| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Why intellectuals love defeat |
| 2006-11-14 |
| by Josh Manchester, TCS Daily (reprinted at Wall Street Journal) James Carroll, recently writing in the Boston Globe, wondered if America could finally accept defeat in Iraq, and be the better for it, comparing it to Vietnam: But what about the moral question? For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat? To be frank, no. In Mr. Carroll's fantasyland, the United States is deserving of defeat, and through some sort of mental gymnastics, that defeat is honorable, because it smacked of hubris to ever have fought in the first place. I contend instead that the ultimate dishonor will be to leave hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Iraqis to violent deaths; and that this is far too large a price to pay for Mr. Carroll to feel better. In his book "The Culture of Defeat," the German scholar Wolfgang Schivelbusch described the stages of defeat through which nations pass upon losing a large war. He examined the South's loss of the Confederacy, the French loss in the Franco-Prussian War, and the German loss in World War I. He saw similar patterns in how their national cultures dealt with defeat: a "dreamland"-like state; then an awakening to the magnitude of the loss; then a call that the winning side used "unsoldierly" techniques or equipment; and next the stage of seeing the nation as being a loser in battle, but a winner in spirit. Schivelbusch expanded upon this last as such: To see victory as a curse and defeat as moral purification and salvation is to combine the ancient idea of hubris with the Christian virtue of humility, catharsis with apocalypse. That such a concept should have its greatest resonance among the intelligentsia can be explained in part by the intellectual's classical training but also by his inherently ambivalent stance toward power. Who knows whether Mr. Carroll has had classical training, but should Schivelbusch meet him today, would he not recognize this idea of defeat as moral purification? The only problem for those such as Mr. Carroll is that we have not yet lost. It is difficult not to conclude that there is a class of well-intentioned individuals in the United States like him who don't merely feel as they do upon witnessing a defeat, but instead think this way all the time. Like it or not, this mentality of permanent defeat plays a large part in the Democratic Party. It is now up to President Bush and the new Democratic congressional leadership to see that it does not become dominant. . . . Go read the rest of it. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #10 ummmm, will that be on the exam ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-14 23:13 |
| #9 Taken collectively, and within the rationales of both dedicated enemies + neutralists, iff theres a prob wid so-called, alleged Amer IMPERIALISM, ITS THAT OUR ENEMIES ARE ANGRY AT AMERICA BECUZ AMERICA DIDN'T WIPE 'EM OUT/TAKE 'EM OVER SOONER. GOD = AMERICA > excuse and feel-good alibi for the hatred-angsts our enemies feel towards their own Gummermints, Societies, and Belief Systems, failures = defects therefrom. THEY WANT MODERNITY, WEALTH, AND INNOVATION-PROGRESS, ETC. BUT WITHOUT FREEDOM [GOD?]TO ACHIEVE OR EMPOWER SAME??? TO BE ALL THEY CAN BE WHILE SIMUL BEING CONTROLLED = LEGALLY ENSLAVED??? THEY CAN BE FREE, BUT NO ONE ELSE CAN BE??? And now you know the significance of the SACRED HEART of Jesus. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-14 22:21 |
| #8 Broadhead6, yea, his diatribe reminded me of Vagina Monologues. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-11-14 20:52 |
| #7 Yep, and he's a pussy to. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-11-14 19:45 |
| #6 James Carroll for idiot of the day or the Darwin Award. Certainly his kind of thinking leads to self extinction. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-11-14 17:43 |
| #5 Let's rember what happens when intellectuals seize power and try to fold the world to their fantasy dreams. It tens to be very, very bloody |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-11-14 16:59 |
| #4 I think Schivelbusch's analysis misses two related points: First, the reason intellectuals are ambivalent towards power is because they generally don't have any. Put them in power and see how accepting they'll be of defeat. If you don't believe me, just look what happens anyone tries to reform the education system in the US (Europe is much, much worse). Second, intellectuals often look to military defeat to weaken the system that they are agitating against. I don't have the source handy, but during the Russo-Japanese war, a Russian admiral talked about how the intellectuals wanted their own military to lose because it would hasten the downfall of the czar. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2006-11-14 16:27 |
| #3 It is difficult not to conclude that there is a class of well-intentioned individuals Well intentioned ? These are snarky anti-military types who have a case of penis envy because Alexander The Great is known worldwide, while Plato is known only by them. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-14 13:36 |
| #2 Can we have a Reconquista now? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-11-14 07:43 |
| #1 I really hate to repeat myself, but it has been so long... Hunter / Killer Teams. Start at home. Work outward. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-14 07:09 |