One of the most thought provoking books I've ever read is "A Terrible Love of War" by James Hillman. This books explores the topic of the linked article from a Jungian point of view (motifs, archetypes, metaphors, mythology, etc...) which may turn off some people, but I found it expansive and fascinating. Highly recommended if the topic of the Esquire article was interesting to you.
In a nutshell, Mailer argues that the average, working-class white man was robbed of relevance, having to compete with women & minorities for education, athletics and work, often lagging behind. He cites their diminishing athletic performance, and the dwindling number of top-class white sportsmen.
Mailer argues the Iraq war gave them something to cheer.
There's a great book called War by Sebastian Junger, the author of the perfect storm. It follows soldiers fighting in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan.
I wrote a post quoting some of my favorite sections but the one I remember most is this:
These hillsides of loose shale and holly trees are where the men feel not most _alive_ - that you can get skydiving - but most utilized. The most necessary. The most clear and certain and purposeful. If young men could get that feeling at home, no one would ever want to go to war again, but they can't.
I find the contrast with alpinism very interesting. Instead of an enemy trying to kill you, it's a combination of nature and your own ambition. Ambition is an essential part of it, because mountains are harmless if you stay away from them. Enemies come after you.
Some people (and companies and countries) need enemies to get that sense of clarity and purpose. Maybe that's because they don't take their own goals seriously enough. It would be good if they could learn, because wars, competitive alpinism, and recklessly agressive business are so destructive.
I almost upvoted because it's a very interesting/funny quote in many ways... but it doesn't actually have any bearing here, does it? Would love if you'd explain further why it does, if at all.
I think the author of the article answers his own question on why he misses war so much:
Being in danger is NOT the same as being helpless. When you are in a war, you are in danger, but you are not helpless. You can fight back. You can make life and death decisions (literally). You can take the life of those who are attacking you.
In civilian life, your world is being shaped and decided by faceless powers-that-be, meeting behind closed doors in corporate boardrooms, government committees and banking lairs. And there is not a damn thing you can do about it. You are helpless and at the mercy of those who want to control you. You can't fight back. You can't kill those who are stealing from you with sophistry and corruption.
Being in danger is not so bad. As the planet's top predator, we are designed for a little danger, we even thrive on it. Being helpless on the other hand is a state of quiet desperation. Helplessness literally makes us sick, depressed and confused.
It doesn't surprise me that he misses war, and if the war with Iran comes off as planned, he will be back in Khaki for another tour.
Chris Hedges, a war correspondent for years, wrote a book called "War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning". I heard an interview he did with Terry Gross when the book came out. He said he realized he was addicted to war and that if he didn't get out it would kill him.
You can see how heavily the loss of that meaning would weigh upon someone after they return from a war to "normal" life. Especially once all the delayed trauma reactions kick in.
14 comments
[ 38.1 ms ] story [ 242 ms ] thread--Heraclitus
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/jul/17/the-whi...
In a nutshell, Mailer argues that the average, working-class white man was robbed of relevance, having to compete with women & minorities for education, athletics and work, often lagging behind. He cites their diminishing athletic performance, and the dwindling number of top-class white sportsmen.
Mailer argues the Iraq war gave them something to cheer.
I wrote a post quoting some of my favorite sections but the one I remember most is this:
These hillsides of loose shale and holly trees are where the men feel not most _alive_ - that you can get skydiving - but most utilized. The most necessary. The most clear and certain and purposeful. If young men could get that feeling at home, no one would ever want to go to war again, but they can't.
Some people (and companies and countries) need enemies to get that sense of clarity and purpose. Maybe that's because they don't take their own goals seriously enough. It would be good if they could learn, because wars, competitive alpinism, and recklessly agressive business are so destructive.
It's a quote about war - in a thread about war. The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.
Being in danger is NOT the same as being helpless. When you are in a war, you are in danger, but you are not helpless. You can fight back. You can make life and death decisions (literally). You can take the life of those who are attacking you.
In civilian life, your world is being shaped and decided by faceless powers-that-be, meeting behind closed doors in corporate boardrooms, government committees and banking lairs. And there is not a damn thing you can do about it. You are helpless and at the mercy of those who want to control you. You can't fight back. You can't kill those who are stealing from you with sophistry and corruption.
Being in danger is not so bad. As the planet's top predator, we are designed for a little danger, we even thrive on it. Being helpless on the other hand is a state of quiet desperation. Helplessness literally makes us sick, depressed and confused.
It doesn't surprise me that he misses war, and if the war with Iran comes off as planned, he will be back in Khaki for another tour.
You can see how heavily the loss of that meaning would weigh upon someone after they return from a war to "normal" life. Especially once all the delayed trauma reactions kick in.