It’s the time of the semester where nervous students are writing their first philosophy paper, and among my advice to them is the maxim to avoid the temptation to start an essay with any variation on the phrase “Since the dawn of time…” unless they’re actually talking about the dawn of time, which they won’t be, and I know, since I wrote the paper topics. Why? It’s a lazy habit, a turn of phrase meant to do nothing more than get the writerly wheels turning.
But it also makes your argument weaker, as this essay shows:
Yet if reason were to be readmitted to the debate, we might find something in the history of military honor to justify the principle now enshrined in the law decreeing that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” We know that soldiering–I mean not training or support or peacekeeping or any of the myriad other things soldiers do, but facing enemy bullets–is inextricably bound up with ideas of masculinity. We also know that most heterosexual males’ ideas of masculinity are inextricably bound up with what we now call sexual orientation. In other words, “being a man” typically does mean for soldiers both being brave, stoic, etc.–and being heterosexual. Another way to put this is to say that honor, which is by the testimony of soldiers throughout the ages of the essence of military service, includes the honor of being known for heterosexuality, and that, for most heterosexual males, shame attends a reputation as much for homosexuality as for weakness or cowardice.
Come on, Plato, don’t let me down. Take it away, Phaedrus!
The beloved too, when he is found in any disgraceful situation, has the same feeling about his lover. And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger? The veriest coward would become an inspired hero, equal to the bravest, at such a time; Love would inspire him. That courage which, as Homer says, the god breathes into the souls of some heroes, Love of his own nature infuses into the lover.
Now, Phaedrus is not the brightest crayon in the box, as he is young and rather silly, but according to Plutarch, the idea that homosexual soldiers would be a braver, tightly bound fighting unit was taken seriously by people who read Plato. The Sacred Band of Thebes was composed of 150 erastes-eramenos couples, and they were fierce enough to beat a Spartan force three times its size at Tegyra, and again at Leuctra, securing Theban independence from Sparta. (It bears pointing out that the Spartans were probably not heterosexual enough for the contemporary American conservative either, but it’s cruel to spoil their enjoyment of 300.)
The Sacred Band was annihilated by the phalanxes of Philip II of Macedon, but then again, so was everyone else, eventually. The young Alexander broke through their lines; until that point, the Band had been thought to be invincible.
Let’s be clear that the worst thing about an essay that argues that gays could be good American soldiers except for the problem of them being gay is not that it gets the history wrong. (Via Sullivan, who makes the more appropriate response.) But the assumption that early 21st century American conservative mores have been on the triumphant, manly, very very straight, winning side throughout all of human history since the dawn of man? Not true.
43 comments
October 4, 2009 at 9:06 am
dave
Really, someone should write a history of martial buggery down the ages, just to put a stop to this kind of ‘everyone has always been just like me’ drivel.
October 4, 2009 at 9:31 am
Piers
I like to quote Mr. Burns to my students:
“Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun!”
October 4, 2009 at 9:34 am
politicalfootball
Speaking of drivel, following the link through Sullivan and beyond, I came across for the first time this remarkable argument against gay marriage.
The New Republic’s Chotiner, in linking it, says, “There is something nice–refreshing even–about a single article that incorporates everything you despise in a certain worldview.”
October 4, 2009 at 9:49 am
politicalfootball
Bowman quotes the Shulman article that I linked:
Note Bowman’s and Schulman’s dismay at the supposed fact that “even … bigots” are being compelled to behave in a non-bigoted fashion.
October 4, 2009 at 10:28 am
JPool
In revising a chapter of my dissertation I slipped in a “dawn of time” type phrase. Even as I was doing it I realized that my advisor would beat me for it and I will have to scrape it out on the final revision, but I just couldn’t help myself. Since the dawn of time historians have been drawn to sweeping universal statements.
October 4, 2009 at 10:49 am
silbey
We won’t even talk about the British Navy and “rum, sodomy, and the lash.”
October 4, 2009 at 10:56 am
drip
The British Navy did Rum, Sodomy and the Lash? I thought it was The Pogues.
October 4, 2009 at 11:15 am
md 20/400
Now you have me wanting British Sea Power to cover the Pogues.
October 4, 2009 at 11:22 am
Fats Durston
Thanks for the Plato quote for class tomorrow. Yet another piece of evidence in the war against 300 as the only depiction of ancient Greece that kids these days know. (Since the dawn of time, kids don’t know nuthin.)
October 4, 2009 at 11:36 am
Erik Lund
300? Isn’t that the movie where the Persians won? Sure, invade Greece, sweep away the opposition, burn Athens to teach the rubes what happens when you desecrate a holy city like Sardis, go home in triumph. Effeminate Asiatics 1, Heterosexual Spartains (WTH?), 0.
Anyone else read this? http://www.amazon.ca/Mother-Gods-Athens-Tyranny-Asia/dp/0520243498/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1254681353&sr=8-1-fkmr0
October 4, 2009 at 12:57 pm
SEK
Without a doubt, for undergraduates the most traditional way to open an essay is to recapitulate in words the opening scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, even though most of them have never seen the film.
October 4, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Kieran
even though most of them have never seen the film.
At least they’ve been spared that.
October 4, 2009 at 9:08 pm
TF Smith
Once upon a time, in a university far, far away…
October 5, 2009 at 1:51 am
dave
There is the other traditional way of opening an essay: “The XXX period was a time of great change for YYY”… Like, WHEN WASN’T?
October 5, 2009 at 4:17 am
chris y
Also, why is it that gay people are traditionally acceptable to the Navy (rum, sodomy and the lash) but not the army? Students should be asked to write a paper on the effect of the proximity of salt water on the relationship between sexuality and martial virtues.
October 5, 2009 at 4:22 am
Indiana Joe
(Since the dawn of time, kids don’t know nuthin.)
Since the dawn of time, adults have been complaining about how the younger generation doesn’t understand the world. (And the younger generation has been complaining that their elders don’t understand them.)
October 5, 2009 at 5:36 am
Ahistoricality
Since the dawn of time, time marches on.
October 5, 2009 at 5:37 am
Ahistoricality
If not for the dawn of time, none of this would ever have happened.
October 5, 2009 at 5:59 am
Prosehack65
Since the dawn of time, teachers have learned from their students: I myself was taught over the weekend via a student essay that “slavery was a bad time for blacks, but they have it so much better now.” (*EYE ROLL)
I will look, but just in case anyone can save me some time: Does anyone know off hand of an article, similar in length and scope, that argues for the repeal of DADT? I’d like to use them in a class.
October 5, 2009 at 7:02 am
dave
It is unfortunately, but trivially, true that youth is wasted on the young. What is more regrettable about the current state of affairs is the extent to which almost the whole of mass culture has been reconstructed around the particular interests of an unreflective, horny, 14-year-old boy… If only we could find him, maybe we could kill him and it would all end?
And Prosehack, hey, one of them’s President, what more do you want? [/irony].
October 5, 2009 at 8:37 am
Chris
Also, why is it that gay people are traditionally acceptable to the Navy (rum, sodomy and the lash) but not the army?
At sea, there are no women unless you bring them with you (which has its own problems). On land, whether you’re in your own country or enemy country, there are usually some women around (since invading Antarctica is rare).
(The inflexible-essentialist view of human sexual orientation doesn’t survive well on ships. Or in prisons.)
October 5, 2009 at 10:35 am
dave
Depends on your definition of ‘human sexual orientation’. Does prison rape make the perpetrators gay? Murky waters you’re sailing in there…
[Somewhere in here there’s a really good joke involving “any port in a storm”, and “if you knows of a better ‘ole, go to it”, but’s beyond me to bring it forth without breaching the barriers of taste…]
October 5, 2009 at 10:55 am
silbey
At sea, there are no women unless you bring them with you (which has its own problems). On land, whether you’re in your own country or enemy country, there are usually some women around (since invading Antarctica is rare).
There seem to have been women on British Navy ships fairly regularly, at least during the 18th century nor am I sure that armies were particularly heterosexual, despite the ravings of VD Hanson and the gentleman who wrote the article linked.
October 5, 2009 at 12:58 pm
karakapend
@Prosehack65–funny you should ask. The Q4 edition of Joint Force Quarterly has a great article dealing with exactly that topic by Col. Om Prakash. The Efficacy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (PDF). Great article, with a great conclusion.
October 5, 2009 at 1:05 pm
TF Smith
Check the meaning behind “son of a gun.”
If one has any doubts about whether “armies were particularly heterosexual” I can only say they presumably have not been around many soldiers…at least not in the 20th or 21st Century.
Having said that, DADT, prosecution of homosexuality among serving military personnel, and gender segregation at sea both sum up historical patters of human behavior in an extreme environment; there are centuries of real-world human experience behind the basic concept that sexual relationships between members of a closed and isolated workforce in what amounts to a deadly working environment is not a positive for mission success.
Not to be unpleasant, but if someone truly wants to consider this issue, there are quite a few scholars – Charlie Moskos being the obvious one – who one could consult. One can agree or disagree with Moskos, but DADT did not arise from a blank slate…
Given that the percentage of 21st Century American academics in the social sciences who have any first-hand knowledge of military service is probably lower today than at any time in US history, it really is one of those issues where expressing opinions based on present-day perceptions of the Theban Sacred Band OR the typical hoplite of ancient Attica do little more than make the offeror look like they are in way over their head…
Again, anyone who wants to find out if “armies were particularly heterosexual” might consider sources slightly closer to the 21st Century…hell, they could even consider enlisting and spending a couple of years in the ranks.
October 5, 2009 at 1:20 pm
TF Smith
After re-reading this, just to be completely clear, what I am speaking to is celibacy, heterosexual or otherwise, in terms of internal group relationships: in other words, don’t screw anyone you work with, because of the obvious consequences in the workplace for all involved (both those in the relationship and those outside of it).
If the given workplace amounts to a jail cell at sea (as in Johnson’s lines about sailing as profession), adding the challenges of sexual relationships (whether among peers or, even worse, superiors-inferiors in a hiearchy) is a recipe for trouble, plain and simple.
The old line about “one hand for the ship, one for yourself,” (and yes, I recognize the obvious double entendre- act your age, people) is a truism for a reason – adding in one for a loved one (of whatever gender/sexuality) requires three hands.
Not that I would recomend it for history, but as dynamic of the breakdown of discipline and mission focus, the final half hour of Titanic is not bad viewing…
October 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm
dana
hell, they could even consider enlisting and spending a couple of years in the ranks.
I expect this will be a successful standard for internet commentary.
I should point out that the post was addressing the “throughout human history” aspect of the linked post, not the contemporary DADT issue itself.
I also point out that were I addressing the contemporary issue, I’d start by noting that we should be careful not to conflate the advisability of “sexual relationships between members of a closed and isolated workforce” with the presence of homosexual soldiers; no one as near as I can tell is advocating overturning various martial regulations concerning sexual relationships. Surely these things come apart. So let’s be careful, as we rush to enlist, not to move the goalposts.
October 5, 2009 at 3:08 pm
zapoli
Check the meaning behind “son of a gun.”
Which has no particular relevance.
October 5, 2009 at 3:15 pm
TF Smith
Dana –
My last comments were not in regards to your initial post; I understand your point regarding the “classic” argument/writing trope. Hence my pointless effort at humor with the “a long time ago” crack.
That being said, interent conversations tend to roam off to various tangents; my two posts above were responses to others in the chain.
Some formats make that sort of call and response easier to see than others; Edge does not have that feature, so it is not as clear as to which post(s) a given response is intended.
That being said, the posters here are always literate and courteous, which makes it a much more engaging community than many – even in disagreement.
Yours – quite sincerely – and not simply in goalpost movement
Best,
October 5, 2009 at 3:18 pm
dana
Ah, gotcha, and sorry for the misinterpretation.
October 5, 2009 at 7:46 pm
silbey
I’m not sure what TF Smith is talking about; my original point, which he repeatedly quotes, about armies not being “particularly heterosexual” was simply an observation that armies, whatever they like to tell themselves, nonetheless usually have substantial numbers of homosexuals in them. This has been true of nearly every 20th century army I can think of; certainly the American army of World War II is a classic example.
(Allan Berube, _Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II_ is a useful work on this)
As to segregation at sea, as I mentioned earlier, the British Navy in the Georgian Era often frequently carried women on board, both above and below decks, and there were informal rules understood by both sailors and officers about how this was to be handled.
(N.A.M. Rodger _The Wooden World: Anatomy of the Georgian Navy_ has a long discussion)
In terms of “they could even consider enlisting and spending a couple of years in the ranks” I do wonder if Smith also believes that only cancer survivors should become oncologists, that only astronauts should become astronomers, and so on. In any case, I think that serving in the military probably does give an extra bit of insight. I suspect it also creates a different bit of bias, such as one where one thinks that the legends that services (and their attendant sociologists) like to tell about themselves are somehow congruent with the historical evidence, which is (as it is usually) considerably more complex.
October 5, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Lurker
silbey,
one of the great things about the draft is that it removes the mysticism of them military present here: those who have served and those who have not served. When almost every adult man has gone through the basic, no one can boast about it. And civilians with personal military experience are not as keen to mysticize the military service as the current US population.
Personally, I have served and I would like to note that a common private has an extremely limited view of the military: he sees only his immediate surroundings. Although this enables him to have a keen understanding of the social environment of his own unit, he cannot say, with any surety, which informal cultural rules are used system-wide and which are the peculiarities of his service, his branch and his unit. An officer, on the other hand, has a somewhat wider vista, but is still unable to see outside his own branch. When one has enough experience about the different parts of the military to make generalizations based on his experience, one has usually advanced so far in the ranks that any ideas about the life of rank-and-file are outdated.
October 6, 2009 at 6:05 am
Chris
Lurker’s comment suggests an interesting question: how do nations with universal military service deal with homosexuals in the ranks?
October 6, 2009 at 7:48 am
Lurker
At least in Finland, where I served, homosexuals served alongside with others. The stereotype is that they would often choose alternative civilian service, but there are no regulations against gays or lesbians. Personally, I did not know any openly homosexual conscripts, so the gays stayed in the closet.
The only time personal sexual orientation came up in the units I served in was during the NCO school. A female “conscript” (a woman who had volunteered for the military service) shaved her head due to a cruel joke. The women in her barracks room had decided, one night, to all shave their heads. However, she was the only one to carry out the decision. The others decided not to do it, anyhow, as she was already in the toilet shaving her head. As far as I knew, the misunderstanding was deliberate by some of her room-mates. During the time her hair grew back, she was repeatedly mistaken for a lesbian. (In this case, I had a rather good knowledge that she was heterosexual.) I think she received some hazing for it, from other women. Not from men: in the Finnish Army, females were sacrosanct.
October 6, 2009 at 8:02 am
silbey
Lurker, excellent points all, and nice comment about the effect of the draft. The immediate post World War II era in America was, in some ways, the most clear-eyed about the military in all sorts of small ways (the movies, for example tended to be much more realistic about combat and war than they are now), because there were so many veterans in the U.S. who understood the “chickenshit” aspect of military life.
October 6, 2009 at 8:59 am
stevenattewell
I think I may have the best “since the dawn of time” story:
“Ever since homo sapiens first evolved 200,000 years ago, work has been an important aspect of American life.”
October 6, 2009 at 11:43 am
TF Smith
Nothing mystical about my comments, or an appeal to “insider” status; simply suggesting that social scientists might consider some scientificating when they consider such issues, and personal experience/field work/observation is, (I think), still viewed as an appropriate technique by sociologists, anthropologists, archeologists, and even historians today … unless I have missed something. Perhaps I have…
And if the discussion is really about DADT, then there is plenty of documentation with regards to the US military of more recent origin then that provided by Virgil, Homer, or even Thucydides.
Again, Charlie Moskos is not exactly an obscure scholar, and his influence on DADT is quite clear. One may agree or disagree, but the thinking behind the policy is there. There is a history, and reasons for that history, and while prejudice is part of it, there are legitimate reasons for these policies that do go beyond simple bigotry, as challenging as that may be to acknowledge for advocates of the repeal of DADT. The same holds true for the issue of women in the military and racial integration of the armed forces.
As far as the WW II era US military goes, in an era where the draft was administed (more or less) equitably, not surprisingly, the make-up of those mobilized would reflect that of the general population – so if the generally accepted figure of 10 percent of the adult population is homosexual, then that roughly 10 percent of those mobilized would be is not really surprising. That is still a long way from said army NOT being “particularly heterosexual,” unless 9-1 odds are seen as something other than 9-1 odds.
At any rate, my personal opinion on DADT notwithstanding (I’m against it, if that matters; I’m also in favor of mandatory national service for all citizens and resident foreign nationals), my point in all this is that these policies did not arise in a vacumn, which is historical fact that is often overlooked in this discussion. For example, Col. Prakash’s article focuses on the effects of DADT on a single impacted cohort, not, from what I can tell, on the services as a whole…on the other hand, the op-ed “supporting” DADT that was posted is ridiculous because of its pseudo-philosophical argument…
All that being said, ever since the earth formed from a cooling ball of cosmic gas 4.5 billion years ago, faculty and administration have been in conflict…
Best to all
October 6, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Prosehack65
karakapend, thanks for the link. A cursory glance shows the article is indeed accessible to my poor put upon undergrads’ minds. (I expect!? them!? to read!? in a WRITING CLASS!?)
TF, I think you’re missing the point of the links, which was simply a side exchange between me and members of the community (many of whom are fellow educators) as to a handy counter-point…Nothing, so far as I can tell, more or less.
October 6, 2009 at 11:47 pm
TF Smith
Undoubtedly; I miss many points.
October 7, 2009 at 7:25 am
Chris
There is a history, and reasons for that history, and while prejudice is part of it, there are legitimate reasons for these policies that do go beyond simple bigotry
It’s true that “Most of these men were raised as bigots, so if we try to make them stop, they’ll resent it” goes beyond simple bigotry, but I wouldn’t call it a *legitimate* reason, exactly.
People resented being told to stop owning slaves — they resented it so bitterly that they violently rebelled *before* they were told to stop owning slaves, just because they feared that they might be told so in the future. (Eventually they were.) Supposing that you could see all this in advance, would that make avoiding the Civil War a “legitimate” reason to perpetuate slavery, or not?
October 7, 2009 at 11:49 am
TF Smith
Actually, Chris, the “legitimate reasons” have more to do with the undeniable impact of sexual relationships (homosexual or heterosexual) between both peers and/or superiors/inferiors upon good order and discipline within a small group that is subject to extraordinary stresses and requires immediate response to orders – including, not to be melodramatic – the ability to sacrifice one or more individual lives for the greater good.
Again, the potential of a fatal impact with regards inter-group relationships upon a ship at sea or a military unit in combat is extraordinarily higher than the same impact upon, say, an academic department, but one can undoubtedly find any number of said situations in an academic setting that have resulted in very real problems for said department’s efficient and collegial operation.
And although celibacy is always an option, placing young men and women in high stress situations where they are utterly isolated from any normal human interaction outside the small group (ie, aboard a ship at sea or a military unit in the field, say) and expecting them to act as something other than human beings is somewhat unrealistic – as witness the reality of sexuality among, say, college students…
Add in the fact that – if the 10 percent of the population number is correct – there is a significantly large population to draw upon that does not pose these potential problems in any other situation other than full national mobilization, and one can acknowledge that – perhaps – there are more legitimate reasons behind the historical treatment of homosexuals and women in the US military than simple bigotry.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is all simply patriarchal genderism and racism…naw, you’re right. That’s it.
October 7, 2009 at 2:40 pm
silbey
personal experience/field work/observation is, (I think), still viewed as an appropriate technique by sociologists, anthropologists, archeologists, and even historians today
Field work and observation are not joining in a particular group; they are acting as a scholarly observer of a particular group. That wasn’t what you originally suggested.
That is still a long way from said army NOT being “particularly heterosexual,” unless 9-1 odds are seen as something other than 9-1 odds
It is certainly enough that one should not assume sexuality.
Actually, Chris, the “legitimate reasons” have more to do with the undeniable impact of sexual relationships (homosexual or heterosexual) between both peers and/or superiors/inferiors upon good order and discipline within a small group that is subject to extraordinary stresses and requires immediate response to order
You’re making the same conflation that dana noted: the argument against homosexuals (and women) in the force is not just against them having sex; it’s against them being visible in any way. And note that there are a substantial number of historical examples–including the Sacred Band, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Kay Summersby–in which sexual relationships within the military does not seem to have stopped that military from winning wars.
October 13, 2009 at 11:41 pm
JJ
I think William Styron stated the principal well in one of his stories derived from his experience in the Marine Corps: sexual frustration is an essential psychological objective, in order to maximize military aggression.