The basic premise of the book is relatively straightforward: human beings have strong built-in inhibitions towards killing other human beings, and overcoming those (e.g. to increase the firing capability of soldiers) requires either training which makes killing somewhat automatic or a reflex, or increasing distance (physical, psychological etc.) between the killer and the killed.
Grossman draws quite much from Samuel Marshall's research on firing rates (out of 100 soldiers, how many actually fires a weapon) in the World Wars, which quite famously report that e.g. about 75% of U.S. combat soldiers never fired a weapon with an intent to kill an enemy.
Was it good?
The book is good - though there may be a bit room for condensation in the text. Nonetheless, Marshall's firing rate studies, with which the book opens, are quite astounding to one who has not encountered them before, and built a highly convincing case for what Grosmann argues subsequently.
Moreover, Grosmann quite welcomely presents the reader with a variety of implications of his core argument - both in the military context (e.g. increasing firing rates through realistic training regimes and remote-controlled weaponry) and in civilian life (e.g. a case against realistically violent video games).
However, by entering into the realm of popular culture and video games in particular, Grossman appears to leave his area of expertise and comfort. Namely, I presume that most social scientists would find Grossman's analysis of video games (realistically violent video games --> lowered threshold for engaging in violent real-world behaviours --> increased violence in society) somewhat simplistic (though Grossman may get the end points of the causal chain right in the end).
The main take-away for me?
Well, the video game discussion surely got me thinking, on multiple levels (e.g., the effects of video games on people both in general and in the case of violent games in particular; how one could or should study the effect of video games; if and how video games are any different from any other earlier novel cultural form etc.).
However, perhaps the most striking thought was the effect of remote-controlled weaponry on the nature of war. Namely, people are highly unlikely to actually kill a human being if this has to be done with own hands or a hand-held weapon such as a knife or a bayonet. But, when killing is achieved by maneuvering an air drone with a joystick and a video screen from the distance of thousands of kilometers while sitting in an ergonomic chair, killing does not feel like such but rather "just executing a mission". Thus, increased technologization and distance are likely to make wars substantially more brutal (i.e. more casualties) than before.
Who should read the book?
Once again, I think that most people are likely to find the book appealing, as killing is quite a universal human phenomenon. However, those with a sociological or social psychological curiosity probably will enjoy the book the most.
The book on Amazon.com: On killing
No comments:
Post a Comment