F E A T U R E
SOLDIERING A PANDEMIC THE THREAT OF MILITARIZED RHETORIC IN ADDRESSING COVID-19
Health Service’s Nightingale emergency hospital in London, which the British Army helped construct within a matter of days, are visual testimony to this militarized response to the ongoing pandemic. The frequent use of a militarized rhetoric in the coronavirus crisis also forms part of a personal politics of uncertainty that plays to public emotions and is intended to send a strong message of effective political leadership to the electorate. One example is British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s frequent invocation of the “Blitz spirit”, an attempt to secure broad public support at this time of international crisis. To suggest that the use of such militarized language in response to an unknown threat is new would be a misnomer. In the early days of the Cold War, according to Whittier College’s Professor Laura McEnaney, who focuses on the history of the US after World War II, civil defense drills in the US led to a “militarization of everyday life.” In Britain, historian David Edgerton exposed the existence of a “warfare state,” challenging popular notions about the post-war welfare state. In the 1980s, feminist scholar Carol Cohn pointed out the limitations gendered militarized language imposes on our policy imaginations. Militarized responses make it difficult to lessen the chances of facing this kind of widespread lack of preparedness in the future. Militarized rhetoric can lead to fear and then to panic and panicked responses, making a terrible situation even worse.
Dr Christoph Laucht
Dr Susan Jackson
Dr Christoph Laucht is a senior lecturer in modern history at the University’s College of Arts and Humanities. Dr Susan Jackson is a researcher at the Department of Economic History, Stockholm University, focusing on militarization and international relations. Perhaps the dominant feature of the novel coronavirus pandemic is the many uncertainties that it creates for governments and their publics. These extend well beyond public health concerns, prompting governments to take drastic measures to save lives. Common among leaders, journalists and the general public alike has been to draw on a highly militarized - often nationalistic - rhetoric when both justifying and critiquing the pandemic situation. Take for example the following:
To start with, we recommend:
A sewing army, making masks for America (The New York Times, March 25th)
Reimagining how we talk about the heroes. We don’t need to place our healthcare workers, supply chain managers, migrant agricultural labourers, protective gear makers, and grocery store cashiers on the “front lines” in order to value the service they provide to keep society going even in non-pandemic times. Stopping talking about war casualties. To grasp the magnitude of this crisis, we should compare the numbers of Covid-19 dead to other pandemics/epidemics in the past. And we need to gather real-time data and write gender into responses. The material effects are more widespread than those who die from the virus. We know, for example, that domestic violence increases in times of stress. The promotion of cross-border solidarity and internationalism. By removing war rhetoric, we can move from heightened nationalistic hoarding to a cooperative approach of distribution. Since a pandemic does not stop at national borders, neither should our efforts to contain it and recover from it.
Doctor: I am a soldier in coronavirus battle, and I am scared (CNN, March 27th) Army prepares for battle against “invisible enemy” as Nightingale Hospital set to open (The Independent, April 1st) Militarized language evokes an us/them tension that is inherently problematic, not least when the “them” is a virus. The zero-sum insinuations in militarized language make it difficult to generate solidarity between people living in different national settings. This predicament can have negative material impacts, eg dangerous competition between and within states over what are now scarce resources. The use of militarized language plays a crucial part in mapping the unknown and unfamiliar onto a familiar, comprehensible thing: by portraying the coronavirus as an “invisible enemy” that “we” can “combat,” this uncertain threat appears to become containable, manageable, destructible even - in military and healthcare terms. While stories about “front line healthcare staff” and the “deployment” of new medical equipment appeared in the media, the mayor of New York City declared 5 April 2020 – the day when hospitals there were estimated to run out of sufficient numbers of ventilators for patients with severe Covid-19 complications – “D-Day.” The military have also supported civilian authorities in the “battle” against the coronavirus. Images of the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort docking in New York City or the opening of the National
14 | Momentum: Research News from Swansea University
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker