[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 

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?


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: