Issues Associated with the Interpretation of War - Essay Example

Interpretation of War Interpretation is relative to multiple factors, and all individuals are exposed to these respective factors in different ways throughout the span of their lives. One’s environment, culture, and the personal experiences that stem from them can dictate how they may interpret a given circumstance or issue. In the case of war and how it’s interpreted, research shows that there is a significant difference in interpretation of war between men and women, as well as between civilians and soldiers or nurses providing their services during times of war. Likewise, studies also show that there is a difference in how citizens interpret war when it is happening overseas verses right in their backyard. This author will assess the interpretation of war and the multiple factors that dictate the many perspectives on the topic. In Carol Acton’s article Diverting the Gaze: The Unseen Text in Women’s War Writing, she talks about the difference in how women perceive war verses the way men see it. She notes that, “while womens war writing from the First World War has received much critical attention over the past ten or more years that has established its authenticity as witness to war, scant attention has been paid to how women see the trauma of frontline combat nursing and how, consequently, such seeing or not seeing influences the narrative (Acton, p54).” The author focuses on the perception of how women perceive the trauma of war specifically nurses who aren’t necessarily fighting on the frontline, but who are providing medical care for soldiers and often caring for them right up to their last living moments. Acton notes how writings produced by women of the first World War and Vietnam were very similar, she goes on to point out that, On a general level, the striking similarity in the narratives of these two wars seems to arise from the compulsion to bear witness to the trauma of combat nursing. More specifically, British writers from the First World War and American writers from the Vietnam War were both concerned with carrying what Jane Marcus has called "a terrible knowledge" to a civilian population that seemed completely removed from any understanding of the war experience (Acton, p54) The contrast Acton makes between the women nursing the soldiers, both American and British, in both World War I and Vietnam, with the civilians reveals how there is a major difference in interpretation of war when one is on the frontline verses just assessing it when it’s far away. Acton goes on to point how for the British World War II was different from these two wars because it involved civilians as well being on home turf. The difference between the way enlisted women and men interpret war can be seen in their text on war. Acton notes that, “much war writing by women consciously negotiates the space between the womans experience as a noncombatant and the mans combatant experience of war (p56).” A prime example of this can be seen in Storm Jameson’s World War novel, Love In Winter. The work centers on the relationship between Hervey and her lover, a soldier in the war. Though Hervey and her soldier’s love is an exceptionally deep affair, and the two share a very special connection, she is forced to acknowledge that there are certain aspects of her man’s psyche that she can’t understand due to his time at war (Jameson, p35). This is most notably expressed by Jameson when he points out how mentioning certain global locations bring out different emotions in Jameson than they do in Hervey; he says, “With them was involved depths of emotion into which she could not enter, by any effort, or by fasting, or by love. It was occupied territory (Jameson, p35).” Jameson manages to demonstrate that no matter how intimate a connection between two individuals, war is a subject over which interpretation is not contagious and in many ways cannot truly be expressed without one personally experiencing it. Between men, there is a similar gap in perspective when it comes to war. This can be seen between men who have experienced war and those who haven’t. The differing levels of how war is interpreted both by parties involved and those who experience it solely through images or text is best described through works of Michael Herr. When talking about his experience in Vietnam, he notes that. I went there behind the crude but serious belief that you had to be able to look at anything, serious because I acted on it and went, crude because I didnt know; it took the war to teach it, that you were as responsible for everything you saw as you were for everything you did. The problem was that you didnt always know what you were seeing until later, maybe years later, that a lot of it never made it in at all, just stayed stored there in your eyes. (Herr 1978, 24) Herr reveals the concept of interpreting war that many civilians never become aware of; basically, he states that war is not completely conceivable for what it is when one is on the front line and experiencing it firsthand. By pointing out that war cannot be fully assessed upon one’s initial gaze or involvement, he presents war as an experience of “seeing and not seeing (Acton, p64).” The idea that even one who experiences war will have a different interpretation during the act of experiencing than they do after the fact shows that interpretation is not set in stone and can have a life all its own. Once one has assessed the multiple aspects of war as an experience both shared by men and women, the interpretation of war text and all those publications involving the global historical conflicts becomes the next matter of discussion. Interpretation of war text is entirely related to reader-response theory. The main conflict within this theory is between those who believe the individual is key to interpretation and those who believe he is irrelevant. The majority of these reader response theorists influenced by Rosenblatt, are broken down into three groups: those who focus on the individual reader experience, those who conduct psychological experiments on a specific group of readers, and those who assume all readers respond the same. This gives rise to different forms of reader-response criticisms and different methods in which they are used. In Fish’s piece, Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities, he argues that the readings of a text are culturally constructed. He feels that reader-response theory recognizes the reader as an active agent who imparts real existence to the work and completes its meaning through interpretation. Reader-response is an experience that every user goes through during the act of reading, it transpires and it affects reader and sometimes this counteracts to force user to do some practical reaction (Fish, p32). This aspect of Stanley Fishs theory is one of the most radical and controversial and is part of the reason why many people object to the views backing this movement (Fish, p32). He adds further rational to his stance with his view that most of the theories that are formulated on the grounds of practical experiences are likely to be accurate and are easily acceptable (Fish, p32). The reader of reader-response theory is not just a hypothetical or theoretical reader, he is a practical reality (Fish, p.32). Since this theory has exact results it effects lives, personalities, cultures and societies. There are also some theories that fail but the reason of their failure is not the notion of being a textual work, it is their impractical approach that disappoints them (Fish, p.32). Fish’s attempt to place reader-response theory in a position of practical perspective more certifies its methodology. His political stance frees other theorists to do more in-depth analysis. Nan Johnson is a professor at the University of British Columbia. In his essay Reader-Response and the’ Pathos’Principle, he analyses reader response theory and its cognitive use. He argues that meaning in reader response is subjective and based entirely on the reader’s intuitive perception of what he is reading (Johnson, 1988). He connects this ideal to the experience of the reader, claiming that one’s experiences will determine their response to a particular literary work. He cites other reader response theorist, such as Louise Rosenblatt, Norman Holland, David Bleich and Stanley Fish contrasting their theories from one another until he’s come to his own take on the conflict. The main similarity he acknowledges between all of their arguments is that they all feel a reader’s response is subjective to their individual emotional and psychological process. Johnson also points out the level of interaction coherent with reader interpretation, stating that we interact with the work, making it part of our own psychic economy and making ourselves part of the literary work as we interpret it (Johnson, p156). This concept of interaction with the work is very similar to John Harker’s views dealing with cognition. In John Harkers’ article Reader Response and Cognition: Is There a Mind in This Class?, Harker analyses the history of reader-response theory and its origin. He points out that it first originated as a reaction to the hegemony of the 1930’s through the 1960’s, which was to isolate the literary work from the value of the author and the reader (Harker, p156). This concept basically revolves around the ideal that the author’s emotional experiences as well as the readers are going to both have an outcome on work’s interpretation. Harker identifies this rise in a need for understanding and a new value in reader-response as a rebellious occurrence of the 60’s and 70’s. He points this rebellion as being a new value in introspection, relativism and a predominant concern with the individual (p28). Harker’s view eliminates the possibility for a false meaning in literary work. By the reader being the sole source of interpretation, he becomes the creator of meaning. The idea that the interpreter is the creator of meaning is very significant in understanding how interpretation is relevant to the learning process and the ultimate further understanding of one’s self (Harker, p156). This is a very powerful idea when it is put in the hands of each next generation. If students are deprived the skills necessary for clear and concise literary interpretation, they will construct inaccurate literary meanings and pond them off as truths for generations to come (Harker, p156). To combat this initial decline in literary understanding, there are many reader-response theorists applying these theories to the classroom. Reader response, which is closely allied with constructivism, has been widely publicized as a model for teaching literary works. It is Readers Response Theory that provides a profound ground for its acceptance in educational system because of it’s wide range of different mechanism that can be adopted according to need and demand. It is also important to establish and reestablish an alternative vision for what reading and literature instruction can represent in our society. The understanding of war interpretation and how individuals go about perceiving the different issues that arise from it has evolved through the use of multiple mediums (Harker, p158). While reader-response theory reveals that no matter how explicit a text, reader’s have no choice but to measure the value of what they have read against that of their life experiences, no one individual is guaranteed to have the same experience dealing with war as another. There can never be one guaranteed interpretation (Harker, p156). Many individuals have family members who have died in wars and they resent that while others may feel as though this has brought honor to their names inspiring them to enlist and serve as well. This puts the issue in a very controversial light. In America, during the WWII era, men and women were motivated to enlist or support the war from the sidelines in the name of national pride and patriotism. Their children, who became known as the baby-boomer generation and endured the Vietnam War, were for the most part divided into four groups: those who enlisted, those who were drafted, those who dodged the draft, and those who protested the war (Harker, p156). This gave birth to the 1960’s counter cultural movement, which is largely credited for much of the web-industry and impetus for modern day protest pertaining to the current war America has waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 1960’s counter culture mostly originated out of college campuses, specifically with the 1964 Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley, which in turn originated out of the Civil Rights Movement of the American South. The ‘New Left’ is a term often used to describe the political stance of the individuals who contributed to these left-wing movements between 1960 and 1970. The major reason why these movements were considered ‘new-left,’ had to do with the fact that they focused more towards cultural change than labor oriented activism. Prior to World War II, the United States was notorious for its use of isolationism as a key foreign policy when dealing with outside nations. American isolationism, which is the diplomatic policy pertaining to America’s tendency to avoid alliances with other nations has had a long running history in the United States, and it is the core reason why America backed off support of Britain between 1939-41, short of the war. But, there exists a network of extremists, terrorists and organized crime syndicates within many post-conflict environments, who not only pose threats to peace building throughout respective regions of the world, but impede and often cripple the workings and expansion of democracy (Maira, p208). In light of all of the research done and information collected, the true end result that international communities are forced to face is that a strategy must be incorporated that can attack both the cause and effect of the corruption within the judicial system that makes it possible for organize crime to fund terrorism (Maira, p208). This makes the act of Western governments to deploy forces in other nations for the expansion of justice and democracy an absolute necessity. The problems come into play when it is made apparent that America’s Democratic system, as well as its relationship with Wall Street, are not without their share of corruption. In her article “We Aint Missing”: Palestinian Hip Hop—A Transnational Youth Movement Susaina Maira points out the cultural significance Arab Hip hop has on current events in this time of war. “The emergence of what is a largely underground phenomenon of rap produced by Palestinian and Palestinian American youth is linked to a larger phenomenon of a growing Palestinian and Palestinian American hip hop generation that has come of age listening to the sounds of rap both in the United States as well as in Palestine, and that has taken up the cause of Palestinian self-determination as well as issues of racism, inequality, and imperialism (Maira, p208).” Maira cites lyrics from a popular Arab songs to give relevance to the concept of Palestinians ‘missing in action’ in the public arena of voiced opinions. whether you an immigrant or children of slaves you can see it in the difference / of the living in conditions like missions tortured indians / force ’em to christians we call ’em Palest-indians / we ain’t missing” —Excerpt from “No Justice,” Arab Summit (Maira, p208) Within the lyrics of the song are the years of conflict between the United States and the Arab world. It is a potent relationship that can’t be ignored, by the very fact that Arab culture and ideals are being promoted and expressed through an art form that is inherently American. According to “No Justice” fan Hahn Salim, “The lyrics are culturally relevant because they are expressing the problems Palestinians feel about identity and their place in the eyes of the global world” (Interview, 10 April 2008).Currently, with the American war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan is a hot topic. A key subject in the center of this controversy has to do with America’s foreign policy and its history of democratizing other nations; but more telling is how this relationship between America and Afghanistan has made both Nation’s judicial policies significantly influenced by organized crime. In sum, one’s interpretation of war is relative to their experience with war in collaboration with images they may be exposed to through music and text. This triangular relationship between war-experience, war-art, and interpretation is one that exists regardless of whether or not one has no significant personal involvement with war. War is an issue that all individuals have a position on, even if they choose to take no position at all. Once all the relevant perspectives are assessed, the act of interpreting becomes a learning process. The individual does not just interpret but learns from their interpretation. This can be seen very clearly in Herr’s interpretation that war isn’t fully understood in the act of experiencing but after the fact (Herr, p24). This allows the interpreter to reevaluate their experience and see it objectively from an outside perspective. Work Cited Fish, Stanley. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England. 1986. Herr, Michael. Dispatches. London: Pan Books. 1978. John Harker, W. "Reader Response and the Act of Reading: Seven Studies in Review." Journal of Aesthetic Education, 28 (1994): 67-79. Jameson, Margaret Storm. Love in Winter. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press. 1935. Johnson, Nan. "Reader-Response and the Pathos Principle." Rhetoric Review 6 (1988): 152-166. Kotz, Nick. Judgment Days : Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr. , and the Laws That Changed America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Trade & Reference Division, 2005. Maira, Sunaina. “We Ain’t Missing” Palestinian Hip Hop—A Transnational Youth Movement. University of California , Davis Volume 8, Number2, Fall. 2008. Rosenblatt, Louise M. Literature as exploration, (4th edition). New York: Modern Language Association Press. 1938. Read More