom they fight. They may improperly expand the realm of “wolves” to be attacked, and exert less self-control in attacking. Worse, they may develop a sense of moral superiority and chafe resentfully and contemptuously under civilian control. Despite the sheepdog analogy's superficial attractions, it could end up undermining respect for democratic processes and constraints, civil liberties, and the Constitutional system that soldiers are sworn to defend. Nor can it be saved by well-intentioned revisions. Hence, it ought to be eliminated from circulation to the extent possible. Furthermore, a broader consideration of the conditions required for any acceptable warfighter analogy recommends avoidance of all beguilingly evocative simple tropes for soldier identity. Their intended constructive messages and effects are ever liable to be overtaken by unintended ones that subvert soldiers' rightful understandings of their relationships to other human beings and to the body politic.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"20 1","pages":"21 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15027570.2021.1939925","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rhetoric Matters: Inviting Military Overreach with the Sheepdog Analogy\",\"authors\":\"L. Lengbeyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15027570.2021.1939925\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Military personnel encounter analogies meant to help them understand their role and tasks. One such depicts military “sheepdogs” protecting ordinary-citizen “sheep” from predator “wolves.” But simple analogies of this kind combine surface appeal with ideological implications that make them hazardous. The sheepdog analogy's simplistic trichotomy is liable to undermine warfighters' battlefield restraint, both in how they fight and whom they fight. They may improperly expand the realm of “wolves” to be attacked, and exert less self-control in attacking. Worse, they may develop a sense of moral superiority and chafe resentfully and contemptuously under civilian control. Despite the sheepdog analogy's superficial attractions, it could end up undermining respect for democratic processes and constraints, civil liberties, and the Constitutional system that soldiers are sworn to defend. Nor can it be saved by well-intentioned revisions. Hence, it ought to be eliminated from circulation to the extent possible. Furthermore, a broader consideration of the conditions required for any acceptable warfighter analogy recommends avoidance of all beguilingly evocative simple tropes for soldier identity. Their intended constructive messages and effects are ever liable to be overtaken by unintended ones that subvert soldiers' rightful understandings of their relationships to other human beings and to the body politic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Military Ethics\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"21 - 46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15027570.2021.1939925\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Military Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2021.1939925\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Military Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2021.1939925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

军事人员遇到的类比是为了帮助他们理解自己的角色和任务。其中一幅描绘了军用“牧羊犬”保护普通公民“羊”免受捕食者“狼”的伤害。但这种简单的类比结合了表面的吸引力和意识形态的含义,使它们变得危险。牧羊犬的类比过于简单的三分法很容易破坏战士在战场上的克制,包括他们如何战斗和与谁战斗。他们可能不恰当地扩大了被攻击的“狼”的范围,在攻击中缺乏自制力。更糟糕的是,他们可能会产生一种道德优越感,在文官控制下愤愤不平、蔑视他人。尽管牧羊犬的比喻表面上很吸引人,但它最终可能会破坏对民主进程和约束、公民自由以及士兵宣誓捍卫的宪法制度的尊重。善意的修订也无法挽救它。因此,它应该尽可能地从流通中消除。此外,更广泛地考虑任何可接受的战士类比所需的条件,建议避免对士兵身份进行所有容易引起共鸣的简单比喻。他们有意传达的建设性信息和效果很容易被意想不到的信息和效果所取代,这些信息和效果颠覆了士兵们对自己与他人以及国家关系的正确理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rhetoric Matters: Inviting Military Overreach with the Sheepdog Analogy
ABSTRACT Military personnel encounter analogies meant to help them understand their role and tasks. One such depicts military “sheepdogs” protecting ordinary-citizen “sheep” from predator “wolves.” But simple analogies of this kind combine surface appeal with ideological implications that make them hazardous. The sheepdog analogy's simplistic trichotomy is liable to undermine warfighters' battlefield restraint, both in how they fight and whom they fight. They may improperly expand the realm of “wolves” to be attacked, and exert less self-control in attacking. Worse, they may develop a sense of moral superiority and chafe resentfully and contemptuously under civilian control. Despite the sheepdog analogy's superficial attractions, it could end up undermining respect for democratic processes and constraints, civil liberties, and the Constitutional system that soldiers are sworn to defend. Nor can it be saved by well-intentioned revisions. Hence, it ought to be eliminated from circulation to the extent possible. Furthermore, a broader consideration of the conditions required for any acceptable warfighter analogy recommends avoidance of all beguilingly evocative simple tropes for soldier identity. Their intended constructive messages and effects are ever liable to be overtaken by unintended ones that subvert soldiers' rightful understandings of their relationships to other human beings and to the body politic.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Military Ethics
Journal of Military Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信