Are Soldiers Heroes?

“All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers. Each one owes infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in which he was born.”

This is a controversial topic that I have wanted to summarise my thoughts on for some time, and my answer to the question posed is 'no'. To clarify the meaning of the title, by 'soldiers' I mean people who fight in an army as part of their job currently, and by 'not heroes' I mean not possessing the qualities of a hero by virtue of being a soldier. I will first summarise why soldiers should not be considered heroes, then tackle the 'pro-hero' arguments, and finish by discussing the potential dangers of the hero worship of soldiers.

Why Soldiers are Not Heroes

The crux of my argument lies on the nature of a soldier's job; this being that, amongst other things, the primary job of a soldier is to kill others as part of a war. This is an inescapable fact, and a fact that people often forget or ignore, unconsciously or wilfully. This is my first premise.

My second premise is, to some, less easy to accept. This is that killing is a fundamentally immoral activity, unless it is done as an absolute last resort in self-defence or the defence of another. You may be thinking that this is the perfect description of the reasons that soldiers kill, but on closer examination it is not. Soldiers have made a concious decision to join the army, and have allowed themselves to be shipped out to whatever country they are now in, and accepted the orders to kill another human being. They have not been conscripted or otherwise forced, and have had the chance to not take part at many occasions.

It follows that the job of the soldier is an inherently immoral one, and that whatever individuals may do to exceed themselves, it doesn't negate this fact. It is true that soldiers can do heroic things, like throw themselves onto grenades to save their comrades, but this does not make all soldiers heroes, and does not necessarily make the individual a hero outright - as an analogy, imagine a Taliban fighter doing the same thing, of throwing himself over a grenade. Would that make him a hero, even though he has been a member of a horrifically violent and amoral fundamentalist group? The example is extreme, but apt nonetheless.

Perhaps a very small number of soldiers could be considered heroes by virtue of their actions, but note that these actions would almost certainly not be of a violent nature, and that non-soldiers also perform acts of equally laudable heroism without the civilian groups they are part of being considered as comprised only of heroes. To call all soldiers heroes is an absurdity (unless killing is much more acceptable to you than I) and dangerous, as I will come to later.

Debunking the Counter-Arguments

The argument most often put forward for the heroism of soldiers is that, without them, we would not be speaking English/not living in England/not be alive, and so on. Not only does this argument not apply to any conflict for the last 70 years, but it ignores that pacifist position that all are undesirable - not just the British one! I won't comment on whether the soldiers of WW2 are all (or most) heroes, as it's a complex and difficult issue that I dare not try to tackle, but the fact remains that soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan, and Iraq until recently, are not 'defending our nation' in the profound way that some suggest.

Another similar, and even more vague, argument is that without soldiers we would not have freedom, and that I would not be able to profess these 'disgusting' views. Perhaps if we, again, go 70 years back this may have some truth. If anything, wars have damaged freedom, causing an approximate seven-fold increase in terrorism since the invasion of Iraq, which has led to a reduction in freedoms since the implementation of domestic policies to combat terrorism. I won't give more than a sentence to the argument interchangeable with this; that soldiers are 'defending our country' - a ridiculous claim for any recent conflict on the face of it (Taliban ground invasion anyone?).

I will try to deal with the other minor arguments in this paragraph by use of analogy. Take a typical Taliban fighter. The chances are that he is not bent on 'Global Jihad' or terrorism, but instead considers it to be his duty to fight against foreign invaders. Surveys have shown this to be true, with a majority fighting with the, perhaps misguided, intention of defending their country, and a very high percentage having lost a close relative to the conflict. It is therefore comparable, in that a majority have (perceived) noble intentions, much like for NATO soldiers, a  very small minority of whom doubtless have extreme Islamaphobic  attitudes, or are in it for the sake of being able to kill people. Note that this person is actually putting themselves in far greater risk than a NATO soldier, as he statistically has a much higher probability of being killed.

On almost all levels, the Taliban fighter and NATO soldier are much the same, if any particularly heroic (and uncommon) actions are not considered. Do we call them both heroes? I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of calling members of brutal fundamentalist groups heroes, so it is more reasonable to call neither heroes. It is what people do that matters - not what they are, or what they intend to do.

Why Hero-Worship is Dangerous

“War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.”

I hope that I have convinced you that not all soldiers should be immediately named as heroes, but if not, and even if I have, you may still ask what the harm is, if it helps support the soldiers and their families (both of which I do sympathise with very much!) The answer is that the universal praise of soldiers is the beginning of a dark path to the acceptance of violence and killing.

If we consider killing to be acceptable (never mind laudable!) if it is done with the 'good intentions' of war, or that it is not immoral if the person being killed has been judged to be evil and undeserving of life by his membership of a particular group alone, then we have become, in the absence of an alternative word, much like Nazis, even if these groups are deserving of hatred. If we demonise a group to such an extent (not that the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's regime etc. should not be demonised) that the people who fight, injure and kill its members are to be worshipped as 'heroes', and anyone who says otherwise is attacked so voraciously, then we are no longer a civilised society that values the life, equality and justice that many claim soldiers are actively defending.

Perhaps even more dangerous is that hero-worship detracts from tackling the true reasons why war, and specific wars, happen. Burying these reasons in a tide of patriotism, and excusing the belligerents (at all levels) because they have ‘good intentions’ runs the risk of creating a society that is apathetic to violence, and uninterested in peace. It is time that we looked up to the conscientious objectors – those who have inquired about what they are truly fighting for or against, and have risked punishment and ridicule for doing what it right, and refusing to play a part in organised homocide.

- Daniel

What is Sociology?

Only 4 months after I began this blog, it's now time for the sixth and final introductory post, and this one is about the topic for which most people's first question is 'What is Sociology?' Read on to find out!


What is Sociology?

The short answer is the sociology is the study of society. The longer answer is that sociology is the study of human life, social groups, entire societies and the human world as a whole. It is the central social science around which the other social sciences, including economics, political science and human geography, revolve.

It deals not only with how society functions, but also how, and why, societies transform over time. It ranges from macro-sociology, or the study of entire societies (such as countries), to micro-sociology, which is concerned with the everyday interactions between people. There are, of course, intermediate levels, such as the study of small societies, such as town or neighbourhoods.

Sociology covers issues from gender to war, from health care to religion, and from globalisation to why you're reading this post right now. It is, in my opinion, the most complex and controversial science, and changes more than any other that I can think of, but is ultimately the most important, as I'll explain later.


Approaches in Sociology

There are a plethora of theoretical approaches in sociology, but these are dominated by three central approaches: functionalism, conflict theories and symbolic interactionism. It is important to note that these are not grand theories of societies' functioning and change, but approaches that help sociologists develop theories of human society. The theoretical approaches provide a framework for sociological research, without which there would most likely be a jumbled mess of theories, and  little to no progress in our understanding of society.

The first theoretical approach to be developed, and for a while considered the only approach, is functionalism. Originally proposed by the fouder of sociology, Auguste Comte, as well as Emile Durkheim, functionalism treats society as having various components that work together to produce stability and solidarity. Therefore, theories based on the functionalist approach tend to relate to how parts of society relate and interact with other parts, as well as society as whole. One analogy is treating society like the human body, with various organs (social institutions) working together to keep the person alive (keep society stable and functioning). However, the approach has been criticised for its emphasis on macrosociology, and its failure to explain societal conflict and change.

From left to right: Marx, Comte, Durkheim

The second approach is the conflict theories. Karl Marx, although not actually a sociologist, is often credited with founding this area of sociological thought. While functionalism sees society as being stable, conflict theorists view it as being fraught with conflicts between groups and individuals, both open and underlying. This could be conflict between religious, racial and national groups, but is most often considered to be between different economic groups (the Marxist approach). Oppositely to functionalism, the conflict approach has been criticised for its lack of focus on how societies can remain stable.

The third approach, symbolic interactionism, has not been as influential as the first two. Max Weber is usually considered to have founded this school of sociology in his work on the origins of capitalism. This approach concentrates on, as its name suggest, interactions between individual people, in the form of symbols - meaning anything that can stand for something, such as a word or gesture.While the functionalist approach sees society as having a controlling or limiting effect on its members, symbolic interactionism stresses the ability of individuals to shape society. Symbolic interactionism has been criticised for its lack of explanation for larger institutions and macrosociological phenomena.

In recent years, many sociologists have tried to create theoretical syntheses that take elements for some or all of the classical approaches to sociology. It is probable that no single approach will be enough to develop theories for every element of society, from the micro to the macro level, and from societal stability to collapse.


Why Bother?

I've touched briefly on the importance of sociology to humanity's prospering, and perhaps its very survival. On a wider level, sociology is crucial to successful policy making. It's useless implementing sweeping reforms that might look great on paper when it's impact on people, and their likely reaction, hasn't been considered. Without an understanding of social dynamics, any government initiatives can easily backfire.

Through sociology, and the other social sciences, we can begin to get an idea of what the future may hold for human civilisation, and possible directions that society will take. Sociology also aids us in finding solutions to pressing crises, such as climate change, energy/food insecurity and the danger of international conflict,  that will take the differing nature of human societies into account when trying to avert disaster.

On a personal level, studying sociology provides a greater awareness of cultural differences, from which it is possible to gain a higher level of tolerance of other people, and the ability to carefully consider what circumstances others might be in before labelling them as a 'chav', 'snob', 'bible-basher' or any other class that it is so easy to place people into without more that a moment's thought (sorry for how long that sentence was).

It has provided me with an interesting challenge in that it is important to put your personal beliefs and values aside in sociology. Possessing the strong opinions that I have, this was a difficult thing to accomplish, but I believe that it has helped to me strengthen and develop them further, having been able to re-consider my views from a different perspective.



 - Daniel

Introduction

So, this is my blog. I thought I should probably give a little introduction to myself, and to the blog.

As you can see from my personal information to the right, I'm a sixth-form student living in the UK, with a keen interest in Science, Technology, Ethics, Philosophy, Politics and Sociology (S.T.E.P.P.S, if you hadn't worked it out yet). I study maths, biology, physics and chemistry for AS level, and hope to go into medicine after leaving school. So that no one reading this is under any illusions, I'm a humanist and a socialist (deal with it!) Now I'll give a introduction to the different topics covered by my blog:

Science: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe (shameless Wikipedia copying and pasting, I know). But there's more to science than that.  It is, as far as we know, the best tool for understanding everything in our universe, from the quark to the galaxies, and from the virus to that most wonderous of things; the human brain. Science is the basis of almost everything that we take for granted in our technical civilization, from light bulbs to the space shuttle. Without a doubt, science is the most important element of our humanity - the drive to discover, to explore and to better ourselves.

Technology: Technology, in short, is the application of science to design, construct and use tools (of widely varying complexity) to perform a specific function. When I talk about technology, I don't mean the gadgets that various companies churn out (ehem... ipods, iphones...) that add little to our lives (apart from fun of course!), but the technology that can help us to grow food, to travel around our planet in a matter hours, or to explore the universe. I'll look at the technology that really adds something to our society, and especially important emerging fields of technology, such as nanotechnology and the development of artificial intelligence.

Ethics: Ethics is a branch of philosophy that is used to decide what is considered 'moral' or accpetable to do. It's a wide-ranging topic, covering issues from justice and crime to animal rights and medical ethics.

Philosophy: Philosophy is, as I like to think it, the waiting room of science. It is the place for questions that we can not yet answer using our preferred method, science, but that must wait for perhaps hundred of years, or may never be fully answered. It's the place of the really big questions that make your head hurt if you think too long about them, like "What is the meaning of life?" (other than 42 [haha...]) or "Why are you you?" Philosophy has evolved considerably from its roots millenia ago, and has narrowed somewhat, as parts of it have moved out of its own realm, and into the realm of science. However, it still has many crucial, unanswered questions that are well worth considering.

Politics: *Yawn!* Yes, politics can be boring, espeically in our two-party state, vote-every-four-years media circus, where all the parties are continually at eachothers throats about everything. Accordingly, I'll try not to look at every tiny decision that various governments make, but more at the interesting trends in politics, such as the sudden rise of the far right, or what the global economy might look like after (and if!) it begins to recover.

Sociology: This is the one that not as many people have heard of. Sociology is, in short, the scientific study of society. This makes it overlap significantly with the other five topics, making it of particular interest to me. It deals with issues such as war, nationalism, racism and why no one likes gingers (no offence). I'll explore events, such as the summer riots, as well as long term trends, such as the decline of religion, especially in developed countries.

Other: I'll probably end up sticking in the odd book, film or game review, anything interesting that happens in my life (there really isn't much, trust me) or whatever else I feel like writing about.


Well, that's an introduction. If you'd like any more information about the blog,  would like to make any suggestions or would like to contribute an article, just comment (and please don't be too harsh on me - this is my first ever blog post...)

Also, apologies for the labels at the top being out of order. It won't let me arrange them as I want... If anyone knows how to sort them I'd be grateful for some advice.


-  Daniel