What do you think?
Rate this book
War Machine: The Rationalisation of Slaughter in the Modern Age
This intriguing study examines Western perceptions of war in and beyond the nineteenth century, surveying the writings of novelists, anthropologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, philosophers, poets, natural scientists, and journalists to trace the terms of modern thought on the nature of military conflict.
Daniel Pick brings together philosophical and historical models of war with fictions of invasion, propaganda from the Great War, interpretations of shellshock and speculations about the biological value of conquest. He discusses the work of such familiar commentators as Clausewitz, Engels, and Treitschke, and examines little-known writings by Proudhon, De Quincey, Ruskin, Valery, and many others, culminating in the extraordinary dialogue between Freud and Einstein, Why War? He analyses Victorian fears of French contamination through the Channel Tunnel as well as the widespread continuing dread of German domination. And he charts the history of the pervasive European belief that war is beneficial or at least functionally necessary.
A central theme of the book is the disturbing relationship between machinery and destruction. Visions of relentless technological 'progress' and the inexorable advance of the military-industrial complex often seem to distort our understanding of war, even to reduce it to a sophisticated game played out by high-precision automata. Pick explores both the reassuring and troubling aspects of such representations. Shorn of human agency or responsibility, war apparently threatens to become technologically unstoppable, the remorseless 'perfect abattoir' of the industrial age. War Machine explores the enduring historical fascination with - and recoil from - brutal mechanical slaughter, and the modern aquiescence in, and enthusiasm for (in Rilke's phrase), 'these days of monstrously accelerated dying'.
Daniel Pick brings together philosophical and historical models of war with fictions of invasion, propaganda from the Great War, interpretations of shellshock and speculations about the biological value of conquest. He discusses the work of such familiar commentators as Clausewitz, Engels, and Treitschke, and examines little-known writings by Proudhon, De Quincey, Ruskin, Valery, and many others, culminating in the extraordinary dialogue between Freud and Einstein, Why War? He analyses Victorian fears of French contamination through the Channel Tunnel as well as the widespread continuing dread of German domination. And he charts the history of the pervasive European belief that war is beneficial or at least functionally necessary.
A central theme of the book is the disturbing relationship between machinery and destruction. Visions of relentless technological 'progress' and the inexorable advance of the military-industrial complex often seem to distort our understanding of war, even to reduce it to a sophisticated game played out by high-precision automata. Pick explores both the reassuring and troubling aspects of such representations. Shorn of human agency or responsibility, war apparently threatens to become technologically unstoppable, the remorseless 'perfect abattoir' of the industrial age. War Machine explores the enduring historical fascination with - and recoil from - brutal mechanical slaughter, and the modern aquiescence in, and enthusiasm for (in Rilke's phrase), 'these days of monstrously accelerated dying'.
300 pages, Hardcover
First published May 26, 1993
60 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 3, 2018
War Machine would be barely worth a read if it weren't for the occasional moments of excellence. Beyond those interesting points, the book as a whole lacks any clear direction.
The brief look into the historic transformation brought about by rail (and consequently, standardised time), and the applications of the technology/infrastructure of meat production to war/genocide, were both excellent. This chapter, The Rationalisation of Slaughter, alone makes it worth buying/borrowing/photocopying/stealing/whatever a copy of this book.
The chapter on Einstein and Freud is interesting and shows that even scientists commit the worst idealist errors. Einstein may have come out in support of socialism, but his lack of 'faith' (which really only shows a lack of understanding) of the materialist method show his true colours: a utopian (and one who underestimates the working class).
Wouldn't recommend this book to most people. Would, however, recommend that one excellent chapter to anyone who wants to think about how the nazi holocaust would not have been possible without modern meat production methods/technology.
The brief look into the historic transformation brought about by rail (and consequently, standardised time), and the applications of the technology/infrastructure of meat production to war/genocide, were both excellent. This chapter, The Rationalisation of Slaughter, alone makes it worth buying/borrowing/photocopying/stealing/whatever a copy of this book.
The chapter on Einstein and Freud is interesting and shows that even scientists commit the worst idealist errors. Einstein may have come out in support of socialism, but his lack of 'faith' (which really only shows a lack of understanding) of the materialist method show his true colours: a utopian (and one who underestimates the working class).
Wouldn't recommend this book to most people. Would, however, recommend that one excellent chapter to anyone who wants to think about how the nazi holocaust would not have been possible without modern meat production methods/technology.
April 8, 2012
It's never really been clear to me what this author meant to accomplish with this book, but I'm fairly sure he failed at it, whatever it was. He ends the all-too brief introduction by saying that his "intention is to examine the perception and periodization of war in and beyond the nineteenth century; to make links across disparate intellectual enterprises, fictions and sciences on war; to explore a world of representation which sets in play a 'common sense' and a debate about wars states, and states of minds which is still very much contemporary for us, a language and vision which we still share, or upon which we still draw" (18). That certainly sounds impressive, but also unfocused, and the book is similarly unfocused.
The problem, I think, is that it is never really clear “for whom” this story is being told. Sources from across Europe, including Great Britain, are discussed in more-or-less chronological order, without any obvious connection between them, and without ever settling in to a particular argument that all would have influenced “us” (whoever “we” are) today or at the time. Did the writers of British pamphlets fearing invasion from a cross-channel tunnel know about Proudhon’s glorification of war? Did their readers? Did psychotherapists in World War One care about either? Why are the latter given so much attention, while the expressionist critique of mechanized humanity and trench warfare is given none at all? Pick seems to have simply chosen a bunch of writers he finds interesting, who happen to have written about war in one way or another, and tried to build an argument out of them. If that argument were at least more clearly articulated, I’d still give him points for trying, but as it is, this is a mild amusement at best.
The problem, I think, is that it is never really clear “for whom” this story is being told. Sources from across Europe, including Great Britain, are discussed in more-or-less chronological order, without any obvious connection between them, and without ever settling in to a particular argument that all would have influenced “us” (whoever “we” are) today or at the time. Did the writers of British pamphlets fearing invasion from a cross-channel tunnel know about Proudhon’s glorification of war? Did their readers? Did psychotherapists in World War One care about either? Why are the latter given so much attention, while the expressionist critique of mechanized humanity and trench warfare is given none at all? Pick seems to have simply chosen a bunch of writers he finds interesting, who happen to have written about war in one way or another, and tried to build an argument out of them. If that argument were at least more clearly articulated, I’d still give him points for trying, but as it is, this is a mild amusement at best.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews