Wednesday, August 6, 2014
research workshop
“Disappearing War”
Cinema and the politics of erasure in the war on terror
Monday 13th April 2015, Minghella Building, University of Reading, UK
Cinema and the politics of erasure in the war on terror
Monday 13th April 2015, Minghella Building, University of Reading, UK
Call for papers:
The war on terror and the battles that have been fought in its name have fueled a rigorous debate about the changing nature of war. Is the war on terror even a war? Should we think of the US-led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 as large-scale counter-terrorism / counter-insurgency operations rather than wars in the traditional sense? Highlighting the effects of technological advances, drawing on statistics and the alleged precision of modern warfare, some scholars have moved to argue that war is declining and the idea of peace is gaining traction in the world. Others, emphasizing the complex experiences of war, reject claims of war's disappearance. They argue that that it is the geography of wars that is changing and that new spaces such as counter-terrorism operations in the West are increasingly more war-like. What these emerging notions of contemporary war lack is a meaningful engagement with the full extent of collateral damage and the experience of its victims. In more theoretical terms, what is missing from the debate is a focus on the fragmentary evidence on which our knowledge of contemporary war is based. The unprecedented level of technologization and visual mediation that marks the experience of life in the here and now raises an acute question: how do we know war?
The privileged act of analyzing at a remove from the geographical theaters of war entails that we experience the characteristics of modern war by proxy. Specifically, the proliferation of visual media interventions make visible that to which we have no direct access. As a consequence, visual media becomes the new battle ground for war to take place, shaping understandings of what war is, what it does and what it does not do. Cinema, with its wide reach and powerful affective potential, has the ability to make visible to us, and in a sense allows us to experience, the wars from which we are physically removed. At the same time, the ability of cinema to select what we see engenders a necessarily partial view which carries the risk that wars’ brutality is simply erased from the picture.
The workshop seeks to address these different processes of erasure and their consequences for our understanding of modern wars: What is made visible, and what is not? How do we experience what we see and hear? What are the consequences of these impressions and experiences for our understanding of contemporary wars?
We invite 20-minute papers on the above topic, and particularly welcome those that address some of the following questions:
Battlegrounds
• Can we view the body as a site of war?
• Are hotel, boardrooms and offices the new battlefields?
• How can we characterize these recent arenas, protocols and technologies of war and counter-terrorism?
• To what extent do 9/11 and the War on Terror represent a ‘break’ or shift away from traditional conceptions of battleground and fighting?
• Are notions of absence and presence reconfigured in this new technological and geopolitical context, through war ‘at a distance’, fighting ‘by proxy’? .
Bodies and death
• To what extent do we see an avoidance of death and dying in the visualization of war and counter-terrorism?
• Are other processes of erasure at work, such as the erasure of the victims of collateral damage, such as in the so-called ‘precision bombing’ of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Technologies
• Might we view the technologies of war and of its visualization as technologies of erasure?
• Does this challenge the idea that modern war technologies allow a totalizing vision?
• What are the socio-political and cultural consequences of erasure for how we know war?
Narratives of war:
• What kind of narratives do we actually encounter about war these days?
• How do forms of fiction and non-fiction filmmaking intersect with real-world geopolitical, social and cultural narratives?
• How are narratives of loss and trauma, causality, heroism, and moral imperatives expressed, complicated and interrogated by forms of fiction and non-fiction filmmaking?
• How does cinema negotiate a path between representation and politics?
Please send proposals of 300-500 words, 5 keywords and a brief biographical note to Christina Hellmich <c.hellmich@reading.ac.uk> and Lisa Purse <l.v.purse@reading.ac.uk> by 1st September 2014. We hope to offer some travel bursaries to speakers.
The workshop is hosted by the Department of Politics and International Relations and the Department of Film, Theatre and Television under the FAHSS Rights and Representation research theme, and is supported by the Centre for Ways of War and the Centre for Film Aesthetics and Cultures at the University of Reading.
The war on terror and the battles that have been fought in its name have fueled a rigorous debate about the changing nature of war. Is the war on terror even a war? Should we think of the US-led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 as large-scale counter-terrorism / counter-insurgency operations rather than wars in the traditional sense? Highlighting the effects of technological advances, drawing on statistics and the alleged precision of modern warfare, some scholars have moved to argue that war is declining and the idea of peace is gaining traction in the world. Others, emphasizing the complex experiences of war, reject claims of war's disappearance. They argue that that it is the geography of wars that is changing and that new spaces such as counter-terrorism operations in the West are increasingly more war-like. What these emerging notions of contemporary war lack is a meaningful engagement with the full extent of collateral damage and the experience of its victims. In more theoretical terms, what is missing from the debate is a focus on the fragmentary evidence on which our knowledge of contemporary war is based. The unprecedented level of technologization and visual mediation that marks the experience of life in the here and now raises an acute question: how do we know war?
The privileged act of analyzing at a remove from the geographical theaters of war entails that we experience the characteristics of modern war by proxy. Specifically, the proliferation of visual media interventions make visible that to which we have no direct access. As a consequence, visual media becomes the new battle ground for war to take place, shaping understandings of what war is, what it does and what it does not do. Cinema, with its wide reach and powerful affective potential, has the ability to make visible to us, and in a sense allows us to experience, the wars from which we are physically removed. At the same time, the ability of cinema to select what we see engenders a necessarily partial view which carries the risk that wars’ brutality is simply erased from the picture.
The workshop seeks to address these different processes of erasure and their consequences for our understanding of modern wars: What is made visible, and what is not? How do we experience what we see and hear? What are the consequences of these impressions and experiences for our understanding of contemporary wars?
We invite 20-minute papers on the above topic, and particularly welcome those that address some of the following questions:
Battlegrounds
• Can we view the body as a site of war?
• Are hotel, boardrooms and offices the new battlefields?
• How can we characterize these recent arenas, protocols and technologies of war and counter-terrorism?
• To what extent do 9/11 and the War on Terror represent a ‘break’ or shift away from traditional conceptions of battleground and fighting?
• Are notions of absence and presence reconfigured in this new technological and geopolitical context, through war ‘at a distance’, fighting ‘by proxy’? .
Bodies and death
• To what extent do we see an avoidance of death and dying in the visualization of war and counter-terrorism?
• Are other processes of erasure at work, such as the erasure of the victims of collateral damage, such as in the so-called ‘precision bombing’ of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Technologies
• Might we view the technologies of war and of its visualization as technologies of erasure?
• Does this challenge the idea that modern war technologies allow a totalizing vision?
• What are the socio-political and cultural consequences of erasure for how we know war?
Narratives of war:
• What kind of narratives do we actually encounter about war these days?
• How do forms of fiction and non-fiction filmmaking intersect with real-world geopolitical, social and cultural narratives?
• How are narratives of loss and trauma, causality, heroism, and moral imperatives expressed, complicated and interrogated by forms of fiction and non-fiction filmmaking?
• How does cinema negotiate a path between representation and politics?
Please send proposals of 300-500 words, 5 keywords and a brief biographical note to Christina Hellmich <c.hellmich@reading.ac.uk> and Lisa Purse <l.v.purse@reading.ac.uk> by 1st September 2014. We hope to offer some travel bursaries to speakers.
The workshop is hosted by the Department of Politics and International Relations and the Department of Film, Theatre and Television under the FAHSS Rights and Representation research theme, and is supported by the Centre for Ways of War and the Centre for Film Aesthetics and Cultures at the University of Reading.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Gaza and ethics
I generally find it the epitome of colonialist hubris to think it proper to impose traditional Christian Just War principles (like proportionality, proper authority, etc) on a conflict that is largely being fought between Muslim and Jewish political entities. I will have talk about that some other time though, perhaps when I figure out what it is about Israel that makes every philosopher want to be a pundit. Here is a set of links pointing to discussions by ethicists about the Gaza conflict. I leave you, dear reader, to decide who to take seriously and who not to. (H/T for most of these to the Daily Nous. I may update from time to time.)
NPR has a discussion between Michael Walzer, Lionel McPherson, and Michael Newton here.
Michael Walzer in the New Republic here.
Jeff McMahan in Prospect here.
David Enoch in Haaretz here.
Francis Kamm in the Boston Review here.
Assaf Sharon also in the Boston Review here.
Peter Singer in Project Syndicate here.
(Related) Jason Stanley in the Frankfurter Allgemeine here.
Daniel Levine at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland here.
Civic Engagement in Philosophy Classes here.
Samir Chopra on his blog here.
NPR has a discussion between Michael Walzer, Lionel McPherson, and Michael Newton here.
Michael Walzer in the New Republic here.
Jeff McMahan in Prospect here.
David Enoch in Haaretz here.
Francis Kamm in the Boston Review here.
Assaf Sharon also in the Boston Review here.
Peter Singer in Project Syndicate here.
(Related) Jason Stanley in the Frankfurter Allgemeine here.
Daniel Levine at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland here.
Civic Engagement in Philosophy Classes here.
Samir Chopra on his blog here.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
philosophy bites podcast
Sparing civilians in war: http://philosophybites.com/2014/07/sparing-civilians-in-war.html
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Call for Abstract - Ethics and Policies for Cyber Warfare
The workshop will offer a venue for discussion among ethicists, policy makers, international lawyers and military experts to consider the existing regulatory gap concerning cyber warfare and the ethical problems underpinning it.
Over the past few years, the military, international lawyers, ethicists and policymakers have shown an increasing interest in current policies and laws regulating warfare and in their particular application to cyber warfare. A growing number of experts stresses that there is a expanding vacuum of policies and regulations concerning this phenomenon and recognise the development of conceptual and ethical analyses of cyber warfare as a preliminary and necessary step for defining new and effective policies.
The issue could not be more pressing and there is a much felt and fast escalating need to share information and coordinate ethical theorising about cyber warfare with public policymaking processes. The workshop on ‘Ethics and Policies for Cyber Warfare’ is the second in a series of three workshops on this subject organised by the Centre in collaboration with the University of Oxford. The first workshop was held in Rome in November 2013 with the proceedings are available here.
Over the past few years, the military, international lawyers, ethicists and policymakers have shown an increasing interest in current policies and laws regulating warfare and in their particular application to cyber warfare. A growing number of experts stresses that there is a expanding vacuum of policies and regulations concerning this phenomenon and recognise the development of conceptual and ethical analyses of cyber warfare as a preliminary and necessary step for defining new and effective policies.
The issue could not be more pressing and there is a much felt and fast escalating need to share information and coordinate ethical theorising about cyber warfare with public policymaking processes. The workshop on ‘Ethics and Policies for Cyber Warfare’ is the second in a series of three workshops on this subject organised by the Centre in collaboration with the University of Oxford. The first workshop was held in Rome in November 2013 with the proceedings are available here.
The workshop is co-directed by Lt Ludovica Glorioso (NATO CCD COE) and Dr Mariarosaria Taddeo (University of Warwick).
Important Dates
Extended abstracts (2000 words): 9 September 2014
Notification of acceptance: 30 September 2014
Full paper: 31 October 2014
Submission of Papers:
Authors are required to submit via EasyChair an extended abstract of the planned paper which should describe the topic and set out the main aspects and structure of the research (up to 2000 words). Following a preliminary review and acceptance of the abstract, authors are expected to submit a full paper meeting high academic standards, which will be considered for inclusion in a volume for Oxford University Press.
For additional information, please contact ludovica.glorioso -at- ccdcoe.org.
Important Dates
Extended abstracts (2000 words): 9 September 2014
Notification of acceptance: 30 September 2014
Full paper: 31 October 2014
Submission of Papers:
Authors are required to submit via EasyChair an extended abstract of the planned paper which should describe the topic and set out the main aspects and structure of the research (up to 2000 words). Following a preliminary review and acceptance of the abstract, authors are expected to submit a full paper meeting high academic standards, which will be considered for inclusion in a volume for Oxford University Press.
For additional information, please contact ludovica.glorioso -at- ccdcoe.org.
Monday, June 30, 2014
If you are Australian and want to do a PhD in military ethics:
PhD Scholarship in Military Ethics at the University of New South Wales
UNSW Canberra - located at the Australian Defence Force Academy - is offering a 3-year PhD Scholarship for a project on 'What Motivates Enlistment, and Why it Matters'.
Traditionally the military has been thought of as an institution, not unlike the Church, whose members answer a "higher calling" to sacrifice their interests, ambitions, and if need be their lives for the sake of a greater good. But according to some historians and sociologists the military now resembles an occupation, governed by market principles, where workers exchange their labour for material reward. Careerism, a fixation on building a resume for post-military employment, and an ever greater reliance on extrinsic motivational incentives are the hallmarks of what George Moskos calls the "occupational shift" in the modern military. What are the ethical implications of the occupational shift? If soldiers are employees, do familiar employee rights and labour standards apply to them? Does the occupational shift threaten to obliterate the moral distinction between national armed forces personnel and mercenaries? Are "employee warriors" more or less likely to conduct themselve!
s in accordance with the principles of Just War Theory? UNSW Canberra is offering a PhD Scholarship to a suitably qualified candidate interested in pursuing these and related questions.
The successful applicant, subject to admission to the PhD degree program, will be awarded a UNSW Canberra Research Training Scholarship with an annual tax-free stipend of $26,392 (2014 rate). This scholarship is for a period of 3 years, subject to satisfactory progress reviews. Applicants should hold a Masters degree or undergraduate qualification with first class honours. Please note that this scholarship is open only to Australian citizens.
For further information please contact:
Ned Dobos
Email: n.dobos@adfa.edu.au
Phone: +61 2 6268 6273
______________________________
UNSW AUSTRALIA
UNSW CANBERRA AT THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE ACADEMY
PO Box 7916, CANBERRA BC 2610, Australia
Web: http://unsw.adfa.edu.au
CRICOS Provider no. 00100G
UNSW Canberra - located at the Australian Defence Force Academy - is offering a 3-year PhD Scholarship for a project on 'What Motivates Enlistment, and Why it Matters'.
Traditionally the military has been thought of as an institution, not unlike the Church, whose members answer a "higher calling" to sacrifice their interests, ambitions, and if need be their lives for the sake of a greater good. But according to some historians and sociologists the military now resembles an occupation, governed by market principles, where workers exchange their labour for material reward. Careerism, a fixation on building a resume for post-military employment, and an ever greater reliance on extrinsic motivational incentives are the hallmarks of what George Moskos calls the "occupational shift" in the modern military. What are the ethical implications of the occupational shift? If soldiers are employees, do familiar employee rights and labour standards apply to them? Does the occupational shift threaten to obliterate the moral distinction between national armed forces personnel and mercenaries? Are "employee warriors" more or less likely to conduct themselve!
s in accordance with the principles of Just War Theory? UNSW Canberra is offering a PhD Scholarship to a suitably qualified candidate interested in pursuing these and related questions.
The successful applicant, subject to admission to the PhD degree program, will be awarded a UNSW Canberra Research Training Scholarship with an annual tax-free stipend of $26,392 (2014 rate). This scholarship is for a period of 3 years, subject to satisfactory progress reviews. Applicants should hold a Masters degree or undergraduate qualification with first class honours. Please note that this scholarship is open only to Australian citizens.
For further information please contact:
Ned Dobos
Email: n.dobos@adfa.edu.au
Phone: +61 2 6268 6273
______________________________
UNSW AUSTRALIA
UNSW CANBERRA AT THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE ACADEMY
PO Box 7916, CANBERRA BC 2610, Australia
Web: http://unsw.adfa.edu.au
CRICOS Provider no. 00100G
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Reminder about ISME Conference submission
. . . I have two things I'd love to submit to this myself, but alas, I do not have time to write up papers or abstracts. It is a great conference. I presented something there a couple of years ago.
A reminder that the deadline for submissions for the 2014 ISME meeting
A reminder that the deadline for submissions for the 2014 ISME meeting
The Ethical Dimensions of Civil War
ISME 2014
Conference Announcement and Call for Papers
October 12-15, 2014
International Society for Military Ethics
ISME 2014
Conference Announcement and Call for Papers
October 12-15, 2014
International Society for Military Ethics
The International Society for Military Ethics is pleased to announce the theme for this year’s annual conference: “The Ethical Dimensions of Civil War.’’
Keynote Address: “A Moral Analysis of the US Civil War,” Kit Wellman, Washington University.
The conference will take place Sunday to Wednesday, October 12-15 at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana.
150 years ago, the United States was engaged in a “great civil war.” In observance of that fact, and in the light of numerous more recent events, ISME is pleased to accept papers on all aspects of the ethics of civil war for this year’s conference. Papers from both historical and contemporary perspectives and dealing with both historical and contemporary issues will be considered.
Questions to consider might include:
- Under what conditions, and using what means, may one political entity morally separate itself from another?
- Under what conditions, and using what means, may one political entity resist such a separation?
- Under what conditions, and using what means, may a third political entity intervene in such a conflict?
- What legal/moral regime ought to apply to individuals who might simultaneously be considered enemy combatants and fellow citizens?
Submissions should be sent to richard.schoonhoven@usma.edu no later than 30 June, 2014. Abstracts are acceptable, although full papers are preferred; but please limit submissions to no more than 7,000 words. As always, we accept high quality submissions in any area of military ethics.
------------------------------
Don Howard, DirectorReilly Center for Science,Technology, and Values453 Geddes HallUniversity of Notre DameNotre Dame, Indiana 46556Reilly.nd.edu
FB: NDReillyCenterScience Matters Blog
574-631-1147 (Office)574-631-5015 (Program)574-631-7418 (Fax)dhoward1@nd.edu
@DonHoward2
www.nd.edu/~dhoward1
Professor of PhilosophyDepartment of Philosophy100 Malloy Hall574-631-7547 (Office)574-631-6471/7534 (Dept.)574-631-0588 (Fax)------------------------------
FB: NDReillyCenterScience Matters Blog
574-631-1147 (Office)574-631-5015 (Program)574-631-7418 (Fax)dhoward1@nd.edu
@DonHoward2
www.nd.edu/~dhoward1
Professor of PhilosophyDepartment of Philosophy100 Malloy Hall574-631-7547 (Office)574-631-6471/7534 (Dept.)574-631-0588 (Fax)------------------------------
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Monday, June 2, 2014
jus in bello and jus ad bellum
Does Neve Gordon confuse jus in bello with jus ad bellum? When told, as a reservist, to talk about human rights to soldiers, Neve Gordon was handed the following scenario (from today's CHE):
Should a soldier come into the military with a preconceived version of what wars, if any are just, that is a different matter. But is that a military's responsibility?
What do you think? Did I miss something or did he?
But the morality of demolishing homes is not a question for soldiers. The army's goal is not to make every private a strategist, with the freedom to decide whether or not and how to obey orders, but rather to make them soldiers who do not violate the ethical codes within the parameters of their responsibilities. Any army would be ill advised to train every one of their soldiers to think about the morality of war in general. That misses the point of their job, just like Gordon seems to.soldiers were seen evacuating Palestinian residents from a house in the West Bank minutes before bulldozers demolished it. The plot focused on a soldier who took a knife from the house during the evacuation. The soldiers were then asked: Was it all right to take something from the house, since the structure would be destroyed within minutes? As one soldier put it, the knife would be useless after the demolition anyway, so why not take it? Following a discussion highlighting several perspectives, the film concluded that pocketing the knife, despite the extenuating circumstances, was an act of looting and consequently forbidden.The film focused on the ethics of taking the knife, but it ignored larger questions—not least the morality of demolishing Palestinian homes. The recent articles about Ariel University do the same. They pass over the wider context and therefore end up obfuscating the central ethical questions at stake.
Should a soldier come into the military with a preconceived version of what wars, if any are just, that is a different matter. But is that a military's responsibility?
What do you think? Did I miss something or did he?
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Some drone links. . .
This one is specifically dealing with Turkey's problems with drones, but there are a heap of useful embedded links. This is an interesting take on dones and gender and the what's-in-a-name question. And here is an important piece on the reasons why people fear UAVs. This last piece is a good place to start thinking about drones and the ethical/philosophical debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)