October 2012 is the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I recently did “A minute with . . .” interview with Illinois media regarding the anniversary It was a good opportunity to condense some thoughts I’ve had about nuclear deterrence (kudos here to Ledbow and Stein’s We All Lost the Cold War). Here’s the interview. It’s short: http://illinois.edu/lb/article/72/67657/page=1/list=list?skinId=1643
Kevin Hamilton and I recently were together awarded Center for Advanced Study positions for 2012-13 as an Associate and Fellow respectively. Our proposed joint project, “The Bomb Studio: Science, America, and Hollywood in the Films of the Air Force’s Lookout Mountain Laboratory,” examines a historic set of motion pictures produced by a Hollywood-based United States Air Force film studio in the 1950s and 60s that documented and helped legitimate the massive Cold War expansion of the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
Lookout Mountain Laboratory was a secret Air Force film studio based in Hollywood during the 1950s and 1960s. Their main responsibility was to document on film America’s nuclear testing ventures, which meant that LML ended up contributing in major ways to the formation of nuclear iconography in America. We have been able to acquire substantial archival material on the facility and its activities, and hope to pursue other research avenues further in the near future, with the aim of writing a book on the facility and its historic work.
Gewen’s reading of my book is curious, if not unexpected. He’s most critical of the “German” influences on its theory and method (e.g. Herder, Weber, Gadamer), which is to say that he’s skeptical of “worldview” as a critical concept. He thinks, with some justification, that it allows me to draw connections where there are, in his view, none. “In his enthusiasm for loose parallels and vague affinities, O’Gorman sometimes seems to be sending us dispatches from another planet.” (What a great line!) Yet, what he takes as wild affinities, I take as rhetorical connections. And this is where Gewen’s review is most strained: nowhere does he acknowledge, let alone engage, that mine is a study of rhetoric. Rhetoric writ large, to be sure. But still rhetoric.
Rather, he reads it a study in “personality” and “psychology.”
Thus, I detect a kind of circularity in the review: Gewen reads my study as one focused on “personality” and “psychology,” ignoring the ad naseum attention I give to language and rhetoric. And he’s especially critical of the chapters on Jackson and Eisenhower, the two most rhetorically effusive figures that I consider. Both Jackson and Eisenhower are preoccupied with the vitality of the symbolic in strategy.
At the same time, he’s most complimentary of the chapter on Kennan and stoicism.
It just so happens (as I discuss in my book) that two key words of (modern) stoicism are “personality” and “psychology.” Indeed, I don’t use those concepts in the book except to characterize the language of stoicism. Rather, I present my book as a study in “language,” “rhetoric,” and “worldview.”
Stoics and their close kin have made a long habit of distrusting the rhetorical (see the Advances issue) and transforming issues of language and sociality into personality and psychology. Gewen, consistent with this, offers a stoic reading of my non-stoical book. He seems to be glad to find, at last, a fellow stoic in Kennan. Reading my book may have been for him a kind of exercise in self-recognition, and indeed the relative strength of the chapters of my book seem to have been gauged by him according to the strength of such self-recognition. The language of his review curiously mirrors that of Kennan (albeit Gewen is far more witty and fun to read).
Am in danger here of letting my “system” dominate the conversation in such a way that I can’t listen to what he has to say? Yes. I am quite aware of this, and am trying to guard against it. My framework is not meant to peg, but to provide a range of coordinates from which to think about foreign policy discourse. As a rhetorical study, it is bound to generalities, though in situ. And this inability to get too precise is only compounded by the “ideal type” form of analysis. I can, therefore, only go so far in making claims about Gewen’s rhetoric . . . or Kennan’s for that matter.
And that was the point of the rhetorical, “German”-inspired approach, one Gewen seems to have missed.
Kevin Hamilton (from Art & Design/ Media) and I have recently learned that we’ve received a $50,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (a Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant) for our project entitled, “Re-Framing the Online Video Archive: A Prototype Interface for Americas Nuclear Test Films.” Needless to say, we are excited . . . and now thinking about all the work we’ve got to do!
Kevin Hamilton and I were awarded IPRH funding for an “Atomic Light in the Public Light” series, which got underway in 2010 here at the University of Illinois. Events include: “The Mushroom Cloud in the Cinematic Imagination” (a round-table of esteemed faculty here at the U of I), “Hollywood’s Secret Film Studio” (a presentation by Byron Risvet of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency), and a talk by Megan Prelinger on artistic representations of outer space in the 1950s and 60s.