Is Anything Really Worth Fighting For?

"I know that for me, the war is wrong. 

I know that, if the [Russians] wanted my little house, 

I would rather give it them than fight for it: 

because my little house is not important enough to me." [1]

 

I. 

 

I said in a recent post with reference to the current situation in Ukraine, that it might have been a wiser diplomatic move on Zelenskyy's part to have attempted to appease Putin - making whatever concessions were needed in order to avoid war - rather than have flirted with the West and indicated his desire to not only join the EU, but NATO.  

Still, it's a bit late for such a policy now that Russia has invaded and major Ukranian cities, including the captal, are being bombarded even as I write. And I'm aware also that appeasement is a dirty word in the political lexicon these days - not least here in the UK, following our experiences in the 1930s with Hitler (give him an inch ...)

 

However, there's really no need for the Ukranians to martyr themselves and I would advise that they capitulate and seek terms with Russia as soon as possible. For there's no shame in surrendering to a massively superior force and, again as I said in the post prior to this one, discretion is the greater part of valour.

 

I don't think this makes me a coward; for it often takes much greater courage to live and refuse to die. 

 

And neither does it make me a pacifist in the conventional sense: I don't have a moral objection to war and certainly don't subscribe to an ideal of peace, love, and the brotherhood of man. I am simply of the view that, in this case, non-violent resistance and civil disobedience makes better strategic sense than armed conflict and self-sacrifice.  

 

 

II. 

 

My thinking in this matter has not, then, been shaped by the likes of white worms such as Bertrand Russell and Mahatma Gandhi. 

 

Rather, it's been influenced by D. H. Lawrence, who, whilst writing in favour of combat in the old sense - "fierce, unrelenting, honorable contest" [2] - abhors the thought of war in the modern machine age; "a ghastly and blasphemous translation of ideas into engines, and men into cannon fodder" [3]. 

It's a beautiful thing, says Lawrence, for a man to die "in a flame of passionate conflict [...] for death is to him a passional consummation" [4] and his soul can rest in peace. But to be blown to smithereens while you are eating a kanapki is something obscene and monstrous. 

 

Thus, the Ukranians should refuse to die in such a manner and refuse to fight an abstract invisible enemy whom they will never meet face-to-face on the battlefield. If the Russians are that desperate to occupy territories in the East of Ukraine, then let them ...   

 

Ultimately, it might be the case that the only thing really worth fighting for, tooth and nail, is not your spouse, your children, your country, your fellow citizens, your money, your property, or even your life, but that bit of inward peace, that allows you to reflect with a certain insouciance ... [5] 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] D. H. Lawrence, letter to Catherine Carswell (9 July 1916), in The Letters of D. H. Lawrence, Vol. II, ed. George J. Zytaruk and James T. Boulton, (Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp.625-628. Lines quoted are on p. 626. 

      I have slightly modified what Lawrence writes, replacing the word 'Germans' with 'Russians'. In this crucial statement of Lawrence's views on what is and is not worth fighting for, he continues:

 

"If another man must fight for his house, the more's the pity. But it is his affair. To fight for possessions, goods, is what my soul will not do. Therefore it will not fight for the neighbour who fights for his own goods.

      All this war, this talk of nationality, to me is false. I feel no nationality, not fundamentally. I feel no passion for my own land, nor my own house, nor my own furniture, nor my own money. Therefore I won't pretend any. Neither will I take part in the scrimmage, to help my neighbour. It is his affair to go in or stay out, as he wishes." [626]

 

      See note 5 below for a reference to a later poem in which Lawrence returns to this theme. 

      And cf. with what Birkin says in chapter two of Women in Love when asked whether he would fight for his hat should someone wish to steal it off his head; "'it is open to me to decide, which is a greater loss to me, my hat, or my liberty as a free and indifferent man'". See the Cambridge edition (1987), ed. David Farmer, Lindeth Vasey and John Worthen, p. 29.         

 

[2] D. H. Lawrence, 'Education of the People', in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays, ed. Michael Herbert, (Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 158-59. 

 

[3] Ibid., p. 159.

 

[4] Ibid.

 

[5] I am paraphrasing here from Lawrence's verse 'What would you fight for?' in The Poems, Vol. I, ed. Christopher Pollnitz, (Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 431.

Reflections on the War in Ukraine and the Disquieting Problem of Actor-Politicians

Volodymyr Zelenskyy (SA/2022)

Based on his official presidential portrait (2019)

 

The problem of the actor-politician has long concerned me -

their constant need to play a role, to assume a mask, to post on social media ... [1]

 

 

I. 

 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a classic manifestation of macrophysical violence which has developed in the tension between two states that share a border, i.e., something that divides people into those within (friends and fellow citizens) and those without (foreign enemies).   

 

Such violence, which allows neither for mediation nor conciliation, "exposes the interior to an exterior that defies the interior structure of order and meaning" [2] in an often explosive and deadly manner - as we see today in various Ukranian cities - robbing victims of their lives whilst denying those who survive any room to manoeuver (ultimately, they can only flee). 

 

 

II. 

 

Of course, there's no shame in fleeing; discretion being the greater part of valour and he who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day, etc. 

 

The Ukranians could simply have allowed the Russians to enter their land and introduce a different system of order and meaning, replacing one form of government, one way of life, by another. In other words, they could have accepted regime change with a certain stoic indifference. 

 

And there's an argument to be made that non-violent resistance and civil disobedience to Russian rule might have been - strategically and pragmatically - the wiser option. After all, 70-year-old Putin won't be in charge at the Kremlin forever (his resorting to military violence is in fact a sign of his declining power). 

 

Thus, one can't help wondering whether Volodymyr Zelenskyy's decision to encourage his people to take up arms in a war that cannot be won and at an enormous cost in terms of lives and infrastructure, might have been mistaken. 

 

Indeed, I'm tempted to also ask whether Zelenskyy's defiant stand against the Red Army might be viewed as a vainglorious gesture on the part of a performer who loves being in the media spotlight and commanding the world stage, rather than as an act of heroism. 

 

Behind every comic actor, they say, is a great tragedian dying to get out. But WWIII seems an exorbitant price to pay for the chance to see Zelenskyy in his greatest role and I really don't know if we should give him ammunition or an Academy Award.           

 

 

Note: 

 

[1] Readers familiar with Nietzsche will know that I'm paraphrasing here from V. 361 of The Gay Science, a section entitled Vom Probleme des Schauspielers. As Nietzsche says, a good actor can easily pass themselves off as a good politician; and a good politician is free at any time to become a good actor. 

      Interestingly, it might be noted that Zelenskyy is also Jewish and Nietzsche claims that the Jews are the people who best possess the art of adaptability, which is why - following this slightly dubious line of argument - so many great actors are Jewish.  

 

[2] Byung-Chul Han, Topology of Violence, trans. Amanda DeMarco, (Polity Press, 2018), p. 64.