One person's gross generalisation is another's interpretive metaphor. I
suppose it's a matter of perspective. I like to think that interpretation
is the soul of material culture analysis, while literal classification is
its body (sorry, more messy metaphors!).
Anyway, I'll concede that uniforms are not literally politics, but when
making intellectual links and connections--interpreting--they can
metaphorically *be* politics. Of course, perhaps I should have made clear
that I'm meaning to manipulate ideas here, not matter.
Uniforms "are" politics like war "is" hell. Not literally true, but true
nonetheless depending on the interpreter. If one chooses to see objects
only literally, that's OK too. It makes filing condition reports a lot
easier! I don't think anyone would file uniform under politics. Still, I
enjoy the activity of thinking about artifacts beyond their literal
fabric, so I think it's OK to make connections like "uniforms are
politics." (another well-known example: "The medium is the message.")
Thus ends my plug for dexterity. Apologies to any offended by my
putting the before cart the horse, unreasonable approach, gross
generalisations, etc.
This is an interesting thread. Thanks all!
-Doug
...............................
Doug Lantry
The Ohio Historical Society
Statehouse Education and Visitors Center
Columbus, Ohio
[log in to unmask]
On Fri, 8 May 1998, Dave wrote:
> To answer Doug Lantry's questions:
>
> "So is it too big a stretch to say that artifacts *are* politics? That
> uniforms *are* politics? Or should we back off semantically and
> just say they *have* politics?"
>
> Yes, it is too big a stretch to apply non-material culture aspects to
> materaial culture objects: one my be representative of the other, or an
> expression of that non-material culture aspect, but they are not
> equal--and it is more than a matter of semantics.
>
> Material culture artefacts/objects can have a political nature relevant
> to their purpose/use, BUT they are not necessarily political policies in
> of themselves. One cannot put the horse before the cart in such a gross
> generalisation that the military uniforms are the same as carnage and
> killing, although many times they are used in those actions (and then it
> is the BDUs (Battle Dress Utilities) and not the dress uniforms which
> are most often used in such actions. To put that military uniforms, ARE
> the political policy is stretching an adminstrative decision a little
> too far. I know it is popular to stretch such to fit, but I think we
> have to take a reasonable approach to what it is that we are discussing,
> what its implications and uses are (like the above distinction between
> the implications and uses of dress uniforms and BDUs--they both do dress
> military but their uses are different and the situations in which they
> are used, the activities thereof, are different.) While both dress and
> BDU uniforms have come about through some political decision and the
> BDUs may represent an action that results in killing, killing is not
> always the end result (because we live in nation that values war very
> highly does not mean that all countries do such; to make military
> uniforms synonymous with killing in that context is unenlightened (e.g.
> the Swiss Alpenflage is used by the defensive forces of Switzerland--so
> far they have not seen either battles or killings).
>
> If we want to go into this kind of gross association, I would put
> fertilizer on the list of materials that kill, explosives, since when
> combined with diesel fuel (another agent involved in killing, and very
> definite political overtones) equals an explosive (remember the Oklahoma
> Federal building?).
>
> Dave Wells
> Olympia WA
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Doug Lantry wrote:
> >
> > One listmember posted on the notion of artifacts being separate
> > from policy and actions (see re-post underneath riposte below).
> >
> > Alternative view on the absolute separation of
> > artifacts from politics:
> >
> > Some (me included) feel artifacts *do* have politics. For a convincing
> > explanation, see Langdon Winner's essay "Do Artifacts have Politics?"
> > I don't have the bib ref right now, but if anyone wants it I can find
> > it.
> >
> > The argument is simple: Made things turn out the way they do because
> > people who made them have attitudes, priorities, agendas, cultural
> > outlooks, etc. In this way, the politics of homo faber are embedded in
> > artifice. How could this kind of thing apply to military uniforms?
> > Here's a shot in the dark: I'll bet regalia of different nations and
> > military services look very different (and similar too) for reasons
> > related to the wishes of their designers and users, and are not entirely
> > dependent on the "form-function" question.
> >
> > So is it too big a stretch to say that artifacts *are* politics? That
> > uniforms *are* politics? Or should we back off semantically and just
> > say they *have* politics? I think that's an interesting question. Sorry if
> > I've misconstrued or oversimplified, but it simply occurred to me that
> > separating artifacts from politics might lead to missing chances for
> > interpretive insight.
> >
> > best regards to all,
> > Doug
> >
> > ........................................
> > Doug Lantry
> > The Ohio Historical Society
> > Statehouse Education and Visitors Center
> > Columbus, Ohio
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > On Thu, 7 May 1998, Dave wrote:
> >
> > > Military uniforms are only a part of the presentation of history, and
> > > are not of themselves more than historic documents. Do not confuse
> > > policy and actions with material culture objects/artefacts as they are
> > > VERY different. (One never sees that automobile museums present the
> > > on-road deaths or destruction of the landscape as that is neither their
> > > mission nor their intent.)
> > >
> > > On this original topic of uniforms in exhibtion, please check the New
> > > York Public Library's Resources on Military Uniforms:
> > > http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/subguides/milhist/costnypl.html
> > >
>
|
