In Chapter 28, “Target,” Campbell describes a caricature of a Jew which he recommended that Nazi soldiers use for target practice. “The amateurishness of [the caricature] made it look like something drawn on the wall of a public lavatory;” he claims, “it recalled the stink, diseased twilight, humid resonance, and vile privacy of a stall in a public lavatory—echoed the soul’s condition in a man at war” (154-155).
What might an educated reader challenge this characterization of the soul of a man at war? Is this true of the souls of most men at war?
In order to conduct war, is it necessary to depersonalize the enemy, to see them as stereotypes or caricatures, as vermin or as pure evil?
It's a terrible thing to do, but it's neccesary for people in war to reduce their enemies to beasts.
ReplyDeleteI believe that all people are inherently compassionate for their fellow humans (and even actual beasts. You know, the dog is "a man's best friend?"). To me, if I were to step back and look at the situation from it's basest form: One man going out and killing another man. It sounds impossible. Even if the motive is something big (like overthrowing a government) or small (like I really really need that money you have) it sounds strange that a murderer, in the moment of his crime, is able to see his victim as another living, breathing, loving human and is still able to go through with it.
Everyone has a conscious (maybe not a great one, but it's there) so I think it's impossible for one person to kill another without first reducing their victim to something killable.
I would have to assume that that would be a correct characterization of the soul of a man at war. Though I am sure that not all soldiers have that same un-humanized outlook on the war, I feel that it would be the more prominent one. Many good men go to war with a positive outlook on everybody or a loving attitude towards everybody, but if they keep those attributes during the war it would be a very tough and scarring experience for them. I assume that the stereotypes or the depersonalization that soldiers give their enemies is a very effective method to deal with the pain and suffering that everyone witnesses or has to be a part of during war.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is necessary for the enemy to be characterized inhumanely to persuade the people on “our side” that the cause we fight for is just and noble. It’s difficult to raise support for a war effort against loving fathers, wives, and children, thus by depicting the enemy nation as a beast people are unable to exhibit sympathy for the enemy country. I believe Campbell says it right when he says the state of the soul of a man at war is best depicted in his caricature, especially if the man does not believe in the cause he fights for. Men go to war and see all sorts of terrible pain and death, and they can never fully deny their hand in the gore. If these men saw their enemy as a normal human beings the psychological trauma that could be caused would be devastating to all future hopes of social normalcy.
ReplyDelete~Catherine Melton
I am not sure that you could say dehumanizing the enemy is necessary, but is simply an unfortunate outcome of war. Usually when people go in to war, they do not go in it to go on a killing streak before the enemy has become a monster. There should be a reason for war other than to “beat the bad guy”. Going to war just to kill people is basically making you more of a monster than the enemy ever was.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that it is necessary to dehumanize the enemy. I said this because it is necessary for the soldiers to see the enemy not as a human being or they would feel guilty and will cost them their lives at the middle of the war.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure I agree with “dehumanizing the enemy,” exactly. However, I agree with Rebecca when she says she assumes stereotyping and depersonalizing that soldier is primarily to help them overcome the pain their dealing with. I believe that soldiers go to war to do a job, and not just to humiliate the enemy. So in a way, they need to be depersonalized themselves, but it probably helps to do so to others to keep them from feeling like murderers—or it would for me, anyway.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that these things dehumanize the enemy, for I think it is impossible to not think of the person on the other side as another human being. However, caricatures can make it easier to justify why you consider the other person to be an enemy. I believe it is against human nature to take the life of another human being unless that person is trying to take your own life. Plus we are taught beyond that to feel guilty about taking the life of a person under any circumstances and to avoid it at all costs. Every army around the world tries to unteach a lifetime of these beliefs and feelings in people. I believe that providing inhuman things to identify with the enemy, it enables a person to find a temporary shortcut around both our human nature and our moral beliefs so that we can better fight to protect what we believe in. While this works at the time, however, the effects are still the same later on. This is why we have so many combat veterans that develop PTSD.
ReplyDeleteWhen a country is at war, the leaders of that country need as much support as they can possibly get from the general population. So, depersonalizing and stereotyping the enemy is an effective way to gain the support of a general population who may, or may not actually know anything about why the war is really taking place. These types of stereotypical caracatures and other propoganda of this type play a major role in "firing up" a country to support its leaders and its military, regardless of rather or not they are justified in the war.
ReplyDelete