Post #1
The Militarization of Culture, what does that mean exactly? Following the reading War On Terror by Giroux, it details the idea that in a post 9/11 era society has become enamoured by the idea of military culture and ethos. From popular sources of media to everyday discussion.
Of course such statements are quite bold, but do they hold some truth?
To begin this blog post I want to examine one thing in today’s culture for now, and that is children’s toys. More specifically this,
Look at these toys for a second, these are photos I took at a toy aisle in Target. Examine what kind of equipment these fun little guys are using. Now I understand that Call of Duty is a very popular game and it is only natural to start producing toys for kids to make more money. What Giroux mentions is the effect these sort of toys can have on children. What I see is a fully detailed Abrams M1A2 tank, an equipped Humvee with an M134 minigun, accurate weapon designs (to an extent of Lego standards).
With toys such as these it can begin to give children the idea of what military equipment looks like, from there it can grow to further research of military equipment. Eventually like all internet search journeys it will lead to children reading about the various units that use this equipment. Now I am not saying this is some ploy to get children into joining the military or some crazy government conspiracy, not at all. What I am trying to convey is this idea of a militarized culture and how it can be seen everywhere, even minor things such as toys. What this means on a greater political scale will be explored further in later posts.
What do you think? Is there really a militarized culture in Canada? Say in the comments below.
Post #2
With the release of the New Call of Duty, I thought these videos would be relevant. Examine how new and experimental military technology is now at the forefront of gaming culture, Call of Duty represents the largest gaming releaser and one of the largest media releases of all time. It is content such as this that continues to demonstrate how there is a militarized culture within North America. By showcasing new and experimental technology it creates the ‘cool’ factor of the military, only pushing for further support and admiration of the military.
Post #3
With advancements of technology it allowed the creation of the GoPro camera series, these little devices allow users to record any where and any time in the most harsh conditions imaginable. From this a huge and new series of videos started to appear on Youtube, combat footage from the point of view of soldiers. These now allow audiences to view the action closer then ever before, videos of soldiers and even special forces killing enemy combatants can now be seen on the internet. One such page is Funker530, an extremely popular YouTube channel that continues to grow in subscribers and viewer-ship everyday. As some of you may watch the videos notice what is being posted, it has a consistent narrative of soldiers winning and surviving insane odds, similar to action movies and video games. There will never be footage of a soldiers losing or getting killed in action, this plays almost like a recruitment add. Also notice the comment sections, many people post things about how ‘badass’ those kills are or how they wish to join in on the action. With technology allowing the recording of such footage, it provides an even stronger outlet for the militarization of culture to continue. An examination of what this militarization means on the larger scale will be posted shortly.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FUNKER530
The Normalization of Fear 
Henry Giroux’s article “War on Terror” exposes the vulnerability of the general public to fall, especially in the United States, into the ‘militarization trap’. This only shows how passive society can be be especially when it comes ‘pop culture’ which the military effectively utilized to be able to serve its ends.
Though Giroux emphasized that militarization of American society/culture to have commenced shortly after 9/11 as shown on your posts – the toys that look real, videogames that appear to be realistic, I can’t help but think that the history of the United States itself was built on this ‘culture of militarization’. Events such as the Declaration of Independence, the Westward expansion, the Civil War and the war against the Mafia among others involve the presence of ‘gun culture’. Even before the advent of social media, these events are taught in history class and have been lionized by Hollywood (although involving fiction) through movies such as John Wayne’s cowboy movies, movies on the Civil War, the Godfather trilogy and Scarface to name a few.
However, these movies don’t yet actually show the modern real military firepower yet. The 80-90s movies of action stars show how Arnold Schwarzenegger (Commando and True Lies) and Sylvester Stallone (Rambo) can portray their role effectively as soldier-killing machines . Let’s not forget the total display of American airpower in Top Gun where Tom Cruise played the suave pilot Maverick.
The US military is just too happy to be depicted as ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ as led by the movies mentioned above. It is just all too happy to score a propaganda victory in the hearts and minds of the American public. Judging from the box office performance of these movies, is there a need to say more how this conclusion has been arrived at?
Despite the violence involved, these movies are the ones that rake in more profits therefore Hollywood, as a business by itself, is motivated to produce more material with more or less the same content. The military on the other hand, is more than happy as long as they weren’t depicted in a bad light (obviously there are movies that does this). The caveat though is that after we’ve seen such movies whose brawny and muscular characters make it appear as if they are the ideal poster boy of soldiering, we forget that the military’s objective has more to do with killing than entertaining.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is clear that America’s militarization of culture would include everything from police to intelligence organizations and special forces to field operatives as mentioned in Giroux article. Although you have done a excellent job in mentioning upon the influence of video games like Call of Duty, I would also like to point out that militarization in culture also has a major impact upon television as well. For example, the show 24 has a major cultural impact not only on the militarization of the US but also focuses upon today’s current events, more specifically the war on terror. My personal thoughts on why militarization is emphasized deeply within American culture would be due to the fact in which the United States is the current hegemonic state and while it tries to maintain its status as a global superpower it would thereby be important for them to flex its military muscle in showcasing its technology and power for the rest of the world to see and understand.
-Luke Chang Group 4 Sovereignty
LikeLike
Continuing from the new culture of insecurity we find the concept of the normalization of fear; more specifically, the use of fear to justify interference in the name of security, or in other words, state security versus human security. This is demonstrated in the way that mobility (combined with terror) affects society, culture and politics. Mobility has changed dramatically since the 19th century as a result of technology but it has changed even more dramatically since the outbreak of extreme forms of terrorism in recent years. This has led to military infiltration of the police force. Yet the military is about conditioning and training to kill the enemy combatants, whereas the police enforce the law and maintain order. So it stands to reason that any infiltration of the military into the police force will change the approach that the force takes with the public, as we have recently witnesses in Ferguson, Missouri. The blog includes a page on the militarization of toys and video games aimed at those less than fifteen years old. ‘A Soldier in All of Us’ is a popular quote. Again, if terrorism is meant to instill fear (and eventually normalize fear) in the population, therefore allowing the government to create new policies, then the new military approach of the police force will be viewed as necessary in order to enforce the new policies. All this will have a re-enforcing effect, then, providing ground for what Kaldor calls the new wars. Some may ask if this kind of militarization of culture and police is proactive or reactive: Liberty versus surveillance or human security versus state security. Well, the use of violence to control is as old as time; the question to ask today is who holds the right to its use. Giroux’s article, ‘The Militarization of Public Space and Culture in the United States,’ suggests the process of militarization changes under different conditions over time. So, another question to ask would be this: what are the changing conditions? If it is as Giroux says and the process involves a shift in “societal beliefs and values in ways necessary to legitimize the use of force (211)” then culture is a key component and the “new ethos of militarization is organized to engulf the entire social order (211).” Our political, social, cultural and, possibly, even economic values are all linked-in.
LikeLike
As Mel commented above I would agree with him that the militarization of culture (primarily american culture) can be traced back all the way to the times of independence when the right to bare arms was entrenched within the american constitution. Since the second amendment to the constitution, it is arguable that militarization of culture became hardened within American citizens, but further the militarization of culture has spread globally to the point where so much of our media consumption is militarized, the video games we play, the movies we watch, even the music and music videos we consume has all become intensely militarized,
I would argue that the militarization of culture however really stepped up its game within the context of the world wars where all of society was pushed towards the war effort, and after the end of the second world war Trumans military industrial complex within America really began to gain steam, under the guise of preventing communism from dominating the world as the new global ideology.
Within Canadian culture (to respond to your question) I would argue that there exists a militarization of culture, but that it is primarily a spill-over from the American side of the border, where we are forced to consume so many American advertisements, movies, toys, and are considered “nations in arms, or brothers in arms”. While the Canadian Forces do broadcast advertisements to recruit individuals into the airforce, army and navy, the message is nothing like the militarized marketing of the US. The Canadian forces would tend to showcase itself as responding to crises and helping people in emergencies rather than dealing with direct conflict and such. So while I would argue that there is a spillover of militarization from the American border into Canadian media and culture, I would argue that Canada still attempts to propagate and image of a peacekeeping force before all else (although the Harper government has done a fairly thorough job of eliminating this concept with its participation in the Afghanistan conflict, the air strikes in Libya and now in Syria and Iraq against ISIS).
Posted by Alexandre, group 3
LikeLiked by 1 person
A country’s political ideologies can often be found in the culture that the society embodies. As we know the United States is the strongest military state to this day, and the societal reflections are astounding. The videos and commentary on this blog demonstrates consumer products that are militarily inspired, however the militarization of this culture goes much further than just what is in the hands of their children. The idea is also rooted inside the very nature of the formation of the state, and assent to hegemony, as both come out of war.
Beginning with the formation of the state, the young British colony had to fight off their imperial master to gain independence. Out of the Civil War emerged a society based on a Lockean philosophy of individualism. Sure, the US has at times demonstrated socialist tendencies (Keynesian-ism), but for the most part, the presidents in charge knew that this had to be done in order to prevent an uprising. Later their role in the two wars solidified their position as a hegemonic power. What we have is then, a society that has been formed out of a fight, and achieved supremacy through more fighting. What we can deduce from this historical trend is that in the American mind, fighting can be associated with liberty, arguably the highest held American value.
Fast-forwarding, you see the militarization of the American society stretch far beyond just children’s toys, not to say that army toys do not play a huge part of the formative in the upbringing of the population. However the military is truly embedded into so many aspects of American life that it is almost impossible to even go through them all. To name a few examples, you have a sport culture that idolizes hyper-masculinity, aggression, and physical domination. Athletic events are macho-celebratory amalgamations of deity-esque athletes and also a place where one goes to pay tribute to the army, who usually has their own section at the game and are often celebrated. Moreover, there is the aspect of civilian clothing, and design. Camouflage, used by the military for tactical purposes, has become a fashion statement that makes is used for almost every garment that comes to mind. The last addition I would like to make to the ideas presented on this page is the use of the military man ethos in Hollywood film. The soldier is portrayed as a noble hero, who serves the interest of the weak, and is respectable for his honorable duty. These three forms of militarization of culture are very important to note and, along with toys and games, make up just a small fragment of the overall cultural absorption of military fetishism.
LikeLike
It is true that we see toys and video games etc being militarized. And we see militarization everywhere, in TV shows, in movies etc. But there are always two sides to a coin. These games and toys we are talking about are for kids of a certain age, and why are they becoming popular? Who is allowing them to become popular? Have we as a nation done anything to stop the production of such games and toys? In my view militarization is not a wrong thing, though it is seen as a spread of violence among kids or teenagers but military is an important part of any country. These are the people who put their lives in danger so that we can sleep in peace. So making kids aware about how hard the life of a military person could be is not bad. But it is equally true that these kinds of toys and games are spreading violence and corrupting the minds of people which include children too. As long as these games and toys are under parental guidance then I don’t think they are harmful. And if the kids are told the true meaning of military and are not encouraged towards violence, then militarization of culture is not harmful. Guns are used by military and guns are used by terrorists, it’s just the use which makes it wrong or right.
LikeLike
It is really interesting that there is such an effort to promote military technology (and in great detail) among the general population, especially children in order to promote the role of the military and its use of force. What I find more interesting and strange is that no one has even imagined the consequences of promoting video games and toys among young adults, teenagers, and children. It has not been strange to find children at around 10 years old knowing exactly what gun is what model, what can it do, the range it has, and such while a lot of the adults (maybe not in the U.S. though) just know that a gun shoots bullets. In any case the consequences that I am thinking about is how guns and the military are being glamorized and how dangerous that is in a civilian population that is scared of guns. Recently a 12 year old child was killed by a police officer because he was carrying a fake gun that happened to look very real. So this child could very well have been playing and pretending to be one of those soldiers you see in video games, (fake) gun and all, but then some people got scared, called police, the info that the gun may have been fake didn’t get to them so they felt that he was a threat when the child didn’t hear (for some reason) the warnings of the police. It is a bit of a paradox to promote guns that look very realistic, and games that glamorizes the use of them and how to use them, and at the same time live in a country that also promotes guns but then again, people are scared of gun violence. Maybe teenagers and young adults might understand that Call of Duty is just a game, but I am not sure about younger children.
LikeLike