Making sense of militarism through antimilitarists’ resistance strategies

ABSTRACT

This review article examines Chris Rossdale’s Resisting Militarism: Direct Action and the Politics of Subversion, bringing its critical analysis of British antimilitarism into conversation with my doctoral project on the socio-legal analysis of conscientious objection in Turkey, the only country that has not recognized the right to conscientious objection among the members of the Council of Europe. It demonstrates how considering the various facets of militarism within different geographical contexts could help us to better understand the diverse resistance strategies. The article draws on Rossdale’s findings of antimilitarism in the UK and the semi-structured interviews that I conducted with 18 conscientious objectors in Turkey in June–July 2016 using snowballing sampling. It argues that militarism does not only shape society, but also interact with its social, cultural, economic, political elements. As a result, individuals coming from diverse social settings encounter militarization in diverse ways, which, in effect, has implications on how anti-militarists resist militarism.

KEYWORDS:

• Antimilitarism in Turkey
• antimilitarist strategies
• British antimilitarism
• normalization of militarism
• resistance to militarism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. While the portrait of a tired soldier reminds us of the heroic soldier who made sacrifice, the ‘Hey, you’ poster is one of the war posters asking the British people to enlist in the army by indicating that the army needs them.

2. See also (Jul Sørensen 2015) for a fruitful analysis of ‘how subordinate and marginalised political groups use humour to expose, ridicule and influence those they consider more powerful than themselves’ (9).

3. For a critique of the concept ofmilitariation, see (Howell 2018). Asking ‘what if there was no such “pure” civilian political space to begin with?’ (118), Alison Howell criticizes the concept of militariation in that it i) ‘assumes there ever was a peaceful domain of “normal” or “civilian” politics unsullied by military intrusion: a false and dangerous assumption that lulls us into faith in the naturally peaceful nature of “normal” politics’ and ii) ‘underestimates the extent to which we live with war’ (118–119).

4. This review article acknowledges the diversity of antimilitarist movements in both countries. Yet, referring to antimilitarist movements as ‘British antimilitarism’ and ‘antimilitarism in Turkey’ carries the risk of homogenizing them. Therefore, it should be noted that: Even though I use ‘British antimilitarism’, while referring to Rossdale’s findings and ‘antimilitarism in Turkey’, while referring to my own findings, I do not intend to generalize or exclude other segments of the movements.

5. I interviewed eight women and ten men objectors. Seventeen participants identified themselves as anarchist while one refused to be identified with any political view. Fifteen objectors considered their objection as political, two as religious, and one as humanistic. Their occupations vary: Seven students, one theatre player, four journalists, and one social worker, one self-employed, one waitress, two lawyers, and one veterinary.

6. Martin Shaw adopts a sociological approach to militarism. He argues that ‘the core meaning of “militarism” should be specified not in terms of how military practices are regarded, but how they influence social relations in general. Militarism develops not just when ideas of war are strong, but when military relations widely affect social relations and practices. Hence I have proposed that militarism denotes the penetration of social relations in general by military relations; in militarization, militarism is extended, in demilitarization, it contracts’ (Shaw 2013).

7. Some of these exceptions are: ‘Wearing of white poppies (in contrast to the near-ubiquitous red poppies) in the run-up to Remembrance Day’ (60) or dressing like dinosaurs to politicize seemingly ‘non-political’ spaces, i.e. the Natural History Museum, which ‘hosted a reception for arms dealers’ (52). He also gives credit to Veterans for Peace for their endeavours to challenge the ‘heroic nature of warfare and armed service’ (61) and feminist and queer antimilitarists for resisting the ‘less apparent dimensions of militarism’ (72–80).

8. See (Strand and Berndtsson 2015) for a comparison between the recruitment rhetoric used in UK, which ‘draws on “war-fighting” tradition of the armed forces’ and Sweden, where, ‘soldiering is presented as connected to more altruistic activities and the tradition of “peacekeeping”’. Such comparison illustrates how militarization, as an ongoing process, differs from context to context.

9. See (Ahäll and Gregory 2015) for an analysis on the role that emotions play in politics and international relations and how emotions construct the binaries of human/inhuman, love/fear, and also ‘determine whose deaths can be grieved and those whose deaths cannot’ (3). See also (Pomarède 2018) for a story of the American sniper, Chris Kyle; the transformation of ‘the most lethal sniper’ into a ‘legendary ordinary human’. Pomarede shows, thanks to the media and popular culture, how the war in Iraq is reduced to one man’s emotions––the ‘legend’ Kyle’s personal experiences––, rendering war as normal/banal and unquestionable.

10. For a broader review of TV shows, see (Kelly 2013).

11. For a detailed analysis on ‘the relationship between militarism and gender and how such norms are played out in military institutions’, see also (Kronsell and Svedberg 2011).

12. Rossdale prefers to use the term ‘non-male’. He offers no clear justification or clarification as to why using such a term. Even though one can attempt to ‘justify’ it by arguing that the intention is to use a more ‘inclusive’ language, the term ‘non-male’ still identifies men as the dominant gender. Referring to women as ‘non-male’ positions men as the defining group, and women as ‘other’. For this reason, in this review article, I will use ‘women’ and refuse to identify women or any gender with reference to men.

13. These are: ‘CAAT, Disarm DSEI, War on Want, London Catholic Worker, Trident Ploughshares, East London Against Arms Fairs, the Student Christian Network’ (178).

14. See (Brownlee 2004) for a detailed discussion of objecting through non-violence means and ‘negotiation’. See also (Morreall 1991) for the counter-argument that reducing any conscientious objection to ‘convincing’ others through negotiation would limit the scope of civil disobedience.

15. This diversity among objectors in Turkey is also the reason why, in this review article, I avoid referring to antimilitarists as Turkish. Instead, I prefer using such alternatives: ‘Antimilitarism in Turkey’, ‘The case of Turkey’.

16. In Ulke v. Turkey case, the European Court of Human Rights illustrated that ‘The numerous criminal prosecutions against the applicant, the cumulative effects of the criminal convictions which resulted from them and the constant alternation between prosecutions and terms of imprisonment, together with the possibility that he would be liable to prosecution for the rest of his life, had been disproportionate to the aim of ensuring that he did his military service. They were more calculated to repressing the applicant’s intellectual personality, inspiring in him feelings of fear, anguish and vulnerability capable of humiliating and debasing him and breaking his resistance and will. The clandestine life amounting almost to “civil death” which the applicant had been compelled to adopt was incompatible with the punishment regime of a democratic society’ (para 62).

17. For further reading see (Rech 2017).