‘What We Talk About When We Talk About War’ by Noah Richler
Posted: June 18, 2012
Book Reviews
Reviewed by Paul Doerksen
Noah Richler believes that the way to address the problem of heightened militarism in Canada, at least in part, is to write a book about the use of language– and rightly so. The book’s title, riffing on a Raymond Carver short story title, alerts us to the fact that what we say about war is in fact integral to any war effort. Richler therefore undertakes “a consideration of the phrases and forms of the story that Canada has used in order to talk itself into, through and out of the war in Afghanistan.” In order to do so he necessarily gives a much broader account of Canadian action and discourse regarding war and peace.
According to Richler, Canada’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan from 2001-2006 brought forward a concerted attempt to reconfigure or recalibrate Canada’s contested self-understanding. That is, whereas Richler believes that Canada is a nation shaped by pragmatism and regulation, a country whose “national boundaries have been peaceful, its territories mostly orderly and its governments, by ordinary standards, good,” others now want Canada to be reconfigured along more militaristic lines, to be a war-fighting nation instead of a peacekeeping nation. For such a recalibration to take effect, the foundation (or creation) myths of the country need to change according to what Richler refers to as an epic form – the epic being a story that emphasizes difference chauvinistically, heightens notions of insecurity, assumes the infallibility of held positions, mobilizes defence through a narrow, strictly dichotomous understanding of good and evil, promotes a singular understanding of the past, and brooks no complications.
Richler’s description and analysis of how and by whom such an epic story has been promulgated in Canada is nothing short of masterful. The depiction of Canada as a warrior nation, the politicization of the category of ‘hero,’ the change of language from ‘war’ to ‘mission’ – these and other elements of the epic are brought to view by Richler’s analysis of Canadian public discourse. Not only does he draw attention to government policy and public statements, he also pays close attention to public rituals such as the changing manner of marking Remembrance Day in an ever more militaristic manner and the kinds of displays set up in the Canadian War Museum; he shows the insidious power wielded within the close connection between sports and the military, and leads the reader to see the epic story being put forward in literary sources, music, movies and other such popular sources. Richler places a significant amount of blame on a number of public figures, some of whom could be termed as usual suspects – Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Granatstein, Rick Hillier, David Bercuson – but is also very good at showing how people such as Don Cherry, Christie Blatchford and Rosie Dimanno also played a part in “the unraveling of the country’s peacekeeping persona.” In Richler’s view, the epic version of Canada is deeply flawed – it is not representative of what Canada has been, and it surely should not be the vision to which Canada aspires.
Richler’s constructive vision is also embodied in story, albeit one that resists the epic in favour of the novel form, which stance is a humanistic enterprise that puts the individual first even while upholding the rights of communities within society, expects humans to benefit from common standards, and holds optimistically to a view of bringing about a better future. The contours of this novel vision include multiculturalism, complexity, space for a vigorous contesting of views, fairness, a humanizing impulse and so on. Richler hints at various dimensions of this vision throughout the book, but is most explicit in his final chapter, which includes the putting forward of a triad of measures that can help Canada to make a difference nationally and internationally without embracing virulent militarism – the creation of a new regiment specifically dedicated to the practice of peace operations, the founding of a new college in which at least a minor degree in some dimension of peace operations is required, and the creation of a national community corps.
This is an important kind of book on the Canadian scene – it is very well-written, draws on a range of interesting and varied sources, and shows considerable courage in confronting popularly-held viewpoints – and does so in a way that is itself exemplary. That is, in its richness and complexity (which never strays into opacity), Richler’s liberal vision, which assumes the novel stance, embodies a corrective to the epic’s resistance to constructive complexification. Richler’s close attention to various modes of public discourse and its potentially deleterious, or for that matter, edifying effects, functions as a significant (and welcome) contribution to that very discourse.
In the spirit of Richler’s own call for vigorous contesting of views, I also want to engage his views. While Richler acknowledges that “peace” is too often the status quo, he does not complexify the notion of peace nearly enough, mostly proceeding as though the understanding and reality of that notion is virtually self-evident, a problem that is present in his use of other terms and concepts such as violence, humanism, progress, fairness and so on. Further, while it is the case that he is putting forward a vision that promotes peacekeeping, development work, humanitarian causes – a better and safer world – Richler does not acknowledge clearly enough how much his work has in common with the vision he is resisting. That is, his liberal humanitarian vision, while gentler and kinder, indeed softer than that of Canada as a war-fighting nation, nonetheless shares a strong nationalism, a fairly strong confidence in human goodness, an ongoing embrace of the necessity of violence and military action despite important differences in the shape of that necessity, and optimism regarding the possibility and perhaps even the inevitability of human progress.
In addition, Richler does not go nearly far enough in showing the role of religious discourse in Canada within the matrix of issues he has raised. His several glancing references to religion are thin and even facile, and do not reflect the complex contributions that religious discourse makes both in favour of warfighting and against it. Missing almost entirely is any serious mention of pacifism, religious or otherwise, which of necessity would push his discussion to give an account of visions for Canada that are perhaps more radical than his own. I raise this point not only because of my pacifism, but because some of the measures that Richler suggests – colleges that offer some training in peace – are already in place, as seen at the Menno Simons College in Winnipeg for example. In other words, the contestation of an epic view of Canada is already more complex than Richler’s account shows. Nonetheless, it must be said that this is an important contribution to the ongoing struggles of peace and violence within the hearts of individuals and the political ethos of a nation.
Goose Lane | 376 pages | $24.95 | paper | ISBN #978-0864926227
‘What We Talk About When We Talk About War’ by Noah Richler
Book Reviews
Noah Richler believes that the way to address the problem of heightened militarism in Canada, at least in part, is to write a book about the use of language– and rightly so. The book’s title, riffing on a Raymond Carver short story title, alerts us to the fact that what we say about war is in fact integral to any war effort. Richler therefore undertakes “a consideration of the phrases and forms of the story that Canada has used in order to talk itself into, through and out of the war in Afghanistan.” In order to do so he necessarily gives a much broader account of Canadian action and discourse regarding war and peace.
According to Richler, Canada’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan from 2001-2006 brought forward a concerted attempt to reconfigure or recalibrate Canada’s contested self-understanding. That is, whereas Richler believes that Canada is a nation shaped by pragmatism and regulation, a country whose “national boundaries have been peaceful, its territories mostly orderly and its governments, by ordinary standards, good,” others now want Canada to be reconfigured along more militaristic lines, to be a war-fighting nation instead of a peacekeeping nation. For such a recalibration to take effect, the foundation (or creation) myths of the country need to change according to what Richler refers to as an epic form – the epic being a story that emphasizes difference chauvinistically, heightens notions of insecurity, assumes the infallibility of held positions, mobilizes defence through a narrow, strictly dichotomous understanding of good and evil, promotes a singular understanding of the past, and brooks no complications.
Richler’s description and analysis of how and by whom such an epic story has been promulgated in Canada is nothing short of masterful. The depiction of Canada as a warrior nation, the politicization of the category of ‘hero,’ the change of language from ‘war’ to ‘mission’ – these and other elements of the epic are brought to view by Richler’s analysis of Canadian public discourse. Not only does he draw attention to government policy and public statements, he also pays close attention to public rituals such as the changing manner of marking Remembrance Day in an ever more militaristic manner and the kinds of displays set up in the Canadian War Museum; he shows the insidious power wielded within the close connection between sports and the military, and leads the reader to see the epic story being put forward in literary sources, music, movies and other such popular sources. Richler places a significant amount of blame on a number of public figures, some of whom could be termed as usual suspects – Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Granatstein, Rick Hillier, David Bercuson – but is also very good at showing how people such as Don Cherry, Christie Blatchford and Rosie Dimanno also played a part in “the unraveling of the country’s peacekeeping persona.” In Richler’s view, the epic version of Canada is deeply flawed – it is not representative of what Canada has been, and it surely should not be the vision to which Canada aspires.
Richler’s constructive vision is also embodied in story, albeit one that resists the epic in favour of the novel form, which stance is a humanistic enterprise that puts the individual first even while upholding the rights of communities within society, expects humans to benefit from common standards, and holds optimistically to a view of bringing about a better future. The contours of this novel vision include multiculturalism, complexity, space for a vigorous contesting of views, fairness, a humanizing impulse and so on. Richler hints at various dimensions of this vision throughout the book, but is most explicit in his final chapter, which includes the putting forward of a triad of measures that can help Canada to make a difference nationally and internationally without embracing virulent militarism – the creation of a new regiment specifically dedicated to the practice of peace operations, the founding of a new college in which at least a minor degree in some dimension of peace operations is required, and the creation of a national community corps.
This is an important kind of book on the Canadian scene – it is very well-written, draws on a range of interesting and varied sources, and shows considerable courage in confronting popularly-held viewpoints – and does so in a way that is itself exemplary. That is, in its richness and complexity (which never strays into opacity), Richler’s liberal vision, which assumes the novel stance, embodies a corrective to the epic’s resistance to constructive complexification. Richler’s close attention to various modes of public discourse and its potentially deleterious, or for that matter, edifying effects, functions as a significant (and welcome) contribution to that very discourse.
In the spirit of Richler’s own call for vigorous contesting of views, I also want to engage his views. While Richler acknowledges that “peace” is too often the status quo, he does not complexify the notion of peace nearly enough, mostly proceeding as though the understanding and reality of that notion is virtually self-evident, a problem that is present in his use of other terms and concepts such as violence, humanism, progress, fairness and so on. Further, while it is the case that he is putting forward a vision that promotes peacekeeping, development work, humanitarian causes – a better and safer world – Richler does not acknowledge clearly enough how much his work has in common with the vision he is resisting. That is, his liberal humanitarian vision, while gentler and kinder, indeed softer than that of Canada as a war-fighting nation, nonetheless shares a strong nationalism, a fairly strong confidence in human goodness, an ongoing embrace of the necessity of violence and military action despite important differences in the shape of that necessity, and optimism regarding the possibility and perhaps even the inevitability of human progress.
In addition, Richler does not go nearly far enough in showing the role of religious discourse in Canada within the matrix of issues he has raised. His several glancing references to religion are thin and even facile, and do not reflect the complex contributions that religious discourse makes both in favour of warfighting and against it. Missing almost entirely is any serious mention of pacifism, religious or otherwise, which of necessity would push his discussion to give an account of visions for Canada that are perhaps more radical than his own. I raise this point not only because of my pacifism, but because some of the measures that Richler suggests – colleges that offer some training in peace – are already in place, as seen at the Menno Simons College in Winnipeg for example. In other words, the contestation of an epic view of Canada is already more complex than Richler’s account shows. Nonetheless, it must be said that this is an important contribution to the ongoing struggles of peace and violence within the hearts of individuals and the political ethos of a nation.
Goose Lane | 376 pages | $24.95 | paper | ISBN #978-0864926227