Apparently, the NFL has ceased using military terminology for Superbowl games. Duck of Minerva blogger Peter Howard approves of this linguistic shift:
"At the extreme, these metaphors were always silly, at their worst, they devalued the true sacrifices of soldiers and dehumanized the true destruction and human devastation wrought by actual war."
Peter has a point. But at the same time, the military metaphors are just an extension of the sport's violent aesthetics. Football players, grease smeared across their faces like primitive warriors, don helmets and gear to smash each other silly. The sport's tribalism is legendary, albeit more healthy than the other kind of football. Say, is that Tim Stevens tossing that chair?
Sports is not the only field where military metaphors predominate. The business world in particular devours books on military strategy (or at least bowdlerized versions of them). Businessmen liken particularly tense power-lunches to battles. It's interesting that the civilian version of MDCP-1 Warfighting is blurbed by the CEO of Domino's Pizza. While I'm on this subject I should mention that Chet Richards' Certain to Win is the only book in this genre you should pick up--it's the most lucid exposition of John Boyd's theories in print. While it's no substitute for seeing Chet talk about Boyd in the flesh, it's a great start.
Why is military language so predominant in everyday life? A cynic might say military terminology drums up a certain kind of action-movie aesthetic that is perfect for, say, ginning up a dull product strategy meeting or describing an otherwise boring football pass. The securitization of humanitarian and environmental discourse is a case in point, as human rights campaigners and environmentalists try to make their causes into national security concerns. The field of humans security, while worthwhile in its concern for the needy and vulnerable, linguistically militarizes their subject in an (unintentionally) disturbing fashion. And taking environmental concerns as defense priorities would skew our already dysfunctional national security system even more than it already is.
This much is clear: the shadow of war looms over everyday life in America. From the rationalized insanity of deterrence to the present struggle with terrorism, violent death is omnipresent in our consciousness. And if you're Paul Virilio, you might even say that the guiding institutions and spaces of civilian life are the result of military processes.
Recent Comments