Sunday, January 5, 2014

On the Making of Modernity

I decided, with the coming of the New Year, 2014, that it was time to start this blog.  I took its name from an incisive quote by the mensch of all wordsmiths, Rudyard Kipling: “He wrapped himself in quotations – as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors.” It should surprise no one that such quotable a poet would offer such eloquent snark rebuffing the practice of quoting others, and the irony sticks well to my writing here – as I enjoy the words and works of Kipling, so too do I enjoy the expressiveness and profundity that may come from the well placed quotation of my betters who afore me writ.  So, in the purple of emperors, Kipling-affirmed or not, I will here wax poetic and splenetic as I like, quoting away, and certainly quoting Kipling enough to trouble his grave’s sleep, if not to send him fully spinning.

The thought of committing my ambient musings to writing and airing them for the world’s judgment has been with me for some time, but something about the crowning of my last year of course-based education (now a research-only student 'till DPhil do I part studentship) left me feeling as though it were time to begin, if only because my educative endeavour no longer impresses upon me to write on myriad subjects (RIP breadth requirements).  My subject, zoology, permits me to be more florid and effusive than say, molecular biology, but nonetheless, all science has a tendency to constrain the writer to word counts and convention, to speak nothing of the transcendent rarity of Kipling quote opportunities.  So here I stand, or write, as it were.

I had considered naming this blog “The Gripe and Grouse” or some petulant similar alliteration on the grounds that its likely content will be dominated by my less than satisfied dissection of the mores and maladies of modernity.  Though the name ended on a different gybe, it is safe to say that the topics will remain in such curmudgeonly territory.   With that being the case, my mind turned to an approaching anniversary of what may be the most important event in ushering our world and our human experience form ‘history’ into ‘modernity’ - one of my very favourite topics – World War I.

British Temporary Military Cemetery, public domain image

The Great War – so great that they threw an encore by popular demand but a generation later – has always fascinated me far more than its much more popular, younger sibling.  Well, no, it hasn’t, because, product of the American school system I, World War II was the one of which I had far more information and grasp when my time in state mandated education ended.  Modern Americans generally enjoy World War II history – grand, unambiguous, valiant, and certainly impressive – it did such a good job of being the ideal war we always wanted that our archetype of conflict now centres itself on its otherwise unique model.  If every war since had been cut of the cloth of World War II, I very much doubt the Vietnam protests would have held much traction.  Yet precisely because of this, World War II came to bore me.  Take out the great speeches of Churchill and the handful of heartwarming and/or badass stories (all credit to them) and discussion of World War II in philosophical and moral terms yields dilemmata about as stimulating as a freshman ethics course.  Quite simply: evil rose up under good’s nose, good caught on, and defeated evil with tactics that made good feel uneasy at times but were probably justified.  This is gross simplification, and I am sure I will delve further and more complexly into the miasma of the Second Great War later, but a surface analysis (I’m not writing a book here, after all) leaves me with much less fat to chew than World War I.

In the young throws of high school when one first learns of the details of the Great War, the childish mind sees the tragedy in a vast war conceived of a single assassination, but can almost justify the reaction in its naiveté – of course the Austrians had to go to war , someone killed their archduke; of course.  Of course the rest of Europe got involved, you have to honour your treaties!  To the bright, yet to become jaded mind, the world still works like Age of Empires II – alliances are to be honoured or else!  But of course, adult cynicism – born, some say, of WWI itself – knows better, and knows that in matters of war (and love, so goes the adage), betrayal is the rule to the exception that is stalwart commitment (reference: Britain and the CSA, Germany and Russia in WWII, Italy in WWI – the list goes on).  In this regard, the circumstances surrounding the explosion of WWI can, in an almost delightfully perverse way, warm the heart as a miracle of constancy in alliances.  Though this can only be truly argued tongue firmly in cheek, it highlights the contrast that initially drew me away from WWII buffery to WWI – WWII found its heartwarming moments in victory and triumph of human decency over evil; blasé at best, if still one of the only movies that can make me tear up.  WWI pairs the valient optimism of the human spirit and tales of the benevolence thereof with utter futility and desperation, all in a sea of pointlessness – much more compelling, to my mind, and much more interesting as a study of human conflict.

The Great War carries many a romantic moniker (as if “The Great War” weren’t sufficient) – the war to end all wars, the first total war, the last gentlemen’s war, the first modern war – and comes with a lot of beautiful but inexpressive catch-all analyses – something along the lines of ‘the outcome of a dramatic increase in technology outpacing improvement of tactics’ being the most popular.  While all of these are true, the human touch of the implications of these realities is often missed under the smug blanket statements – a forgivable shortcoming in light of the profound anonymity of human suffering in a war that produced nearly 60,000 casualties in a single army on a single day of groundfighting.  It is often pointed out that, at least on the Western Front, in the first third to half of the war (before gas attacks stuck in the moral craw of the respective sides) the two sides managed to nurse an unexpectedly ample empathy for their enemy; all other unfortunate racial implications aside, the Germans and the British saw each other as civilised western men fighting to keep their promises and honour, fighting war as a business and a game, fighting like hell when told to do so, and likely looking forward to sitting down for a drink and a grouse with their surviving cousins on the other side once the higher ups were satisfied and everyone was paid and discharged; or at least so the more honeyed mythos would have us believe.  Though this arrangement broke down as the war dragged on and less ‘gentlemanly’ tactics came to prominence, the early years of the war – with their Christmastruces and live and let live ideals – offer perhaps humanity’s last look into war before mechanisation of attacking tactics, before widespread cynicism, and before modernity.

Those who know me well know that I am no enthusiast of modernism, and that I am a wary watcher of modernity.  Yet for all my preference of anachronism, when it comes to the horror of war I am damned pleased to live in the dissipated present that any time in the glorious, romantic past.  This is largely due to the greater societal outcomes of WWI.  The utter destruction of the best, brightest, and bravest of an entire generation of humans in the historical epicentre of the time (Europe, not to be Eurocentric, but this being the simple reality) for a war so very unnecessary and pointless in the clear, cool vision of hindsight birthed a new stratum of cynicism and aloofness to human endeavour and purpose.  And yet, in the hundred years that have elapsed since the beginning of the war that demonstrated for the world to see that whole swaths of promising humanity could be snuffed for next to nothing, war deaths have plummeted, and the humanity of every soldier and civilian lost in conflict – the attention to their stories, to their losses, to their struggles, has grown immeasurably.  When America fought its revolution, the tactics used by the British (and American army, at first) seem to the modern observer silly and wasteful of life – but were the suitable tactics at the time, and weighed the value of soldiers’ lives and health at parity with the function of the low accuracy cannon fodder that they were.  Indeed, from time immemorial until WWI, war was entered on the expected and accepted reality that where X men enter to carry out the violence for which they were contracted, Y men would die or be injured as the cost of doing such business.  Though significant chance of death or catastrophic injury in war remained accepted and expected through WWII, Korea, Vietnam and so on, the realities revealed in WWI and its trench warfare and "going-over-the-top" death sentence – that X could be so high, and Y so near to X – slowly turned the hearts and minds of society to the point where now, at least in the West, every death in war is a singular and personal tragedy – for the public as much as the family and friends – where dying in battle seems the highly unlikely bad lottery draw of military service rather than a fully anticipatable outcome.  The great irony is that the war that demonstrated the minuteness of one human’s death in modern battle set in motion the modernisation of war and of its perception to the point where we now value each human life more.  WWII has long worn the label, but for perhaps this one reason, we can, in the long view, finally call WWI a “good war.”


Cynicism, irony, dissatisfaction, pointlessness – these are the idols of the vapid, dissipated aspects of modernity that I so rue; the unfortunate modern mores that I can only imagine this venue will see me railing against all too often, or at least deconstructing.  Yet if the crucible of their foundation, the Great War set in motion 100 years ago this June 28th, in engendering these seeds of modernity, also made it infinitely more difficult and more personal for humans to look into the eyes of our fellow men and kill them dead in the course of routine, then perhaps even I can admit that the unfortunate mores are worth the human empathy.  With that I will close what will likely be my longest post here, and present before the weighing world, my blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment