A pacifist critique of the red poppy: reflections on British war commemorations’ increasingly hegemonic militarism

Q1 Arts and Humanities Critical Military Studies Pub Date : 2021-12-08 DOI:10.1080/23337486.2021.2014237
Alexandre Christoyannopoulos
{"title":"A pacifist critique of the red poppy: reflections on British war commemorations’ increasingly hegemonic militarism","authors":"Alexandre Christoyannopoulos","doi":"10.1080/23337486.2021.2014237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The red or ‘Flanders’ poppy has become the ubiquitous emblem of British war commemorations, yet it is also becoming more hegemonic and militaristic: the poppy’s meaning has always been contested, but its dominant interpretation has become increasingly intolerant. Building on literature on the poppy and war commemorations, on pacifist approaches to security studies and on militarism, this article sketches a pacifist critique of the poppy’s increasingly hegemonic militarism. It starts by sketching out a history of the poppy’s contested meaning. A first-order critique then reflects on the hegemonic poppy narrative’s internal dissonances, on the selective memory which it reveals, and on the blinkered horizon of compassion and identification which it promotes. A second-order critique exposes the broader political and ethical consequences including for the military-industrial-entertainment complex, for liberal institutionalist projects, and for veterans. The final section reflects on the resulting unease that can be triggered by the poppy’s hegemonizing function in British civil religion and calls for poppy commemorations to better accommodate deeper reflections on the causes of war, militarism, and the potentially complicit role played by war commemorations.","PeriodicalId":37527,"journal":{"name":"Critical Military Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Military Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2021.2014237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT The red or ‘Flanders’ poppy has become the ubiquitous emblem of British war commemorations, yet it is also becoming more hegemonic and militaristic: the poppy’s meaning has always been contested, but its dominant interpretation has become increasingly intolerant. Building on literature on the poppy and war commemorations, on pacifist approaches to security studies and on militarism, this article sketches a pacifist critique of the poppy’s increasingly hegemonic militarism. It starts by sketching out a history of the poppy’s contested meaning. A first-order critique then reflects on the hegemonic poppy narrative’s internal dissonances, on the selective memory which it reveals, and on the blinkered horizon of compassion and identification which it promotes. A second-order critique exposes the broader political and ethical consequences including for the military-industrial-entertainment complex, for liberal institutionalist projects, and for veterans. The final section reflects on the resulting unease that can be triggered by the poppy’s hegemonizing function in British civil religion and calls for poppy commemorations to better accommodate deeper reflections on the causes of war, militarism, and the potentially complicit role played by war commemorations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
和平主义者对红罂粟的批判——对英国战争纪念活动日益霸权主义军国主义的反思
摘要红色或“弗兰德斯”罂粟花已经成为英国战争纪念活动中无处不在的象征,但它也变得越来越霸权和军国主义:罂粟花的含义一直备受争议,但其主导解释越来越不宽容。本文以罂粟和战争纪念文献、安全研究的和平主义方法和军国主义为基础,对罂粟日益霸权的军国主义进行了和平主义批判。它首先勾勒出罂粟有争议意义的历史。然后,一阶批判反思了霸权罂粟叙事的内部不和谐,反思了它所揭示的选择性记忆,以及它所宣扬的同情和认同的模糊地平线。二阶批判揭示了更广泛的政治和伦理后果,包括对军工娱乐综合体、自由制度主义项目和退伍军人的影响。最后一节反思了罂粟在英国民间宗教中的霸权作用可能引发的不安,并呼吁纪念罂粟,以更好地深入思考战争原因、军国主义以及战争纪念活动可能发挥的同谋作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Military Studies
Critical Military Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Critical Military Studies provides a rigorous, innovative platform for interdisciplinary debate on the operation of military power. It encourages the interrogation and destabilization of often taken-for-granted categories related to the military, militarism and militarization. It especially welcomes original thinking on contradictions and tensions central to the ways in which military institutions and military power work, how such tensions are reproduced within different societies and geopolitical arenas, and within and beyond academic discourse. Contributions on experiences of militarization among groups and individuals, and in hitherto underexplored, perhaps even seemingly ‘non-military’ settings are also encouraged. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to double-blind peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees. The Journal also includes a non-peer reviewed section, Encounters, showcasing multidisciplinary forms of critique such as film and photography, and engaging with policy debates and activism.
期刊最新文献
Sustaining (organizational) identity in times of change? Ontological security and narrative in Swedish military doctrine Understanding the military model of disability through the rulings of Colombia’s Constitutional Court Civilian ‘soft’ militarism through informal education in Israel: learning to protect and connect to the land ‘A deadly weapon aimed at our hearts’: the scope and composition of Lord Scarman’s 1981 public inquiry ‘Weapons only are not sufficient’: former Congolese soldiers’ accounts of the power of ritual practices’ in wartime
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1