FOUNDATION FOR THE STUDY OF POLITICAL PATHOLOGY

Ever since he wrote Hitler’s Ideology: A Study in Psychoanalytic Sociology in 1975 (New York: Library of Social Science), Richard A. Koenigsberg has deployed his very own institutional base in New York to expose specific themes in the Nazi ideology with evangelical zeal.

In this new monograph one theme focuses on the manner in which Hitler’s experiences in the trenches of the First World War entrenched his support for Germany’s goals in that war[1] and the principle that the individual must sacrifice self for national cause. Rather than decry the horrors of wartime bloodshed, Hitler was elevated by the community of the trenches and venerated those comrades who died in the fight.

Modris Eksteins tells us that this bohemian loner of the pre-1914 years “came to regard his war experience as … his training in life,” so that his subsequent retellings bubble with exuberance (1989: 307-08). Koenigsberg argues that on this foundation Hitler directed his fury towards the weak Germans who were deemed to have shirked their duty, specifically the German Jews.

Thus, the logic of war in Hitler’s reasoning eventually led to the logic of genocide (pp. 14, 1, 00). Parenthetically it can be added that Mark Mazower’s work reveals that the campaigns pursued by the Nazi German armies seeking to create an empire “cost the lives of as many other Europeans as Jews who perished in the Holocaust” and that roughly “8.2 million civilians … perished under Nazi occupation in Europe as a whole.” This outcome derived in part because they “wanted empty spaces in Eastern Europe” in order “to create their new Germanized Utopia” (Hastings 2008: 46, 47-48).

In an important move the theme about Hitler’s obsessions is expanded by Koenigsberg to expose the horrendous maiming and killing that occurred in the battlefields of World War One. Statistical and descriptive details serve as a platform for a passionate condemnation of the nation state and its adjunct ideology, nationalism.

Germany was not alone in the overwhelming emphasis on the call of the nation: a sacrificial ideology suffused the thinking of all the protagonists. Koenigsberg’s task is to expose the “fundamental structure of thought” and “psychological dynamic” underlining this war effort (pp. 65, 45); and, by implication, all modern wars. His book, therefore, is a searing criticism of the fact that “in war, human bodies are sacrificed in the name of perpetuating a magical entity, the body politic” (p. 42).[2]

In this little monograph Koenigsberg beats these two tom-toms (dual drums) as one strident refrain, indulging in considerable repetition of statistic, fact, quotation and argument. The percussive effect, I caution, should not lead readers to discard the work and its many vignettes of illustrative material.

Without expertise in European history in the twentieth century I am not qualified to evaluate his summary of Nazi ideology. Eckstein’s work (part of his bibliography) certainly supports Keonigsberg’s insistence that Hitler’s experience in the frontlines[3] informed his ideological outpourings (1989: 305-11, 193-95). But Koenigsberg does not compose his arguments in relation to the standard accounts of the two world wars or Nazi ideology provided by reputed historians in ways that permit ordinary readers to locate him within the intellectual firmament.[4]

Nor is the critical literature on the nation state held up for view in ways which enable readers to discern where Koenigsberg differs from those who are hostile to nationalism qua nationalism or those who pinpoint its excesses. Where other scholars (Ecksteins, Glenn Gray and Jay Winter for example) are brought into the argument, they enter as embellishments of the book’s main themes.

Again the considerable literature on sacrifice is not reviewed in ways that situate his work within that terrain.[5] In brief, this is not a comprehensive survey. Koenigsberg simply forges his own path: there is tunnel-vision here, hence my reference to “evangelical zeal.”

Such failures notwithstanding, significant facets of twentieth century Europe were thrown up before my outsider eyes. It is towards an elaboration of these strands of empirical argument and evidence and their implications for my own work that I now move in point form.

One: the quotations from leading Nazi figures display their deep commitment to Germany as heimat and collective. “Bourgeois privatism” was simply detested (p. 18). The individual was to be totally subordinated to the nation. “You are nothing, your nation is everything.” said Hitler on one occasion (p. 13). The “socialism” in the Nazi title was the fraternity of the frontline trenches.

As one Nazi ideologue put it, the nation was “simply ‘a higher human being’ ” (quoted in Ecksteins 1989: 195). This leads Eckstein to the conclusion that in Nazi thinking “the individual was the nation…. The nation had been telescoped into the dynamic individual” (1989: 195, emphasis his).

Two: Koenigsberg also highlights some striking analogies. The railway cattle trucks that brought masses of German troops to the battle front during WW One were not dissimilar to the cattle trucks taking jam-packed Jewish people to concentration camps some 20 years later (pp. 27-28). Indeed, the conditions suffered by German troops on the Russian front in the latter stages of the Second World War were not far removed from the situation in the concentration camps.

I suggest that some caveats should be attached to the latter comparison: the German Army had overreached itself in Russia and not all the troops were destined to die. However, the more important issue for specialist social scientists is whether such sidelights sustain the thesis that the Nazi logic of genocide flowed out of the logic of war (p. 14).

Three: the more significant aspect of this book is the move from the specifics of German policies to that of the other countries involved in the First World War. Military strategy was directed by the belief that human wave attacks had enabled the Japanese to triumph over the Russians in 1904-05.[6] Thus informed, both sets of protagonists pursued a policy of “offensive at all costs” (p. 47).

Directed by this goal the maintenance of morale and discipline was seen as a determining factor of success. In consequence a total of nine million soldiers were killed, 21 million wounded and nearly 8 million were taken prisoner or reported missing – adding up to 58 percent of the total manpower that was mobilized (p. 47).

Such horrendous casualties developed out of military thrusts that, for the most part, gained little ground and got continually bogged down in stalemate.[7]

Four: remarkably, the idiom of sacrifice drummed up by each nation’s leaders and media outlets was accepted and reiterated by some men as they resided in the stench and mud of the trenches. “I shall have died the most glorious of deaths. Do not bewail me too much…” wrote a French soldier, George Morillot, in a letter to a kinsperson (p. 42). Apparently such commitment was widespread and desertions were relatively few.[8] On a regular basis men marched in line into machine gun fire and were cut down like blades of grass before a scythe.

The heroic acceptance of death by so many males, one should note, was preceded by the fanfare and glory surrounding marching bodies of troops as the public in all major cities on both sides of the war assembled in excitement to acclaim their patriotism (p. 65). The “euphoria” in Germany when war was declared in August 1914 is said to have been “millenarian” and Hitler was among those in Odeonplatz in Munich who was rendered ecstatic by the announcement (Ecksteins 1989: 197, 306: see picture of his face in this book).

Let me, here, inject two embellishments: it would appear that the cult of masculinity and encouragement of “muscular Christianity” during the latter half of the nineteenth century came home to roost in 1914-18.[9] In the result, by way of example, Australia and Australians joined the war effort with pride and trumpet. They would show the world that they were worthy of nationhood: they would prove their worth in a “baptism of fire.”[10] That they did, in their own estimation, in the magnificent defeat at Gallipoli.

Thus the landing of troops at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915 has become enshrined as Australia’s de facto national day. The cultural producers of print, visual arts and rhetoric who fashioned the image of the heroic (Australian) Anzac[11] in subsequent years inscribed motifs of youthful virility, purity and innocence within this icon (Flaherty & Roberts 1989).

The mateship and sacrificial heroism of the Anzac men was widely extolled, with a special emphasis on the dead.[12] Significantly, the first commemoration of this event was marked at Westminster Cathedral on 25 April 1916.[13] Subsequent intellectual work and material artefacts built on this heritage.

Five: thus, an emphasis on sacrifice on behalf of the nation was pervasive in most countries participating in the First World War. The vocabulary was drawn from the religious lexicon, even where some of these countries had moved towards establishing a secular modern state. French soldiers spoke of their sacrifice as a force towards redemption. Attending a field mass for 500 dead, an observer affirmed that “it is by … suffering that regeneration occurs” (quoted p. 67).

Likewise, in his exhortatory and legitimising rhetoric, the French novelist and politician, Maurice Barres,[14] spoke of rebuilding souls (p. 68). It would seem that the language of state inspiration and mobilization on the one hand, and thus the language of justification as well as the subsequent language of reflection, could not but draw on the religious imagery that is so deeply etched into Western cultural form.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the elite levels of Western culture were also enamoured of the Greek civilization and its achievements. The slant was masculine: Richard Jenkyns has argued that “the Greek genius [was seen] as a kind of lithe, buoyant athleticism” and that “in the age of muscular Christianity the Greeks became muscular pagans, clean fresh air became a symbol of the Hellenic spirit” (1980: 170).

C. E. W. Bean, the Australian war journalist turned historian, was among the secularized Australian intellectuals whose experience of the war[15] was bolstered by readings of the Greek world in ways that informed the fashioning of the Anzac as icon. He took to heart a Greek inspiration from the Dardanelles that he had gathered from the National Museum at Athens:

"These by the Dardanelles laid down their shining youth in battle, and won fair renown for their native land, so that their enemy groaned, carrying war’s harvest from the field.[16]"

Six: in further extension, and drawing inspiration from Bruce Kapferer’s work, it can be suggested that the idiom and symbolism of inspiration and commemoration deployed during and after World War One was not purely “Christian,” but rather “Judeo-Christian.”[17] In his analysis of the Anzac symbolism commemorating the war for Australia, Kapferer insists that the “Anzacs are vital symbolic embodiments of the Australian nationalist imagination because they established an identity for Australia in the context of the very ideological and ontological roots of Western Judeo-Christian civilization” (1988: 126-27).

Seven: significantly, Kapferer sees his comparative study of Australian and Sinhalese nationalism in contemporary times[18] as a work that reveals how “nationalism makes the political religious and places the nation above politics.”

The nation is created as an object of devotion and the political forces which become focused upon it are intensified in their energy and passion. The religion of nationalism, wherein the political is shrouded in the symbolism of “higher” purpose, is vital to the momentum of nationalism.

This momentum [can be] among the most liberating, but also among the most oppressive … political energies of [our time]. The religion of nationalism … has engulfed … political ideas and doctrines—liberal democracy, communism, socialism, fascism, and anarchism — in its path. These have become subordinate to the nationalist purpose (1988: 1).

At one point he also notes that the “political nation [as] the object of devotion assumes messianic and proselytizing dimensions” (1988: 136). At such a point, therefore, one is reminded of the images of Hitler in his most insane mood.

So here then we have Kapferer crossing Koenigsberg’s trail. Though his position is not grounded in the theoretical foundations that sustain Kapferer’s arguments, Koenigsberg insists that Nazism “was a form of religion” (p. 18) within a more general argument that “nationalism is a living religion” (p. xiii).

Eight: rather to my surprise, one of the ecstatic celebrations of the heroic dead in the fields of Europe recounted within Koenigsberg’s book came from the turbulent heart of Padraig Pearse: “The last sixteen months have been the most glorious in the history of Europe. … It is good for the world to be warmed with the red wine of the battle field. Such august homage was never before offered to God as this….” (pp. 22 & p. 42).

My surprise originates in my passing familiarity with Patrick Henry Pearse. His stirring orations in the cause of Irish resistance to British domination had been among the ingredients that I had drawn upon in my early work on the stimuli for anti-colonial movements. To hear him praise the heroism of his English enemies seemed incongruous – till reflections led me to see the logic energising his devotion to heroic sacrifice.

For it is from dead Irish martyrs that Pearse drew some of his inspiration.[19] It was the path of death in the Irish nationalist cause that Pearse himself trod a few months after he made this statement: he was one of the leaders of the Easter Uprising of 1916, an effort that failed and eventually led to his execution on 3 May 1916.[20]

Nine: in this manner, then, through Pearse, we find that resistance struggle in search of self-determination is meshed into Koenigsberg’s argument that “war … is a sacrificial ritual that valorizes the nation-state” (p. 45). Through Pearse, therefore, we can expand our survey to other conflicts today where participants see themselves as liberation fighters.

One such contemporary example is the effort of those Tamils in Sri Lanka who set forth to hive off an independent state in the island of Sri Lanka, a goal embodied in the name “Eelam” which identified this state-to-be.[21] Though initially many armed groups pursued this cause, between 1986 and 1990 the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam led by Velupillai Pirapāharan carved out a dominant place for itself in this endeavour.[22] It is through selective themes from research on the Tigers’ repertoire of exhortation, legitimisation and commemoration that I conclude this survey.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Note: Kaiser Wilhelm II “shared Hitler’s belief in a worldwide anti-German plot and possessed the same aspiration to rule Europe” (Hastings 2008: 46) summarizing the work by Mazower (2008).

[2] For this reason, we can also note that it elliptically complements Mark Mazower’s recent reminder that “far too much modern scholarship about the Nazi era addresses the Holocaust in isolation” (Hasting 2008: 48).

[3] Note that Hitler was decorated with the Iron Cross on two different occasions.

[4] There is one exception: criticism is levelled at the bland military accounts of the World War One that function to naturalize its horrors (pp. 34-37).

[5] For instance, Rene Girard 1977, Valerio Valeri 1985 and Bruce Kapferer 1988 & 1997.

[6] Koenigsberg 2008: 50. The existence of this belief was confirmed by Brian Victoria; who then went on to explain that more recent researches have shown that it was the decline of the will to fight within the home front in Russia that was central to their capitulation, while on the battlefield on land it was the Japanese naval artillery deployed as land guns that turned the tide at a critical battle (conversation 6 Dec. 2008).

[7] Trevor Wilson (who has considerable expertise in military history) of the History Dept., University of Adelaide, confirmed this fact, with a caveat re the German General’s Ludendorf’s campaign in 1918.

[8] Again, confirmed by Trevor Wilson.

[9] Cf. Koenigsberg 2008: 54-55.

[10] See Toowoomba Chronicle, 30 April 1915 and Argus, 8 May 1915. For other references, see Flaherty & Roberts 1989: 53.

[11] “Anzac” is actually an acronym standing for the Australian and New Zealand Army command (?). In Australian vision the New Zealanders are often obliterated.

[12] Also see Kapferer 1988 and Ken Inglis 1965.

[13] Times, 25 & 26 April 1916.

[14] Barres (1862-1923) was a French novelist, journalist and nationalist politician. In Wikipedia he is described as a “strong supporter of the Union sacrée (Holy Union) during World War I, Barrès remained a major influence of generations of French writers, as well as of monarchists, although he was not a monarchist himself.”

[15] Oxford educated in the 1890s, Bean was embedded among the troops at Gallipoli as well as the Western front as a war correspondent.

[16] “Memorials in Stone,” Reveille, vol. 6, 1 May 1933, p. 28. Also see Flaherty & Roberts 1989: passim.

[17] This is Kapferer’s reading. His father, let me note, was French Jewish migrant to Australia in the 1930s so that his understanding is coloured by the Jewish heritage of himself (as well as his wife, Judy).

[18] His study underlines the difference between the two forms, while yet insisting that both are modern. For a subsequent elaboration see Kapferer 1991. Cf., too, the emphasis on the “sacralisation of politics” in Schalk 1997b and Hellmann-Rajanayagam 2005: 116.

[19] I have not discovered where precisely I deployed Pearse, but recollect that his oration referred to the Irish dead. I think I got this quotation from Nicholas Mansergh’s The Commonwealth Experience.

[20] Re Pearse see Ruth Edwards 1977.

[21] These Tamil militants are described by the state and those totally attached to the existing polity as “terrorists.” This is part of the propaganda war that I am side-stepping.

[22] This position was secured by eliminating or squeezing out all rivals, especially other armed groups (see text below).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bastin, Rohan 2002 The Domain of Constant Excess. Plural Worship at the Munnesvaram Temples in Sri Lanka, New York: Berghahn Books.

Bayly, Susan 1989 Saints, Goddesses and Kings. Muslims and Christians in South Indian society, 1700-1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, Steven 1982 Selfless Persons. Imagery and Thought in Theravāda Buddhism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eksteins, Modris 1989 Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Modern Age, Toronto: Key Porter Books.

Flaherty, Chris & Michael Roberts 1989 “The Reproduction of Anzac Symbolism,” journal of Australian Studies, 24:52-69.

Gajaani 2005 “The Tigers’ Fighter Journalist—‘My Dream is Tamil Eelam’,” http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/gajani.htm.

Gambetta, Diego (ed.) 2005 Making Sense of Suicide Missions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Girard, Rene 1977 Violence and the Sacred, trans. by P. Gregory, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Hastings, Max 2008 “The Most Evil Emperor,” The New York Review, October 23, 2008, pp. 46-48.

Hellman-Rajanayagam, Dagmar 2005 “ ‘And Heroes Die’: “Poetry of the Tamil Liberation Movement in Northern Sri Lanka,” South Asia 28: 112-53.

Inglis, Ken 1965 “The Anzac Tradition,” Meanjin vol. i.

Jenkyns, Richard 1980 The Victorians and Ancient Greece, Oxford: Blackwell.

Jeyaraj, D. B. S. 2006 “No public speech ceremony for LTTE Chief this year?” 26 November

2006 in http://transcurrents.com/tamiana/archives/234.

Jeyaraj, D. B. S. 1997 “Pottu Amman in Jaffna,” Frontline, 13-26 December 1997, Vol. 14/ 25.

Kapferer, Bruce 1988 Myths of State, Legends of People, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kapferer, Bruce 1991 “Nationalist Ideology and a Comparative Anthropology,” Ethnos 54: 161-99

Kapferer, Bruce 1997 The Feast of the Sorcerer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kailasapathy K. 1968 Tamil Heroic Poetry, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kershaw, Ian 2008 Hitler, the Germans and the Final Solution, Yale University Press.

Marvin, Carolyn & David W. Ingle 1996 “Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Revisiting Civil Religion,” Journal of the American academy of Religion, 64: 767-80.

Mazower, Mark 2008 Hitler’s Empire: How the Nazis ruled Europe, Penguin.

Mines, Diane 2005 Fierce Gods. Inequality, Ritual and the Politics of Dignity in a South Indian Village, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Narayan Swamy, M. R. 1994 Tigers of Sri Lanka, Delhi: Konark Publishers Pvt Ltd.

Natali, Christiana 2005 “Building Cemeteries, Constructing Identities: Funerary Practices and Nationalist Discourse among the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka,” Paper presented at the Conference of the British Association of Asian Studies.

O’Duffy, Brendan 2007 “LTTE: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Majoritarianism, Self-Determination,and Military-to-Political Transition in Sri Lanka,” in Marianne Heiberg, Brendan O’Leary, and John Tirman (eds.) Terror, Insurgency, and the State. Ending Protracted Conflicts, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 257-87.

Pape, Robert A. 2003 “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review 97: 343-61.

Rajam, K. 2000 South Indian Memorial Stones, Thanjavur: Manoo Pathikam.

Roberts, Michael 1996 “Filial Devotion and the Tiger Cult of Suicide,” Contributions to Indian Sociology 30: 245-72.

Roberts, Michael 2005a “Tamil Tiger ‘Martyrs’: Regenerating Divine Potency?” Studies in Conflict& Terrorism 28: 493-514.

Roberts, Michael 2005b “Saivite Symbolism, Sacrifice and Tamil Tiger Rites,” Social Analysis 49: 67-93.

Roberts, Michael 2006 “Pragmatic Action and Enchanted Worlds: A Black Tiger Rite of Commemoration,” Social Analysis 50: 73-102.

Roberts, Michael 2007 “Suicide Missions as Witnessing: Expansions, Contrasts,” Studies in

Conflict & Terrorism 30: 857-88

Roberts, Michael 2007b “Selfless Sacrifice and Living Gods among the Tamil Tigers,” Mss essay.

Roberts, Michael 2007c “Tamil Tigers: Sacrificial Symbolism & ‘Dead Body Politics’,” Mss essay.

Roberts, Michael 2008 “Tamil Tigers: Sacrificial Symbolism and ‘Dead Body Politics’,”

Anthropology Today, June 2008, 24/3: 22-23.

Sabaratnam, T. 2003 et seq Pirapaharan, http://www.sangam.org/index_orig.html, serialised book on web.

Sahadevan, P. 2006 “Fighting for the Tamil Eelam: The LTTE’s Commitment to Armed Struggle,” in N. de Votta & P. Sahadevan, Politics of Conflict and Peace in Sri Lanka, New Delhi: Manak Publications, pp. 298-343.

Sangarasivam, Yamuna 2000 “The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Cultural Production of

Nationalism and Violence,” Syracuse University: Ph.D dissertation.

Schalk, Peter 1997a “Resistance and Martyrdom in the Process of State Formation of Tamililam,” in

Joyce Pettigrew (ed.) Martyrdom and Political Resistance, Amsterdam: VU University Press pp. 61-84.

Schalk, Peter 1997b “Historicization of the Martial Ideology of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

(LTTE),” South Asia 20: 35-72.

Schalk, Peter 2003 “Beyond Hindu Festivals: The Celebration of Great Heroes’ Day by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Europe,” in Martin Baumann et al. (eds.) Tempel und Tamilien in Zweiter Heimat, Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag, pp. 391-411.

Schalk, Peter 1997 “Resistance and Martyrdom in the Process of State Formation of Tamililam,” in Joyce Pettigrew (ed.) Martyrdom and Political Resistance, Amsterdam: VU University Press pp. 61- 84.

Schalk, Peter 2003 “Beyond Hindu Festivals: The Celebration of Great Heroes’ Day by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Europe,” in Martin Baumann et al. (eds.) Tempel und Tamilien in Zweiter Heimat, Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag, pp. 391-411.

Settar, S. & G. D. Sontheimer (eds.) 1982 Memorial Stones, Dharwad: Institute of Indian Art History.

Shulman, David 1980 Tamil Temple Myths. Sacrifice and Divine Marriage in the South Indian Saiva

Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sivaram, D. 1992 “Tamil Militarism,” Lanka Guardian, 1 May 1992 et seq. in 11 parts.

Tanaka, Masakazu 1991 Patrons, Devotees and Goddesses. Ritual and Power among the Tamil

Fishermen of Sri Lanka, Kyoto: Institute of Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.

Margaret Trawick 1999 “Reasons for Violence: A Preliminary Ethnographic Account of the LTTE,”

in Siri Gamage and I.B. Watson (eds) Conflict and Community in Contemporary Sri Lanka, New Delhi, pp. 139-163.

UTHR (University Teachers for Human Rights) 1994 Frozen Minds & the Violence of Attrition,

Thirunelvely, Jaffna: Report No. 13 of the University Teachers for Human Rights, Jaffna.

Valeri, Valerio 1985 Kingship and Sacrifice. Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vamadeva, C. 1995 The Concept of Vannanpu, “Violent Love” in Tamil Saivism with Reference to the

Periya Purānam, Uppsala: Uppsala University Religious Studies.

Verdery, Katherine 1999 The Political Lives of Dead Bodies New York: Colombia University Press

Wadley, Susan 1977 ‘Power in Hindu Ideology and Practice’, in Kenneth David (ed) The New Wind.

Changing Identities in South Asia, Hague: Mouton Publishers, pp. 133-57.

Whitehead, Henry 1921 [rep. 1981] The Village Gods of South India, 2nd edn, New Delhi, Cosmo Publications.