Militarism in Everyday

The definition of militarism has become more diverse. It is no longer limit to physical war. It extends its domain to different aspects of our daily life. Nowadays, people can be easily distracted by the superficial effect, so they are not aware of the militarism camouflaging in their life. Militarism seeps into our education system and the consumer capitalism culture, and people uncounsciously accept it. However, these militarized informations are intentionsly embedded in people daily life to shape them into militarized citizens that the government wants to have. Still, the militarization restricts people’s mind and cruelty excludes certain people from the group. The exclusion of people and the limitation of mind are to help the United States government to create a strong nation to compete with other countries in this globalized and economic prosperous world while ensuring its powerful position within it. They use military power to ensure their international position and their domestic role in the nation. First, they identify these “cultural others” as an enemy that will endanger world peace and national security. By excluding them out of the group, the government is able to bring people together to fight against the mutual enemy in the name of security and world peace.

Jabri argues that the distinction between physical war and the conceptualized war disappears since people start to normalize military violence in their life by conceiving it as an act to secure their peace and security. People are greatly influenced by government’s political decision that they adopt the concept of cultural others are potential criminals. They expel the “cultural others” with military violence while believing it is an act to show their patriotic spirit and gain their sense of national belonging. “Muslim community is particularly vulnerable to state scrutiny and invasion measures that do not apply to the rest of the citizenry”(Jabri, 51). People tend to identify them as the cultural others that do not belong to their idealistic community. The police are more likely to arrest or question these cultural others since they are viewed as potential criminals. This awareness creates a hierarchical society while isolating disadvantaged people from the society such as people of color and lower income family. The sense of belonging that the government tries to make is based on the exclusion of cultural others with the military violence. This belonging is injustice since the government stands in a higher position judging people with bias, and these people are subject to military violence.

On the other hand, people might thought education system is the most neutral institution, so they are not aware of the militarism embedded in it. The government uses education to make young students familiar with the militarized concept, and gradually let them normalize the existence of militarism in daily life. In Saltman’s article, “Education as Enforcement: The Militarization and Corporatization of Schools”, he argues that the government portrays military as an exciting adventure that can not only positively benefit your country but also help you achieve your personal goal as a highly praised hero. The government implies that they are seeking for people with the militaristic ideas. They also have the program, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts “[turn] hierarchical organization, competition, group chension, and weaponary into fun and games” (Saltman,1). They adapt these militarized logic into an “educational” program to shape students into their idealized solidiers. Saltman also talks about how “military education plays a central role in fostering a social focus on discipline”(2), and discipline is the main principle of military. With these programs, the government is able to brainwash students with these militaristic terms while recruiting more students to devote themselves into military.

The government uses education system to select candidates that will economically and politically benefit the whole country. They focus more on benefiting the whole country rather than helping individual to achieve his personal success. Saltman states that “America [wants] to excel in all the new measures of power in the era of globalization”(3) by securing their stable power in the world with their powerful military backup. They educate students to be a successful person such as a business man, a leader, and a soildier, so the country can utlilize their talent to hold its power in the world. However, those students, who do not fit in the militarized education system or those who are not talented in these selected fields, are ignored and excluded from the community. The education system does not treat each student equally, and those who are not in the favor of government’s seclection are placed into a lower position than those mainstream majors. It is militarization that pose the institutional violence to these students in education system.

In order to bring the nation together with militaristic ideas, the government embeds militarized product in our consumption cultures. In Enloe’s article, “How Do They Militarize A Can Of Soup”, she talks about that “many people can become militarized in their thinking, in how they live their daily lives, in what they aspire to for their children or their society, without ever wielding a rifle or donning a helmet”(2). Even a cap of soup which is made of space weapons-shape noodle can be a militarized object since it lets children familiar with violence. Also, the hero-figure toys or the heroic movies presents military violence to people by disguising it with the image of bravery and patriotisim. People easily accept these militsristic ideas believing it is only an entertaining element. Furthermore, with the media’s influence, people get used to the militarized violence within their daily life, and they gradually accept the idea that supporting the army is an act to be a honorable and patriotic citizen. These militaristic ideas do not manifest their militarized violence, but camouflaging them with daily products that can affect people uncounsciously.

The militaristic ideas also shape people to play certain gende roles in the society. The government uses media and propaganda to promote their idealized gender roles model for people to imitate. The government portraries women as an object for men to gaze at, and the damsel in distress for men to rescue and protect. Enloe states that “Carmen Miranda was militarized by her Hollywood studio employer during World War II”(5). She becomes an symbol of U.S.-Latin American friendly relations. The military does not view her as an independent individual, but they see her as an object for government to militarize. Also, the government intentionally put women in the role of a desperate victim who needs men to rescue. In the film, Savin Jessica Lynch (2003), Jessica is portrayed as vulnerable and feminine object that she needs a masculine man to save her. The government wants women to play as the supportive role to assist men rather than an independent individual with power and self-awareness.

The reason that militarism can exist in our daily life is because that people still restrict their definition of militarism in physical violence, and they fail to identify the hidden militaristic ideas in their daily life. People are so eager to gain a sense of belonging to the nation that they tend to follow the mainstream militarized logic by excluding cultural others from the community, pursuing militarized goal as their personal achievenment, and obeying the gender role that the government creates for them. It is people’s uncounsciousness to their militarized surrounding that not only produce the notion of permanent war but also assist militarism keep flourishing in our society.

Work Cited

Excerpt from Kenneth J. Saltman and David A. Gabbard, eds., Education as Enforcement: The Militarization and Corporatization of Schools (Routledge 2010)

Cynthia Enloe, “How Do They Militarize a Can of Soup?” from Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives (University of California Press 2000)

Vivienne Jabri, “War, Security and the Liberal State,” Security Dialogue 37 (2006)

#InspiringThoughts