User:Viviannico

In her article “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” Carol Cohn presents “technostrategic” language as one of the biggest problems in the academic circles of defense intellectuals .It is here that she poignantly describes her experience at a workshop on nuclear weapons in the summer of 1984. The conference Cohn attended was a predominantly white, male group of academics gathered for the purpose of solving problems related to nuclear weapons and the arms race. Cohn refers to “technostrategic language” as a description of the over-all surreal and at times sexual terminology used to de-humanize various aspects of war, particularly the launching of artillery. She offers a critique of the briskness with which her colleagues discussed "first strikes," "counterforce exchanges," and "limited nuclear war," void of any emotion or acknowledgement of the human impact within the nations targeted. Furthermore, Cohn seeks to deconstruct the masculine nature of the language used and how it simultaneously distances military strategists from the target, and trivializes the subject. Cohn successfully links the use of abstraction and euphemism in the military with the viciousness of United States foreign policy and the lack of realism in war culture.

“Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals” raises a number of important questions about the way war is perceived and discussed within the military and in the media. It purports language as highly instrumental in not only academic circles, but in the general public as well. Certain kinds of speech and vernacular are what earn one respect and inclusion within academia. When speed, efficiency, and functionality are some of the main goals at hand, it is imperative that those entering the cult-like circle of defense academia be proficient in technostrategic discourse and do not stop to dwell on the human impact. In her article, Cohn manages to create some doubt in the audience as to whether the traditional military discourse is conducive to ethical defense and nuclear relations. The brisk, sanitized language with which the horrific and fatal realities of military strikes are denoted is at the root of the cognitive dissonance phenomenon in the American public’s relationship to war. Cohn’s article presents the need for a more cautious approach to international defense systems that is firmly rooted in realism. She rejects the notion that technostrategic language allows for a more objective, impartial analysis of strategic defense, instead referring to the homoerotic excitement and heterosexual domination that taints the vernacular. Cohn’s work is a firm critique of the testosterone-driven nature of strategic defense parlance within international relations. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals” points to a growing need for a feminist lens in defense academia to balance out the prevailing hegemony of masculinity.