Why do liberal professors hate the military?

[marct]

Hi JW,

As to the OP, along the lines of Bob's post, I've noticed in conversation with friends (yes, really) who are liberal/left academics, that they don't understand or relate to conservative values, and the military is nothing if not the embodiment of conservative values.

I think it might be worthwhile to contextualize that a bit as in "In the US". I know a lot of Canadians who, by US standards, would described as extreme left wing (morally) who are "pro-military". Hell, by US standards, I would be considered as "dangerously left-wing", and I hang out with you guys !!!!!

[Ken White]

I would agree with your assessment that it was "institutionally accepted harassment" if I was not permitted to voice my thoughts in response.

with your assessment that it was a freedom of speech issue if I did not see too frequent reports of quite selective application of that principle.

All Schools differ, yours may be a good one but in many today, it appears to this observer that any student can denigrate the armed forces and anyone connected therewith in public but no one dares to so criticize another on race or religious grounds. While I do not agree with slurs that are based on ethnicity or worship choices, I also do not agree with slurs on the nation or it forces -- or any other nation and their forces. Decent behavior in public and 'freedom of speech' are not selective...

[marct]

Decent behavior in public and 'freedom of speech' are not selective...

except in academia . Ken, as a note, I had to justify to my chair taking two of my students to an Inter-University Seminar conference on Armed Forces and Society. Her complaint was that "we don't do War Studies". My response was "We don't study war? Then we don't study history!".

Much as I hate to say it, every bit of Anthropological research does point to the fact that "decent behaviour" is culturally relative and freedom of speech is selective. Personally, I don't think it should be, but it does tend to be.

[Ken White]

You're correct, of course. And, in fairness, the pendulum swings and what is demonized today will be probably be acceptable in a few years and versey vicea.

Shame your response was so accurate -- but it is.

[marct]

LOLOL - Well, I learned back when I was doing my MA in the most Left Wing (by Canadian standards!) Canadian Studies dept., that if you want to be a "conservative", you have to ram it down their throats.

A humourous story from my MA......

For some idiotic reason, we were asked to out on a "Show and Tell" session during our core seminar. By this point, I had already noticed that I was five strikes down (White, Male, Straight, Anglophone, from Toronto). My response was to get hold of my Great-Grandfathers' master work, entitled Daughter of the Empire, and talk about how Canada was, for me, the incarnation of the ideal of the Empire as explicated by Kipling. My (American born) professor, a staunch "Canadian" nationalist, didn't know what to say....

[yamiyugikun]

Hi everyone,

Thank you very much for all of your thoughtful and varied responses. I admire the depth of thought, and expressions that everyone has shared. I had no idea the conflict of the "contemplative" versus "active" lifestyle went so far back to ancient Greece. I find it ironic that the word "academy" came out of a site named after a warrior in anciet Greece, that in fact at one point the contemplative and active lifestyles were one.

I will admit, I sterotyped when saying academia is "liberal" and the military "conservative." That is black and white thinking on my part. Things always seem to be shades of gray. I like posting here cause what you folks say is honest, thought provoking and contemplative.

After reading everyone's posts, my thoughts on why some academics disdain the military is because the fear it. I am actually visiting an assist professor in the military science department tommorow to find out about the Army Librarianship Program. I was feeling nervous today at work, since this is a person in uniform, even though he is a professor. Then it occured to me, he is a human being like me, but by visiting him, I'm trying to overcome my own biases as an academic.

How to get acadmics to have a balance between the "active" and "contemplative" lifestyles? That is something I'm still trying to figure out. I admire a lot of values in the military such as duty, honor, sacrifice, living for something greater than yourself. It's also true that militaries are involved in killing and destruction. Thus, its easy for academics (or people in general) to project their own insecurities onto the armed forces.

But I think it also stems from a part of human nature. No matter how much we try to "civilize" ourselves, there is always that primitive part of us, that fight or flight response. Anyhow, thank you everyone for your opinions in this discussion, and feel free to continue this post

Naomi

[BayonetBrant]

I will admit, I sterotyped when saying academia is "liberal" and the military "conservative." That is black and white thinking on my part. Things always seem to be shades of gray. I like posting here cause what you folks say is honest, thought provoking and contemplative.

During the 7.5 years I was in both Grad School and the National Guard, I noticed a trend:

Around campus, I was considered a goose-stepping fascist right-wing tool of the machine.
Around the armory, I was a commie pinko tree-hugging f*g who refused to be a team player.

Somehow I took comfort in knowing I was pretty squarely located in the middle....

[marct]

Hi Naomi,

I will admit, I sterotyped when saying academia is "liberal" and the military "conservative." That is black and white thinking on my part. Things always seem to be shades of gray.

Well, that's a first step. Next thing, we'll introduce you to colour !!!!

How to get acadmics to have a balance between the "active" and "contemplative" lifestyles? That is something I'm still trying to figure out.

We see the same strain inside the academy as well, especially in the status games between "Pure" (or "Theoretical") and "Applied" research. Personally, I'm actually a theoretician but, in order to have some connection with reality (however limited that may be), I do a lot of "applied" work. For me, the trick was realizing that the "contemplative" mode of theory was, essentially, a sterile bore unless I had some chance of testing it out somehow or other.

But I think it also stems from a part of human nature. No matter how much we try to "civilize" ourselves, there is always that primitive part of us, that fight or flight response.

"Civilization" is, frequently, over-rated and used as a term to avoid getting your hands dirty by doing any real work . Case in point: one of my academic specialties lies in the area of "narratives" (actually, myth, folklore, etc.). I am using that rather "abstract" area of knowledge in a number of applied ways including to help publishers restructure their editorial policies and, also, to restructure ways of thinking and talking about Information Operations and Terrorism.

The "primitive" response of fight or flight (part of our limbic system actually), is actually quite instructive. One of the things that many academics forget is that we are animals in the sense of being biological creatures, and we have to take that in to account when we do our academic work, otherwise we are just engaging in mental masturbation.

[selil]

We see the same strain inside the academy as well, especially in the status games between "Pure" (or "Theoretical") and "Applied" research. Personally, I'm actually a theoretician but, in order to have some connection with reality (however limited that may be), I do a lot of "applied" work. For me, the trick was realizing that the "contemplative" mode of theory was, essentially, a sterile bore unless I had some chance of testing it out somehow or other.

And, as a technologist I am very much "applied" to the horror of my fellow faculty in liberal arts and the "hard" sciences. However, I have to ground application heavily in theory or be bored out of my skull doing the same thing over and over and over.... again. Theory is part of the scientific process and since a big part of what I do is "glue" the different sciences together I am also very interdisciplinary.

Theory is easy. Any fool can spout theories without consideration. Application of theory requires perseverance, dedication, and some times a good dose of inspiration.

[William F. Owen]

Theory is easy. Any fool can spout theories without consideration. Application of theory requires perseverance, dedication, and some times a good dose of inspiration.

Well said Sir. Bravo! Unfortunately spouting un-proven theories can make you money and reputation... thus some of the current mess

[Van]

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun
But I think it also stems from a part of human nature. No matter how much we try to "civilize" ourselves, there is always that primitive part of us, that fight or flight response.

"Civilization" is, frequently, over-rated and used as a term to avoid getting your hands dirty by doing any real work . .

Naomi,
Did we warn you that we have a number of anthropologists in residence here?

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun
... visiting an assist professor in the military science department tommorow ... I was feeling nervous today at work, since this is a person in uniform,

That's interesting. You're nervous about visiting a person who has taken, and practices an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and whose core institutional value is to defend you (and the rest of the U.S.)? Would you be nervous visiting a firefighter? (And yes, I believe the service of firefighters is comparable to military service.)

Let us know how it goes. I'd be very interested in any shifts in your perceptions of the military.

[marct]

Well said Sir. Bravo! Unfortunately spouting un-proven theories can make you money and reputation... thus some of the current mess

It can get you tenure, too, Wilf .

[William F. Owen]

It can get you tenure, too, Wilf .

Tell me where? I can change. I can speak post-modern gobbledegook jargon.

"War is becoming a non-hierarchical, non-linear, complexity defined, form of adaptation driven, non-state enterprise that will redefine emerging geo-political trends in an increasingly globalised, and complex world, where actors will be constantly forming and re-forming networks of networks, covering all areas information and social domains."

Good enough?

[MikeF]

"War is becoming a non-hierarchical, non-linear, complexity defined, form of adaptation driven, non-state enterprise that will redefine emerging geo-political trends in an increasingly globalised, and complex world, where actors will be constantly forming and re-forming networks of networks, covering all areas information and social domains."

Or systems within systems interacting, interrelated, or interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole clashing in conflict as civlizations merge???

Can I get tenure too?

v/r

Mike

[marct]

"War is becoming a non-hierarchical, non-linear, complexity defined, form of adaptation driven, non-state enterprise that will redefine emerging geo-political trends in an increasingly globalised, and complex world, where actors will be constantly forming and re-forming networks of networks, covering all areas information and social domains."

Or systems within systems interacting, interrelated, or interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole clashing in conflict as civlizations merge???

Obviously, the emerging, post-network neo-praxitic form of understanding will supersede the merely, and now hopelessly passe, understandings inspired by outdated theoretical models inspired by cybernetics. In order to truly comprehend the increasingly fragmented, fractured and existentially nihilistic nature of post-network warfare, we must adopt linguistic formats that both adequately and accurately reflect the increasingly bricolage-esque nature of modern conflict.

'nuff said ().

[selil]

Oh darn. I thought it was a proto-marxist heuristic based neo-theistic intelligentsia? Oh wait that would be the faculty.

[Schmedlap]

Why do liberal professors continue to cling to outdated ideas of the military from Vietnam, instead of understanding that the military wants to help people rebuild their lives? The example of Admiral Mike Mullen proves what real social justice is. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

I don't know if common perceptions of the military held by many professors are so much from Vietnam as they are from poor sources in general, whether that be Vietnam era foolishness or bad Hollywood movies or other nonsense.

I would not hold up any of our current efforts as exemplifying or attempting "real social justice." We are not out attempting to spread impartial benefits of freedom. We are attempting to establish political order in such a manner that we think will strengthen our national security and we are doing it where our civilian leaders say our national interests lie. At a human level, irrespective of one's vocation as a military officer, I think that we all want to help others. But, when acting in the capacity of a military officer, I don't think that desire trumps any other. On the contrary, apolitical, obedient subservience to the civilian leadership, conducted in a manner that brings credit to the institutions that the military leaders serve in - that is what they want.

I think that the real division between academia and the military is the willingness of the military to subjugate themselves to civilian masters, regardless of ideology or political affiliation, and to wage violence upon others dispassionately, when those masters order them to do so. Contrast this with the outrage that sweeps a college campus, to include some faculty, if some bozo with a differing ideology shows up to give a speech meant to incite. Differing views are to be argued to the death in academia. In the military, there is a chain of command and a decision must eventually be made. Otherwise, the enemy kills you while you're arguing whether to pursue course of action 2 or 3. There is a need for willingness to accept disagreement and follow orders that one does not agree with. In academia, there is always another opportunity to argue about it.

[goesh]

- nothing personal intended but what a hue and cry would arise if someone was to meet an authority figure and was nervous because of the color of their skin and stated so publically......

[AmericanPride]

I don't think one's employment is comparable whatsoever to one's skin color, especially given that service is a choice (now) freely made. Nor do I think there is much of anything denied to servicemembers (I for one enjoy the 5 dollar movie tickets), and while the disparaging opinions of some may be distasteful, it is IMO not any different than general opinions expressed by military personnel about those who are perceived to not understand national service as it is packaged and sold by the military establishment.

[MikeF]

I don't think one's employment is comparable whatsoever to one's skin color, especially given that service is a choice (now) freely made. Nor do I think there is much of anything denied to servicemembers (I for one enjoy the 5 dollar movie tickets), and while the disparaging opinions of some may be distasteful, it is IMO not any different than general opinions expressed by military personnel about those who are perceived to not understand national service as it is packaged and sold by the military establishment.

Where do I need to move?

Goesh statement is accurate. People make impressions based off status, education, job title, dress, and the less political correct stuff (creed, color, and religion). When I changed command in Iraq, my IA CDR (one of the best that I ever worked with) initially insulted the incoming commander b/c he was african-american. Major Aziz assumed he was simply a private b/c of the color of his skin. Many Iraqis are racist towards african-americans. They did not get off to a good start. We sometimes forget/overlook these conceptual blocks.

v/r

Mike