When we walked into the World War I memorial in the museum my feeling was one of disconnect and apathy and slight irritation. While I respect the remembrance of lives lost, I can’t help but feel a little removed from and annoyed by what seems like a glorification of it all. The grandiosity of the huge white pillars seem to privilege an idea of glorious sacrifice rather than senseless suffering. In fact, it openly emulates the monuments of classical antiquity which were dedicated to the celebration of war. This carries the same energy as 95% of war movies, about the poignant but admirable sacrifice a bunch of pretty white boys made to preserve the valorous ideals of their benevolent motherland.
It’s all very abstract and senseless and male to me.
My grandma lived in an orphanage during the second world war because the hospital where her mother was giving birth to her baby brother was bombed and her father was serving as a firefighter. She grew up without a mother and this trauma was passed down the family line because some men in power wanted more land or something, according to my history and international relations lessons.
I think the reason I’ve found war an alienating topic is that the dominant story I’ve been told of it has almost always seemed to be missing, or underplaying, a critical piece of context – the suffering of ordinary people (including people who are not white male soldiers). I believe this is what Mihirangi Forbes was referring to when she mentioned the “emotional importance” of unravelling the personal context of conflict. We also approached this idea in week 2 when we discussed the importance of “non-academic stories” in understanding war.
This context, the experiential reality of war for so many people, is crucial to engage with because unprocessed trauma coagulates and generates further problems and carries the danger of repetition. I suspect that my grandma’s inability and lack of opportunities to discuss and process her suffering during the war exacerbated her depression later on in life.
Furthermore, it seems like the enormity of suffering induced by war is something that could be considered a little more often at the decision-making table. Feminist International Relations scholars point out that conventional IR scholars neglect the impact on civilians when weighing up security decisions. They actively take an approach to security that emphasises the individual and community impact rather than the agendas of the state or international system.
The suffering of ordinary people reflects the tangible impact of war beyond disconnected state politics and chauvinistic, masculinist narratives that glorify war. I feel like there has been a lack of this in the dominant narrative to which I’ve been receptive in most of my education and growing up. However, work like that of Marcus Winter and the recent exhibitions in the museum put the emphasis back on the personal. There is hope for a greater engagement with the painful reality of war and an opportunity for catharsis.
