5th Global Conference
Session Six: Epistemology and Methodology in the Study of Conflict
Chair: Noelle Higgins
Experiencing German Bunkers in Denmark
Mette Haakonsen
Visual Culture, Department of Arts and Cultural Studies, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bunkers are highly visible at the west coast of the Danish peninsula Jutland. Huge concrete blocks are scattered among the dunes and lyme grass, while some are more or less engulfed in the sea. The bunkers were constructed between 1942-45 as part of Hitler`s megalomanic defence line the Atlantic Wall. After the war and up until today many efforts have been made to demolish these traces of World War II, and recent historical research has demonstrated that the official reception has been dominated by the resistance fighters and thereby a search for mental annihilation and forgetting. However this reception is at odds with more popular and common views on the bunker remains, and thus a number of historians have called for a reevaluation and a redefinition of the value of the bunkers today. In this paper I wish to take up this challenge and discuss how – and if - we can define the German bunkers in terms of their visual, aesthetic and epistemological values.
I suggest that the former fortification should not only be considered as a material document of architectural and military history – but also ought to be analysed and defined as “negative heritage” and thereby places with an epistemological value, places where we are confronted with massive physical remains from the war, and where we can reflect on the dark sides of human history. 30 years ago Paul Virilio began a reevalution of bunkers, but it is my intention to move in a new direction by combining recent heritage studies (especially the recognition of performative acts in commemoration) and aesthetic philosophy (especially “aesthetics of space”).
But is the performative and aesthetic analysis opposed to the eye witnesses of war? Does it deevaluate the place of remembrance and the horrors of war? Experiencing bunkers call for reflexivity.
Consolidating the Gains made in Diplomacy Studies
Stuart Murray
Department of International Relations, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
By their very nature, diplomacy and war are means to the ends of statecraft as well as channels by which governments press their agendas onto others. Diplomacy is often thought of as the peaceful alternative to violence but in fact diplomacy serves to prepare as often as to avoid war. It is an important part of waging war, often makes the difference in who wins, and nearly always codifies wars’ results. This familiar rhetoric constitutes the traditional view of diplomacy, one that until recently dominated the diplomacy studies field.
In this paper it is proposed that this traditional view is, at best, an archaic vision of the “engine room of international relations”. This rhetoric, it is argued, is parochial and does not match the realities of the modern, 21st century diplomatic environment where pluralistic, pacific and polylateral networks of diplomacy are thriving.
This paper will demonstrate that the diplomatic studies field is distancing itself from the centuries-old traditional views of diplomacy (that is, diplomacy as exclusive state tool or war by other means). It will do so by introducing the tenets inherent to three new schools of diplomatic thought: the Traditional, Nascent and Innovative Schools which allude to these new, radical and innovative views on diplomacy.
The factor motivating this shift is an attempt by the field to realise the potentiality of diplomacy as a tried and tested means to conflict avoidance, resolution and peace-making and building. The diplomacy studies field is broadening to encompass non-traditional actors and individuals who are committed to enshrining diplomacy once and for all as “the business of peace”. The foundational tools of diplomacy (negotiation, communication, dialogue, accurate information gathering and dissemination and representation, to name but a few) mean that there is no problem that diplomacy cannot solve. Given the chance, diplomacy 21st century style is the best tool society has for an aversion to war and a perpetual state of peace.
Enduring the Inner Enemy: Military Boredom, Past and Present
Bård Mæland
School of Mission and Theology/Chaplaincy Norwegian Defence, Stavanger, Norway
Both scholarly articles and headlines from news reports indicate that the phenomenon of boredom seems to be an intimate part of the kind of operations we see in our time. Yet, boredom in a military environment is hardly a novelty. Imagine the times of waiting of the US Civil War, the life in the trenches of the WW I, or how media means of entertainment throughout the 20th Century evolved to help soldiers “combating” their boredom. Some say five per cent of war is horror and terror, the rest is waiting and boredom. If this is the case in conventional war, it surely applies to a number of current military operations and actions. Moreover, to stay calm and inactive in Kosovo or Afghanistan may turn out as a too exacting challenge for soldiers trained for offensive drills and worst case scenarios, and who belong to a youth generation happy to join an expeditionary force which may allow for more adventure and action in the everyday. Hence, soldiers may be exposed to a sense of boredom that may well turn out to be a serious and enduring challenge, often regarded as an enemy to be fought in the midst of oneself. It is, therefore, hardly accidental that boredom was made a theme in one of the Field Manual issued by the US Army (1992). That boredom should be dealt with seriously is also seconded by the fact that US military psychiatrists have counted boredom among the conditions that fuelled the harassment against prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Consequently, given that boredom may appear as a most serious threat for military unites serving in diverse kinds of current operations, how may this state of mind be interpreted adequately as a human phenomenon, and how may soldiers be trained to cope with it effectively? These questions are discussed in the light of historical material, philosophical approaches to boredom, and an in-depth study of Norwegian soldiers who recently served in Afghanistan.