The Effects of War on Society
Intuitively, war should be the opposite of civilised society. For, no civilised settled society allows for violence on an individual level let alone violence committed by groups of men together. However, the two have been linked since the dawn of civilised society. Competition in the form of warfare between societies drove the evolution of societies from simple social structures involving hunters and gatherers into their complex forms we see today. I shall use multiple fields to demonstrate the link between war and society and more importantly how war affects individuals within the society. I would also then like to establish that the relationship between war and society is not just one where the former occasionally affects the latter but rather that the link is much deeper and that the former helps in intrinsically shaping the latter.
A major concern while dealing with this topic would be defining what war in itself would mean. A variety of scholars and ideological schools of thought have given differing views on the same. Both Realist and Marxist perspectives on warlike to define war as a mode of competition between states for resources (Marxist perspectives give a further detailed analysis of the issues of class surrounding war) while other perspectives such as those provided Bertrand Russell and Wallace Greene focus on the perpetration of violence as a key presence for a conflict to be called war. However, for this paper, the latter (definitions on the basis of violence) is not very useful as it inherently negates the role of those who do not yield weapons without whom an examination of the effect of war on society would be incomplete. The former perspective applied liberally (to include conflicts which are not ‘hot’) would thus be a better definition of war for this paper. American Sociologist Luther Bernard provides such a definition which lays its focus on society without being too vague on the potential of violence in conflict while also recognising expanding war to one of even the possibility of the same (which is important as societies need to be prepared for war even if there is a possibility of the same), which I shall use for this paper. Bernard defines war in the following way- “War is organized continuous conflict of a transient character between or among collectivities of any sort capable of arming and organizing themselves for violent struggle carried on by armies in the field (or naval units on water) and supported by civil or incompletely militarized populations back of the battle areas constituted for the pursuit of some fairly well-defined public or quasi-public objective.” This definition provided by Bernard is helpful as it recognises war as more than simply the perpetration of violence but something much more which lingers on in society even when there is no explicit declaration of the same. [1] [2]
The Role of Warfare in Scientific and Technological Development-
Since the early days of warfare, the side with advanced technology often had an edge in the proceedings of combat. The effect of technology was visible even in the very first combat between kingdoms as Ramesses II (in 12th century BCE) was able to end a long-standing conflict with the Hittites of Syria primarily using lighter chariots and more mobile than the chariots used by their adversaries.[3] The role of science and technology was also mentioned albeit in a largely romantic and the mythical manner in accounts about Archimedes who helped Syracuse defend themselves using weapons such as the “heat ray” and the “Archimedes Claw” against the much larger and more powerful Roman Naval fleet. However, it was not until the mediaeval era when a truly symbiotic relationship started developing between the Military and Science as some of the hallmark military technologies of that era such as the advanced shock weapons, cannons, mortars, fortification and siege technology and small arms were invented. [4] This coincided with the military revolution, as armies in Europe, became full-time and professional, the weapons provided to them too became more and more advanced. [5]
It must be noted that at the technological advancements of weapons during this medieval era was not a product of rigorous scientific research as is normatively known today. Most of these advancements were made by trial and error by those who made primitive forms of the same weapons (blacksmiths, craftsmen etc.). This, in turn, has resulted in Military Historians rejecting the technological advancements of the era as science. 4 The advancements are instead classified as a by-product of a method of trial and error. This, however, negates the expertise and efforts put in by these highly specialised craftsmen whose methods were not much different from those who later conducted research in laboratories.
Even by normative perceptions of scientific research, the medieval era saw significant research by Mathematicians and “Conventional Scientists”. The research produced by these scientists which had a larger impact on society. Niccolo Tartaglia a Venetian mathematician improved the methods of ballistics by applying his mathematical equations to them. Similarly, Galileo resolved the issues of projectile motion (a major mathematical discovery) to efficiently fire a projectile weapon. The reasons for such initial geometric breakthroughs, therefore, had to do with war the practicalities of war. Similarly, this period also saw the development of the field of Metallurgy to be able to create muskets of a higher quality. Initial muskets created with cast bronze were unstable, unreliable and also difficult to come by (Copper a constituent metal of the bronze alloy was significantly more difficult to come by than Iron). It was in this context that master gunners within Europe came up with ways to purify iron which was then utilised to create cast iron muskets which were much more stable and were eventually standardised across Europe. Innovation in this era was also not simply restricted to weapons. The French invention of the portable baking oven greatly reduced their dependency on villages and towns during expeditions as bread and biscuits could now be made on the go. There were also improvements in boats and technology for mining and trenching primarily due to military needs of this era. [6]
The bond between science and military only grew with the advent of the modern military academy, the first of which was opened in Paris in 1750 by Louis XV. Unlike military education imparted to officers in the yesteryear, the “Ecole Militaire” did not focus solely on military tactics and literature (which was seen as an essential part the education of a “cultured young man”) but also subjects in science for them to develop a scientific and logical temperament which were they were then expected to use in the battlefield. [7]
The development of scientific temper amongst personnel of the military eventually led to an impetus of research of technology by the military establishment. By the late part of 19th century, multiple European powers started investing in academies for research of science. Apart from research in labs solely meant for the research of military purposes, a large amount of research in universities too started getting funding for research shaped by the military. The effect of this scientific revolution was witnessed in the two world wars where weapons and technology in these labs began to be used. The first world war saw the use of chemical weapons on a large scale at the Second Battle of Ypres. The second world war saw even more death and destruction as nuclear weapons were deployed for the first time. It must be noted that the research is done for the invention of these weapons of mass destruction eventually yielded much civilian technology which is used to this day. More than half of the food produced in the world today relies upon nitrogen-based fertilizers synthesized by the chemical processes discovered for the reasons of chemical warfare by Franz Haber. Civil Nuclear reactors too came into existence because of the Manhattan Project (the successful effort to create a nuclear weapon in the second world war). Similarly, many other civilian technologies were first developed for warfare. The internet, penicillin and GPS are just a few such examples. [8]
Research into advanced technology was not only done to gain an edge in “hot warfare” and the perpetuation of violence but also for purposes of soft power and propaganda.
For much of the 20th century, scientific advancements were well publicised amongst the population of the state through mass media. This was true especially during the cold war during which the two global superpowers, the USSR and the USA competed for world dominance. Both states attempted to use scientific discoveries to prove their superiority as well as the superiority of the ideology they professed. The United States of America used their scientific achievements to extoll upon countries which it wished to influence, the virtues and benefits of the free market. The USSR on the other hand too showcased its massive state-backed scientific projects to impress satellite states such as Romania, Poland, Albania and North Korea.[9] [10]
Both sides thus used science to demonstrate to the world, the greatness and grandness of their country and their scientific projects. None of these scientific projects was of a greater and grander scale than the project of space exploration.
Space for the Americans was the next and last frontier to be explored, in line with their ideas of their identity of being great explorers. For the Soviet Union, the space program was an avenue to show to the world how in barely half a century, a pre-industrial kingdom managed to transform itself into a pre-eminent global power with the ability to touch the stars. [11]
The space program specifically in both countries had close ties to the military. The rockets developed for use in the space launches also had use as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) which could travel across oceans and land nuclear bombs on enemy cities. Most astronauts who were involved in space travel in both countries also had been from a military background than from an academic background as one would intuitively assume considering the “scientific” nature of the expeditions. [12] [13]
The astronauts who successfully completed their missions were transformed into national icons for the purposes of propaganda. Yuri Gagarin, the first man to space was not showcased as someone who furthered the cause of science but rather someone who had finally conquered space on behalf of the Soviet Union. Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman to space was made a symbol of the uplifted status of women in the Soviet Union where women and men were of the same status and gender imbalance did not exist. Tereshkova and Gagarin were made into the ideal soviet citizens who sacrifice for the cause of the nation. Similarly, Alan Shepard who in 1961 became the first American to space (two years after Gagarin) was also upon his return to Earth paraded around by the then US President John F Kennedy and also conferred multiple awards. [14] [15]
Thus, scientific research is driven by the needs of the military and is used by nations to improve their own standing in the world order using soft power created by scientific achievement. This has a spill over effect on the people living within the society who often get to get spin-off consumer versions of the same technology. Many of the technology taken for granted in civilian life would not exist without research on it for the purposes of warfare. The propaganda generated also has the effect of creating patriotic sentiment and popular support for war and competition.
The Impact of War on Women:
The impact war has on women is in many ways different than its effect on men. Women have traditionally been disallowed from directly participating in hostilities during warfare and instead of expected to take on roles left by men who had left for the war front. Thus, they are largely spared from the violence which takes place during combat. However, they yet are vulnerable during warfare due to a variety of other factors.
To examine the effects of war on women, it would be improper to homogenize all women.
In principle, women and men should not be differently affected by war. There is no evidence to show that women to be inferior combatants and biological evidence is exaggerated to systematically exclude women from roles in active combat by a patriarchal society. However, in reality, women have been more vulnerable to the effects of war. During times of hardship were vital resources for self-sustainability are scarce (food, clean water, medicines etc.), women often find it the most difficult to access these resources. [16]
Women also become more vulnerable in the case they are deemed the bearers of their native identity and culture from both their own communities as well as enemy combatants. Women are expected by their own societies to uphold traditionally feminine values as defined by society and therefore are often targeted by enemy soldiers in order to destroy and subvert the gender role played to psychologically harm the enemy.[17] Sexual Assault of women especially became a tactic for some militaries. For example, during the Yugoslav wars, Serbian soldiers committed the rape of Bosnian Muslim girls en masse to terrorise the population of the country. [18]
Women have not simply been bystanders as men went to war. However, rarely have women been allowed to engage in combat especially before the modern period. For most of the antiquity and the medieval era (with a few exceptions), women were mostly to fulfil the sexual desires of men within the camp. Their presence in military camps was, therefore, frowned upon especially by officers, who saw their presence as being detrimental to camp discipline.[19] Roles for women in the military gradually opened up in the middle of the 19th century. Florence Nightingale, a British nurse who served in the Crimean War became an iconic figure who was well publicised in the British press as the lady with the lamp and paved the way for more women as nurses in the battlefield.[20] During this time, nursing transformed from work generally seen to be meant for those from a lower class to a middle-class profession causing more and more women from these middle-class households to become nurses in the military. This period also saw women missionaries travel along with armies to be spiritual support to soldiers in the military. These missionaries also helped maintain camp discipline as they encouraged soldiers to reject the vices of alcohol and sex. [21]
Women in the first world war were also allowed to become surgeons and doctors in certain armies. The French army, for example, allowed women to attain the position of assistant surgeons, the Italian army and the Russian armies too began to hire women as physicians. In Britain, women physicians were given temporary commission as officers during the time of the war. [22]
Despite their service, women were not given a permanent commission or equal pay on par with men within the army. Thus, this issue of imbalance became linked to the issue of women’s suffrage movement in England.
Thus, war becomes an important avenue for women to be able to gain larger socio-political significance within society. This was because of the roles which women took on (roles which during peace-times were dominated by men like firefighting and factory jobs) helped dissolve the gender binary created by society. This, in turn, enabled women to demand more political power, which they successfully received. It must be noted, however, that this was not always the case. Most societies after the cessation of war tried to return to normalcy which also included removing women from positions which they held during the period of the war. Thus, women had to struggle to ensure that the gains made by them during the war in public life also translated into political power.[23]
Women’s role in combat to this date has yet been limited. During both world wars, Russia and later the Soviet Union became the only military to have women actively serve in combat. Though initially largely ceremonial, large losses during Operation Barbarossa caused a change in attitude towards women in the military. Women were heavily deployed as snipers and were very successful in their roles in the military.[24]
Women have also historically played an important role in anti-war protests. From the Vietnam War to the war in Iraq, women’s groups have taken a pre-eminent role in pressurising governments to stop a war.[25] In some cases, female combatants too have taken part of anti-war protests post their military service.
Women Breaking the Silence is an organisation of ex-women combatants in the Israeli military who served in the occupied territory of Palestine. Their work highlights the human rights abuses by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). In their narratives, a common theme is juvenile masculinity displayed by male soldiers who often seemed overenthusiastic in their police actions. The male soldiers often found great joy in humiliating Palestinian citizens which then became a source of anger and hatred for the Palestinians who take up arms, creating a vicious cycle of violence. The hegemonic masculinity often subsumed women who themselves were compelled to act in ways which they would not like to fit into the military (an organisation where they already have difficulty fitting in due to the patriarchal structure of the military). [26]
The experiences of these women soldiers enable us to view war and the conduct of soldiers through a very different light. War, in general, was seen to be a masculine space exclusively meant for men where the hypermasculinity was not just accepted but was rather enforced to be a norm. However, the experiences of these soldiers tell us that hypermasculine behaviour might not only be non-beneficial but possibly even harmful to the goals of the military.
The point of view given by these women must lead us to question why a similar movement does not exist involving male soldiers of the Israeli Defence Force. The answer lies in the gender roles created by society.
The Impact of War on Gender and Gender Roles:
The differences between Israeli Men and Women in the military raise questions about the reasons for this variation. While there are variations in the roles served by these men and women within the military, it cannot explain the different experiences faced by the two genders.
The gender imbalance in pre-historic hunting and gathering society did not exist. [27] [28] However, since the advent of the settled society and the increase of conflict over resources, the gender roles associated with each sex came about. This was primarily due to the sole ability of women to bear children which created the gender role of being the “caretaker” for women. Consequently, men began to be viewed solely as the breadwinner and the protector. This was also magnified by the nature of early warfare which required tremendous upper body strength (to blunt weapons and shock weapons). These gender roles then were entrenched in society by the time of the first civilisations.[29]
Since ancient times, the role of citizenship began being linked to that of one’s service to the kingdom during times of war. Due to the above-mentioned gender roles, the nature of this service differed for men and women. Men expected to serve the country in active combat while women were expected to stay at home and raise the next generation of warriors and caretakers.
The differing experiences of Men and Women in the Israeli military are because of the different gender roles both genders are expected to play. Men are supposed to be domineering and forceful to serve the country and therefore often cross the line and commit gross human rights violations against their “enemy”, which they often see to be the Palestinian citizen. Women on the other hand (especially in the context of Israel) often have to play a dual role in the Israeli military. Gender roles for women expect them to be feminine and nurturing while society and the hegemonic masculinity of the military also expect them to be ruthless in their interactions with the enemy.[30]
The gender roles are further entrenched and visible through the depiction of women in artefacts of the media.
Apart from the gender roles assigned to them regarding childbirth and nurturing, women were also symbolised as upholders of the culture of the nation, especially in wartime propaganda. Women were seen to be removed from violence and therefore symbolised the ideological the purity of the nation and the cause they are fighting for. It must be noted that the women often depicted in these propaganda images were seen to have masculine features including muscular biceps and wider chests while hiding feminine features to not give the impression to an ordinary woman that she would be required to take up arms and engage in hostilities.[31]
Men too were targeted by these propaganda posters. A common tact adopted was to attack the “manliness” of the men of the country in order to pressure men to join the military to protect and uphold their manliness. Another tactic used is to portray the nation as a damsel in distress which needs to be saved from the hands of the enemy.
Women during the second world war due to the shortage of man power were expected to take on jobs meant for men. However, even in these masculine roles, women were seen as feminine and were unable to transcend or dissolve their traditional gender roles. At the end of the war, advertisers reverted to the depiction of women in their traditional gender roles. Women were once again shown to be feminine and to only care about their looks, their husbands and their children.[35]
Conclusion:
Through the examples of the development of Science and Gender it is evident that war has had an intrinsic connection with society. The arguments presented should help dispel notions of war being divorced from civilised society. The evolution of society should be seen in conjunction with war to get a whole picture of the sociological realities of the present and the past.
Works Cited:
Andrews, James T., and Asif A. Siddiqi. 2011. Into the Cosmos: Space Exploration and Soviet Culture. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Belmonte, Laura A. 2010. Selling the American Way: U.S. Propaganda and the Cold War. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bernard, Luther Lee. 1972. War and Its Causes. New York, NY: Garland Publ.
Cox, Kenyon. 1917. “‘The Sword Is Drawn, the Navy Upholds It!’” An allegorical female figure combines the laurels of Victory, a Phrygian liberty cap, an eagle-embossed breast- plate, and a pose recalling the Statue of Liberty. Hoover Institution Archives. Palo Alto.
Dennen, John. n.d. “ON WAR: CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS, RESEARCH DATA — A SHORT LITERATURE REVIEW AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.” Core. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12857871.pdf.
Devlin, Hannah. 2015. “Early Men and Women Were Equal, Say Scientists.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. May 14, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists.
Ferril, Arther. n.d. “Ancient Near Eastern Warfare.” Essay. In the Origins of War, 33–64. London 1985.
Hacker, Barton C., and Margaret Vining. 2012. A Companion to Women’s Military History. Boston: Brill.
Hopps, Harry. 1917. “Destroy This Mad Brute — Enlist.” Library of Congress. Washington, DC.
James, Pearl. 2009. “Images of Femininity in American World War I Posters.” Essay. In Picture This: World War I Posters and Visual Culture, 273–311. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Launching the Space Age. Smithsonian Institution. Accessed August 14, 2019. https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/space-race/online/sec200/sec250.htm.
Lindsey, C. 2001. Women Facing War. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
M., Hoyle. 1917. “They Crucify American Manhood — Enlist.” This poster is rare for its portrayal of male injury. Yale Archives. New Haven, Connecticut.
Mazel, Aron D. 1992. “Gender and the Hunter-Gatherer Archaeological Record: A View from the Thukela Basin.” The South African Archaeological Bulletin47 (156): 122. https://doi.org/10.2307/3889208.
NASA. NASA. Accessed August 14, 2019. https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/shepard.html
Osborn, Andrew. 2001. “Mass Rape Ruled a War Crime.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. February 23, 2001. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/23/warcrimes.
Prugl, Elisabeth. 2003. “Gender and War: Causes, Constructions, and Critique.” Perspective on Politics1 (02): 335–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592703000252.
Roberts, Michael. 1956. The Military Revolution. Belfast: M. Boyd.
Sakaida, Henry, and Christa Hook. 2003. Heroines of the Soviet Union 1941–45. Oxford: Osprey.
Sasson-Levy, Orna, Yagil Levy, and Edna Lomsky-Feder. 2011. “Women Breaking the Silence.” Gender & Society25 (6): 740–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211421782.
Schreiber, E. M. 1976. “Anti-War Demonstrations and American Public Opinion on the War in Vietnam.” The British Journal of Sociology27 (2): 225. https://doi.org/10.2307/590029.
Selanders, Louise. 2019. “Florence Nightingale.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. August 9, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Florence-Nightingale.
Universal Newsreels: As World Watched — Spaceman Hailed after U.S. Triumph (05. n.d.
Wright, Monte D., and Lawrence J. Paszek. 2001. Science, Technology, and Warfare: The Proceedings of the Third Military History Symposium United States Air Force Academy 8–9 May 1969. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.
Yesil, Bilge. 2004. “‘Who Said This Is a Man’s War?’: Propaganda, Advertising Discourse and the Representation of War Worker Women during the Second World War.” Media History10 (2): 103–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1368880042000254838.
[1] Dennen, John. n.d. “ON WAR: CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS, RESEARCH DATA — A SHORT LITERATURE REVIEW AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.” Why is this in capital letters? Core. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12857871.pdf.
[2] Bernard, Luther Lee. 1972. War and Its Causes. New York, NY: Garland Publ.
[3] Ferril, Arther. n.d. “Ancient Near Eastern Warfare.” Essay. In the Origins of War, 33–64. London 1985.
[4] Wright, Monte D., and Lawrence J. Paszek. 2001. Science, Technology, and Warfare: The Proceedings of the Third Military History Symposium United States Air Force Academy 8–9 May 1969. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.
[5] Roberts, Michael. 1956. The Military Revolution. Belfast: M. Boyd.
[6] Wright, Monte D., and Lawrence J. Paszek. 2001. Science, Technology, and Warfare: The Proceedings of the Third Military History Symposium United States Air Force Academy 8–9 May 1969. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.
[7] Wright, Monte D., and Lawrence J. Paszek. 2001. Science, Technology, and Warfare: The Proceedings of the Third Military History Symposium United States Air Force Academy 8–9 May 1969. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.
[8] Wright, Monte D., and Lawrence J. Paszek. 2001. Science, Technology, and Warfare: The Proceedings of the Third Military History Symposium United States Air Force Academy 8–9 May 1969. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.
[9] Andrews, James T., and Asif A. Siddiqi. 2011. Into the Cosmos: Space Exploration and Soviet Culture. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
[10] Belmonte, Laura A. 2010. Selling the American Way: U.S. Propaganda and the Cold War. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
[11] Universal Newsreels: As World Watched — Spaceman Hailed after U.S. Triumph (05. n.d.
[12] . Launching the Space Age. Smithsonian Institution. Accessed August 14, 2019. https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/space-race/online/sec200/sec250.htm.
[13] Universal Newsreels: As World Watched — Spaceman Hailed after U.S. Triumph (05. n.d.
[14] Andrews, James T., and Asif A. Siddiqi. 2011. Into the Cosmos: Space Exploration and Soviet Culture. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
[15] . NASA. NASA. Accessed August 14, 2019. https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/shepard.htm.
[16] Lindsey, C. 2001. Women Facing War. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
[17] Lindsey, C. 2001. Women Facing War. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
[18] Osborn, Andrew. 2001. “Mass Rape Ruled a War Crime.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. February 23, 2001. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/23/warcrimes.
[19] Hacker, Barton C., and Margaret Vining. 2012. A Companion to Women’s Military History. Boston: Brill.
[20] Selanders, Louise. 2019. “Florence Nightingale.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. August 9, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Florence-Nightingale.
[21] Hacker, Barton C., and Margaret Vining. 2012. A Companion to Women’s Military History. Boston: Brill.
[22] Hacker, Barton C., and Margaret Vining. 2012. A Companion to Women’s Military History. Boston: Brill.
[23] Hacker, Barton C., and Margaret Vining. 2012. A Companion to Women’s Military History. Boston: Brill.
[24] Sakaida, Henry, and Christa Hook. 2003. Heroines of the Soviet Union 1941–45. Oxford: Osprey.
[25] Schreiber, E. M. 1976. “Anti-War Demonstrations and American Public Opinion on the War in Vietnam.” The British Journal of Sociology27 (2): 225. https://doi.org/10.2307/590029.
[26] Sasson-Levy, Orna, Yagil Levy, and Edna Lomsky-Feder. 2011. “Women Breaking the Silence.” Gender & Society25 (6): 740–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211421782.
[27] Mazel, Aron D. 1992. “Gender and the Hunter-Gatherer Archaeological Record: A View from the Thukela Basin.” The South African Archaeological Bulletin47 (156): 122. https://doi.org/10.2307/3889208.
[28] Devlin, Hannah. 2015. “Early Men and Women Were Equal, Say Scientists.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. May 14, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists.
[29] Prugl, Elisabeth. 2003. “Gender and War: Causes, Constructions, and Critique.” Perspective on Politics1 (02): 335–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592703000252.
[30] Sasson-Levy, Orna, Yagil Levy, and Edna Lomsky-Feder. 2011. “Women Breaking the Silence.” Gender & Society25 (6): 740–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211421782.
[31] James, Pearl. 2009. “Images of Femininity in American World War I Posters.” Essay. In Picture This: World War I Posters and Visual Culture, 273–311. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
[32] Cox, Kenyon. 1917. “‘The Sword Is Drawn, the Navy Upholds It!’” An allegorical female figure combines the laurels of Victory, a Phrygian liberty cap, an eagle-embossed breast- plate, and a pose recalling the Statue of Liberty. Hoover Institution Archives. Palo Alto.
[33] M., Hoyle. 1917. “They Crucify American Manhood — Enlist.” This poster is rare for its portrayal of male injury. Yale Archives. New Haven, Connecticut.
[34] Hopps, Harry. 1917. “Destroy This Mad Brute — Enlist.” Library of Congress. Washington, DC.
[35] Yesil, Bilge. 2004. “‘Who Said This Is a Man’s War?’: Propaganda, Advertising Discourse and the Representation of War Worker Women during the Second World War.” Media History10 (2): 103–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1368880042000254838.
