Contending with the Warrior (Part 1)
How language reflects our values and guides the direction of our lives…
I am NOT a warrior.
Ok, I know… I don’t think this is a surprise to anyone who knows me… but I’ve been thinking about culture, our place within culture and how to heal as an individual and I’m feeling called to discuss this belief. I feel a bit hesitant talking about this, because the statement feels contrary to the values of our modern western culture, and the statement itself is taking a stand against something rather than offering a solution- which, it turns out, is at the heart of the issue I’m grappling with. Plus, staying quiet about it, seems to tacitly enable and empower this dynamic - and that’s something I’d like to explore changing…
So, let’s get into it:
“I am NOT a warrior.”
What does that mean? Why does it matter? And if I’m not that, then what do I consider myself to be?
The words we use reflect our values which guide our intentions and priorities.
In the course of the next couple posts, I’d like to address why language matters for defining the direction of our lives and how we may take the seemingly smallest steps within ourselves to better our health and wellbeing as well as redirect the path our culture is currently taking.
Our values and priorities are clearly demonstrated by our actions. However, the words we use can obscure and confuse what is meant by those actions.
(Alert: My liberal/vegan values are on display here, but don’t worry, I’m not proselytizing, just making a point about language and values.)
For Example:
How we use our money reflects our values. The Defense Budget for the U.S. is consistently growing and in 2023 is nearly 800 billion dollars. In 2021, that amount superseded the military budget of the next 9 highest spending countries combined (Here’s a nice article and chart to illustrate what this means) . Directing resources this way, in one interpretation, defines the U.S. as valuing and prioritizing “war”, “power”, “strength”, “domination” over all else. Compare that budget to the approximate numbers of 88 billion for education and 45 billion for climate change.
Some might argue that the U.S. values “freedom” and “democracy” above all else. However, just taking a surface look at the actions the U.S. has taken around the world lays doubt upon that claim (ie: when we’ve chosen to support dictators and even overthrow democratically elected leftists when our perceived economic interests are at stake) . Moreover, in comparative studies, the qualities, values and sense of both freedom and democracy rank higher in other countries despite their smaller military budgets. (Check out Freedom House and The Economist).
Euphemisms mask our true intentions and muddy the expression of our values. When we say we’re eating “beef” instead of “cow” or “bacon” instead of “pig”, are we protecting ourselves from the contradiction regarding how we connect with and cherish the lives of our animals, such as our pets, while at the same time consuming animals like them?
So too, the term “defense department” is somewhat true, but also masks and muddies the actions and priorities of sustaining our economic and power interests around the world.
Euphemism is a good strategy to make our priorities seem acceptable to others by obscuring the meaning of our actions. Using the term “pro-life” is much harder to argue against than “anti-abortion” - and obscures the disregard for women’s health and civil rights.
Another potent way to gain favor with your actions is to infuse a word with multiple values and meanings.
Here is where I begin to contend with the term “Warrior.”
Warriors need a war - in other words- if a warrior is not fighting against something, then the term loses meaning. In order to be a warrior, one needs to be either fighting or ready to fight - which is the opposite of being at peace. If I am literally in a war, I could understand defining myself as a warrior. However, even then, most people might be called to do what is necessary, but still define themselves by their values and desires in more peaceful times (such as a father, artist, citizen, doctor, etc.) So, to define oneself as “warrior”, to me, requires a specific identification with fighting. Why has fighting acquired such positive connotations in our culture?
Glorification of violence
We glorify violence. We celebrate stories of warriors standing up to evil. We may feel the need to do this to psychologically cope with and make sense of violent events. If we exalt the meaning of the event and idealize those who fight, we keep the trauma to our psyches at bay. We are also bombarded with dramatic fighting scenes in our media, with very little attention given to the consequences of such violence, which helps glorify the action. This makes sense from a psychological marketing standpoint, whether in news or entertainment: Violence grabs our attention- maybe because it would be a rarer occurrence in the natural order of things, and because it arouses our nervous system’s instinct for survival. The problem is that every news story vies to be “breaking news” and every movie is competing to produce the most “epic battle”. The result is the terms lose meaning, we become desensitized to the images and messages, and we need more stimulus - greater violence - to keep our attention. All the while, our nervous systems remain in a constant state of low grade stress which has been proven to be a the root of many disease processes.
Disconnection from feelings:
In ancient Greece, the theatre of tragedy and the stories of epic battles were, in part, thought of as ways people could develop empathy and experience the feelings of tragedy without actually having to live through those situations. Catharsis, or the process of experiencing, releasing and providing relief from strong or repressed emotions is thought to be a healthy effect of theatre and art. It was a regulating force to keep society civil and usually reinforced lessons regarding morality and respect. The aggression in sports is often touted as having the same effect. The main difference I see, however, is that theatre and art invites us to reflect on myth, story, and meaning to personalize and grow from that vicarious experience. In sport, we find inspiration from the athletes’ skill and achievements but the aggression displayed doesn’t carry the same invitation to reflect upon our own values and the consequences of aggression in our own lives. It actually tends to encourage the opposite: think of the spectator’s frenzied reaction toward hockey player’s fighting. In today’s world, moreover, much of what we consume serves to disassociate us from our own feelings. Of course, there is plenty of valuable theatre and art being produced, but a large quantity of it serves less as delving into societal questions and improving the human experience and more to distract us and create a profit for the entertainment industry.
It might be a consequence of how and how much of it we consume, but having screens everywhere and becoming absorbed into them has been shown to increase depression and decrease our ability to connect well with others. Instead of an occasional diversion from everyday life, our lives become so full of distraction that fully living in the present moment only occurs rarely, accompanied by uncomfortable feelings so that we can’t wait to find our next diversion. Like a drug, this all has a numbing effect. I believe, in this numbed state, we also become desensitized to the violent, entertainment content we’re consuming. We no longer associate the violence we’re virtually experiencing as tragic, but something we are actively seeking to both soothe and entertain ourselves.
I can’t help but think this desensitization and disassociation from our feelings serves a purpose. Not necessarily in a conspiratorial way as if someone is intentionally manipulating our society, but rather from a systemic point of view. In Terry Real’s book, I Don’t Want to Talk About It, he describes how in a patriarchal society, men, in particular, are trained and encouraged to disassociate from their feelings. Using references to books such as The Things They Carried, he illustrates the intentional training of men to divorce themselves from their sensitivity, and to dehumanize others so that they would be able to commit acts of violence in war. Unfortunately, that ethos and training carries over to all realms of life and cannot be contained only to the “theatre of war”.
This is reflected in our language, values, priorities, and actions.
Let’s look at language now:
Intentional messaging?
Veteran’s day was once called Armistice Day. It started as a recognition and celebration both for those who fought and sacrificed for their country, but also for the end of fighting - recognizing when agreements were reached to establish peace. But once it changed to Veteran’s day, around the time of the Korean War, the meaning of the day focused on those who fought but removed the emphasis on peace. Surely, Veterans deserve honor, recognition and respect for their sacrifices. But the removal of the word, “armistice”, indicating the end of violence and the beginning of peace seems to reflect the intentions and values of the culture as a whole. The culture seems to have given up on the ideal of peace. Maybe the word itself did not suit a culture that intended to continue the escalation of militaristic pursuits.
Our culture is flooded with violent, warrior based terminology.
Some suggest that sports, like theatre is a way for us to express our “violent natures” in a culturally acceptable and “safe” way (I disagree with this and align more with another viewpoint which I’ll get to in a bit). Many of our sports contain violent acts: Football, rugby, wrestling, waterpolo, boxing, martial arts, hockey, and fencing are just a few. These sports have value particularly in the physical skills, teamwork, and perseverance that they teach - so I’m not arguing that no one should play sports that contain violence. When I used to practice Tae Kwon Do, I described the patterns of movement we studied more like an art form rather than a practice for fighting, and I did gain some confidence in building my fighting skills. But I do think we should be aware that those sports are played on the canvas of violent behavior and not pretend that such actions have no consequences. I am concerned that by normalizing and even glorifying violence in sports, we are desensitizing our psyches to allow for more violence in the culture at large.
A few examples of the crossover from sports to sanctioned violence:
Football has literally been described as mimicking war and was actually used at one point to train potential soldiers for the rigors of battle.
Boot Camp style fitness regimes are literally named after military training getting people ready to go into battle.
Spartan races, which I really enjoy for the skills required to overcome the obstacles, are not violent against others per se, but are mired in glorified messages about ancient warriors. (Some of these races actually require a lot of teamwork, but still have some strong messaging about violence against oneself)
When engaging in a fitness activity, it’s illuminating to ask:
“When would I use this movement in life? Why is this movement useful?”
I question whether sports are simply ways to express healthy aggression and competitiveness or if through the seemingly benign realm of sports we are indoctrinated into the violent values and ways of thinking that serve the militaristic paradigm in which we live.
Let’s look at some of the language used in sports:
First, the framing of a game or match is usually a zero sum model of competition - meaning there must be a winner and a loser. This is fine as a structure of a game, but we might ask:
Have we transferred that framing to every other aspect of our society?
Have we lost sight of other ways of engaging in the world?
However, the emphasis is often not on what the winning side can do better, but on what the winning side has done TO the opponent. We are not only trying to win a game, but to “defeat” and “crush” the other. Pro-athletes have related in order to compete at that level and do what was required to the players of the opposing team, they had to de-humanize the other side. This is the same tactic used around the world in war. If you see your opponent as fully human, you will not be able to do to them what some of these “sports” related words describe:
Tackle
Smash
Crush
Pummel
Strike
Kill
What I find so fascinating and somewhat frightening is that these words have all taken on positive associations not only in sport but in the culture at large:
“Tackle that project."
“Smash the obstacles in your way.”
“Obliterate the competition.”
“How did your presentation go?” - “I crushed it.” “I killed it.”
From the forest to the trees, as the language moves from the culture at large to organizations to interactions between individuals we eventually arrive at internalized messages in the language we use about ourselves.
We often talk to ourselves as if we were our own enemy. In regards to our physical health and our own psyches, we use language implying we need to suppress our instincts, vanquish our natural impulses, conquer the parts of us we deem unacceptable. We engage in war with ourselves and wonder why we have trouble finding peace and joy. When we glorify being a warrior, whether it’s against a country, culture, another person, or aspects of ourselves, we create oppositional energy which reinforces the problem.
“If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” - Abraham Maslow
I recently talked to a healer friend about her experience with Family Systems. This type of therapy deals with the systems that exist within the relationships of one’s family to not only heal the relationships, but also to heal the systems and patterns within an individual. One premise in this type of therapy is that warring against or simply escaping from one’s family does not work. Whether you are engaged in direct confrontation or running away, that oppositional force, in essence, solidifies the relationship and creates a strong bond to very people you are either escaping or fighting as “me against them”. The tragedy here is that it cuts off the possibility for growth. (However, escape is still the best strategy if the family is violent, abusive and putting you in danger - dealing with healing and relationships can come later and in other ways)
In regards to dealing with the nuclear age, Einstein once said:
“You cannot solve a problem from the same level of mind from which it was created.”
This is why war does not work as a path to peace, but rather damages both the victim and the victor, if not physically, then psychologically. Yet, we are primed as a culture to “do battle” and “declare war” on every problem and fear: The War on Drugs, The War on Cancer, The War on Crime, The War on Poverty, The War on Climate Change, The Battle of “good” vs. “evil”. None succeed because the premise is flawed. Jesus may have been pointing us in a different direction from “an eye for an eye” with his teaching of “turn the other cheek.” Unfortunately, our cultures and primal/survival brains have taken a long time to shift. However, I am encouraged that there are many of us out there teaching and showing another way…
“Let the soft animal of your body love what it loves” - Mary Oliver
If this gets you wondering about finding another way, I suggest starting simple over the next few days:
Start with awareness:
Make a mental note whenever you encounter messaging in the media using violent words (even if it seems justified, and it will, almost always, seem justified.)
Make a mental note whenever you use violent words with others. I don’t necessarily mean when you use violent words against others while in an argument or in any abusive way (although do pay attention to that as well), but rather when you use words that describe violence and war-like actions to illustrate whatever you’re talking about. No need to change anything at this point, this is just an exercise to notice how we habitually communicate.
If you do identify any of those words, ask yourself: “Is that what I really mean?”
Make a mental note whenever you speak to yourself with violent or abusive words. Again, just notice.
Again, ask yourself: “Is that what I really mean?”
If you’re not sure, ask: “Would I ever talk to a loved one with those words?”
If you start to notice a list of words that keep arising, ponder if there are any alternatives? Would another word actually be more true?
(Next time we’ll look at archetypes and how to start a cultural shift…stay tuned!)