The contrast helps us to better understand what are the existing paradigms (the problems), and within the contrast we look for concrete examples and evidence in order to help us better understand how we can chart a departure and a divergence.
So, for this first blog post (& email), I will examine Jullien's examples of Chinese warfare and Greek warfare in order to think through how these might relate to our contemporary understanding of warfare and its relation to the logic of images. If Jullien is suggesting and instructing us that warfare (in addition to art) is one realm to find evidence of how things are within a given cultural paradigm, then the differences between the Chinese and Greek forms of warfare might help us describe what happens to warfare in electracy.
Jullien says that the Greeks "reached a concept of warfare in which the head-on clash of the two phalanxes, deliberately engineered by both sides, constituted the determining element, that is, hand-to-hand fighting in broad daylight" (35). For the Greeks, "the spear was both instrument and symbol of this heroic confrontation" (36).
The spear, held in the hand, then, symbolizes the Greek form of combat.
On the other hand, "projectile weapons ... were generally despised...because they killed from a distance and without regard to the personal merits of the fighting men" (36).
The Greeks value proximity in combat.
The Chinese, however, perfected the projectile weapon, the crossbow, which could skillfully kill from afar (36).
Distance and proximity. A setup and its efficacy contrasted with means and ends.
Today, warfare is electronically mediated through the screen and the joystick. As former CIA director Leon Panetta said in May of 2009, drone warfare has become "the only game in town."
U.S. drone pilots attack targets in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan with "unmanned aerial vehicles." These pilots work in the New Mexico desert, outside of Alomogordo, and, ostensibly, they are far removed from the battlefield. Distance.
On one hand, "virtual warfare" may seem to follow the logic of the crossbow.
But, in another sense, the drone pilots feel that they closer than ever before (or at least closer than pilots of manned aerial vehicles of war) to the people they attack.
Derek Gregory in his 2011 article "From a View to Kill," says the technology "viscerally immerses physically remote operators in combat" (203) and that this intimacy is achieved, in part, through the pilots' close visual proximity to the events on the screen--they are some 18 inches away from what it looks like on the ground (200).
Warfare through digital imaging and UAVs, then, is both the crossbow and hand-to-hand combat. But the hand-to-hand intimacy has been reduced to the visual. The risk of bodily harm to the UAV pilots has been removed (although the drones still require some troops on the ground for take off and landing).
Maybe drone warfare is not, finally, a useful example for thinking through the metaphysics of electracy. But, as Jullien instructs us, the "obvious trait finally escapes our grasp," and, I would argue that images that have the power to affect us emotionally and psychically (and that are part of/produced by/the result of apparatuses that can have lethal material consequences) are a feature of our current moment that often escapes our grasp.
Derek Gregory in his 2011 article "From a View to Kill," says the technology "viscerally immerses physically remote operators in combat" (203) and that this intimacy is achieved, in part, through the pilots' close visual proximity to the events on the screen--they are some 18 inches away from what it looks like on the ground (200).
Warfare through digital imaging and UAVs, then, is both the crossbow and hand-to-hand combat. But the hand-to-hand intimacy has been reduced to the visual. The risk of bodily harm to the UAV pilots has been removed (although the drones still require some troops on the ground for take off and landing).
Maybe drone warfare is not, finally, a useful example for thinking through the metaphysics of electracy. But, as Jullien instructs us, the "obvious trait finally escapes our grasp," and, I would argue that images that have the power to affect us emotionally and psychically (and that are part of/produced by/the result of apparatuses that can have lethal material consequences) are a feature of our current moment that often escapes our grasp.
Thanks for this. Very clearly explained contrast. I think there's much to be said about the videogame logic of warfare in the 21st century. I suppose the contrast with ancient China would be the fact that Chinese generals wouldn't attack when they don't think they will win, whereas (sadly) the same can't be said for the drone attacks. That is to say, the latter's efficacy (as Jullien describes it) is questionable.
ReplyDelete