Description
Despite the enthusiasm within feminist International Relations and Critical Military Studies to explore the operation of militarism in everyday, public life, few studies centre analysis on the voices and experiences of the public. I argue that, by uncovering how militarism manifests as normal and desirable to the people it supposedly protects, exploring public discourse is critical in understanding how war and violence are made possible. I begin by demonstrating how the dominant approach does not go far enough: by not engaging with those that hegemonic discourses ultimately target, the existing literature can only assume the ways in which militarism operates. Secondly, I discuss how the framework of performance is productive for recognising how the public’s diverse emotions, expressions, movements, and social practices make war and violence possible. Finally, I support this with empirical findings from UK online discussion forums, which reveal fundamental nuances which complicate the conventional link drawn between hegemonic discourse and the operation of militarism in society: the British public diversely perform war and violence in their everyday lives, sometimes rejecting militarism altogether, and this is inherently influenced by assigned social markers such as gender, race, nationality, sexuality, and class. My findings push critical scholars to embrace public discourse in their research.
Key words: Militarism, critical military studies, civil-military relations, discourse, performance, identity
