| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
169950
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Soldiers are rarely imagined as having disabilities, other than when they are injured in war. Yet in recent years the Israeli military has devoted considerable resources to programs promoting the inclusion of soldiers with intellectual disabilities. This paper critically examines two such programs, arguing that they should prompt a reexamination of assumptions in both critical military studies and critical disability studies. These two fields are rarely placed in dialogue, especially in international relations. Yet this paper argues that they have productive insights to offer each other and suggests that the Israeli case raises important questions when their analytical frames are combined. First, the paper argues that this example complicates the category of soldier fitness in critical military studies and reveals that militarist distinctions between ability and disability can be destabilized in ways suggested elsewhere by critical disability studies. Second, however, the paper cautions that the emancipatory potential of alternative “crip” subjectivities explored in critical disability studies remains circumscribed by geopolitical processes (including neoliberalism, settler colonialism, and militarism), which international relations is well placed to analyze. These arguments are advanced by showing how these inclusionary programs for soldiers with disabilities are implicated in the debilitating violence of Israel's settler colonial project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
157920
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues for a reformulation of the concept of ‘militarism’ as ideology. Although existing sociological approaches have been suspicious of an understanding of militarism as ideology, these criticisms have misrepresented the implications of adopting such a concept. By returning to Althusser’s classic study of ideology, and complementing it with more recent psychoanalytic approaches that emphasize the centrality of desire, the article shows that thinking of militarism as ideology can be complementary to existing sociological studies. Moreover, though, it argues that such a reformulation brings with it key advantages. This is because it foregrounds the task of anti-militarist critique in a way that has hitherto been lacking. To demonstrate this point, the article considers the contribution that a concept of militarism as ideology could make to existing debates in critical security studies. Recent debates in this subfield have examined the ethical ramifications of various understandings of security for the pursuit of violence. However, these arguments have frequently reached a deadlock because of an inadequate understanding of the nature of militarism, one that borrows implicitly from prevalent sociological definitions of the concept. Instead, the article presents an understanding of militarism as ideology as a way out of these difficulties, showing how a critique of violence based on this concept of militarism rather than security can be more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|