[lit-ideas] Re: CFP: PEACE REVIEW on the Psychological Interpretation of War
- From: Eric Yost <NYCEric@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:48:20 -0500
Andy wanted to know: What are some of the bases for the assertion that
this is a silly thesis?
_____
Andy, I don't save posts, so I can't get too specific unless he spams
again.
One of the things that struck me was the way he addressed the
phenomenology of being a soldier without any recourse to what it
actually feels like to be a soldier.
So instead of discussing what it means to fight in order to protect
one's comrades, he brought in myth, the unconscious, social contracts,
and repression of eros. These theoretical constructs can be fun but they
have nothing to do with what a soldier experiences.
Anyone who wants to describe X by using a bag of ideas without specific
reference to X is a tad suspect I think. Maybe Judith remembers more of
Koenigsburg's screed?
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: