Customer Reviews

From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a first class work by a literary historian of wide erudition. Leo Braudy traces the changing nature of maleness as seen though the wars and consequent cultural upheavals of the last thousand years. The author has read widely and from that has come a new view of this enormous subject. His references are European, Asian and North American -- all quite different, of course, though in Braudy's view, also often similar. Cultural traits among these varied groups pop up over time in a way that could be described as Jungian. Braudy draws on literary works, social and historical criticism, political rhetoric, movies, and popular music which results in a wealth of entertaining detail. One example: The Berserkers, the ancient Scandinavian warriors from whom the modern word derives, painted themselves in gaudy colors and in the presence of their enemies ate their own shields. It tended to scare off the other guys. The book is written in short chapters, in an easy yet precise voice that is mercifully jargon-free. Note of disclosure: The author and I are acquainted which accounts for my early reading of the book though not for my view of it.

*From Chivalry to Terrorism* is a massive book with tiny print--a real brick of a text. Just opening it up--just lifting it up--can make it seem like a daunting read. And it is a bit daunting. But, let's face it, a wide-ranging study of war and gender that encompasses some 2500 years or so of human history, from Achilles to al Qaeda, would have to be at least a *little* daunting, right?

But once one takes the plunge and wades around a bit in this hugely entertaining book one begins to feel quite comfortably at home. That's because Braudy doesn't let the potential weightiness of his topic keep him from writing in an accessible and lively style.

Braudy's chief concern is the definition of `masculinity,' and how, contrary to what many might believe, it has shifted throughout the centuries. Is a `man' the product of his biology or his social conditioning? It's a question not unlike the one posed by feminists regarding women and the answer proves to be just as elusive. Most likely, it seems, a `man' is some impossible to determine formula containing a mix of hormones, cultural seasonings, and socio-political molding...and all of it heated in the crucible of war. For, as Braudy points out, war is the single most important constant that's defined masculinity throughout the centuries.

Using historical sources, literature, art, and popular culture, Braudy builds a compelling case for the idea that what makes a man a man often depends on a culture's defense against its enemies, its own imperialist dreams of expansion, the pathologies of its leaders.

*From Chivalry to Terrorism* often loses the thread of half of its proposed topic--the changing nature of masculinity--and becomes more of a history of war alone, and its effect on society as a whole. But even then Braudy doesn't fail to entertain and inform, even if he makes his book that much longer and unfocused than it strictly needs to be. Going off track as he does, the reader is treated to some interesting perspectives. Still, if I have one major criticism of the book it's that while for the most part Braudy remains neutral and objective he colors--and discolors--some of the later chapters regarding more current events with shades of the prevailing politically correct opinions of the day, even while criticizing the politically correct opinions popular in days gone by for their unenlightened short-sightedness. Braudy seems to be blind himself to the obvious fallacy of believing our own `scientific' and expert views on such issues as homosexuality, for instance, are any less flawed or definitive, any less influenced by prevailing social mores than those of the past.

But a far more glaring lack of objectivity comes in a chapter titled `Targeting Civilians' in which Braudy incomprehensibly fails to mention what is, perhaps, history's most damning example of a wartime government targeting the civilian population of a rival nation: the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While he mentions the dropping of these bombs later in a wider, more philosophic context, as if they had nothing specifically to do with American policy, the failure to present this unprecedented nuclear assault on a civilian population seems more than a mere oversight, but a failure of nerve. One can only speculate whether Braudy feared to alienate a large part of his readership by appearing un-American, or implying that the 9-11 attacks were somehow less undeserved and not quite so heinous by comparison. In any event, I found the omission unconscionable.

For that matter, whenever Braudy moves away from history and moves into commentary about history, the book tends towrds a muddled-headed, fuzzy, Oprah-like optimism that conveniently offers `proof' of the most liberal-minded attitudes of contemporary American society regarding gender, peace, world government, economics, religion, and just about everything else. Braudy, as a `thinker,' is clearly not an author who takes any chances or wants to ruffle any feathers. He breaks open no new ground, offers no fresh insights, nor does he have any desire to do so. In this regard, his appeal is to the widest possible audience.

Still, *From Chivalry to Terrorism* is a book well-worth reading for the history of war alone, and the interesting revelations about the ever-changing attitudes of what it's meant to be a `man.' You can't help but come away feeling sorry for us guys, shot to pieces, stabbled, and blown to smithereens over the centuries whether we had it in us to be warriors or not. If it really is a `man's world,' then you're probably talking about it belonging not to one-half of the population, but maybe one percent of it...because by the warrior definition of what it takes to be a man, that leaves out a full ninety-nine percent of all the rest of us, no matter what sort of genitals we have.

This book is not for the faint of heart. It is a difficult but rewarding read. For anyone doing serious work in the area of changing masculine identity or the history of warfare, there is much to recommend in this work. Just remember its is not casual reading. Pax Tecum Fr Bill

Excellence history of war and the men that in fought them. This book was loaded with quotes and reliable source information, which reviles the changes in philosophy of combat and the discipline of man.

STIMULATING in its uses of the past, HEARTBREAKING in its description of the 20th Century's uses of propaganda to prepare men for war, STUNNINGLY insightful as it connects seemingly disparate strands; e.g.: the fictional detective as heroic loner and TS Eliot's The Wasteland, BRILLIANTLY amusing as it discusses poetic evocations of premature ejaculation...In a word(or two) A Man's a Man and Leo Braudy's book should be read by any and all who've tried to puzzle out the reason why.

This book is a masterful achievement, and, given a work of this scope, it is not surprising that some of the details are factually wrong. For example, 58,000 British troops did not die on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, 1 July 1916. There were about 58,000 British casualties, of whom about 19,000 died.
Also, the US Navy did not lead the Army in integration. In fact, the Army commissioned black officers well before World War Two, while the Navy commissioned its first black officers in the 1950s. Despite the occasional factual error, the book is a major study that belongs in the company of such books as John Keegan's, The Face of Battle.

If this isn't the most biased, BS, expounding of male-blame in the universe I don't know what would beat it. Associating maleness to terrorism is about as much a stretch as it can get. People who write books like this clearly are brainwashed by the liberal college campus, which is the worst combination of disconnected-from-the-real-world and rabid-bias-against-males-and-caucasians. It is outright bull, don't waste your money.