Kamal Ghorui
http://www.youtube.com/shorts/DCWM1AGR3hs
Have we become desensitised to the horrors of war, or just powerless to prevent them?
One of the most affecting images to have come out of the war in Iran, gives a bird’s eye view of excavators and workmen digging graves. It was taken after a missile attack on a girls’ school, which killed 168 young pupils, mostly between the ages of 7-12. “The killing of a single child should stop us cold,” Unicef global spokesperson James Elder has said. But it doesn’t. The killing of 165 doesn’t. Have we become desensitised to the horrors of war? Or, habituated?
Some experts blame it all on ‘infobesity’. Their theory is that the relentless volume of social media, emails, news we engage with today, has broken our empathy. This makes sense. The one caveat is that human beings have never, ever had limitless empathy. Modernity’s promise was that it would not be down to the individual. That structures, systems, processes would keep the peace. Obviously, they have failed. Worse, they are in decline. Even ‘compassion fatigue’, therefore, is not a heartless thing. Many who really care about what’s been happening in Gaza, are plumb worn out by nothing improving on that front. The idea that if enough people responded with horror and disgust to the brutalities of war, it would stop, has had its wins. But these are outnumbered by defeats.
Often, sustained coverage of conflict itself shifts the baseline of ‘normal’. ‘Civilians were killed’ – hides who killed them. ‘The village was bombed’ – conceals the bomber. Even graphic images can suckle voyeurs more than any anti-war movement. Yes, the ideal response to being confronted with war’s violence, would be greater opposition, pressure on govts, moral seriousness. But this needs sustained, difficult, historically informed thinking, about why a war is happening and who is benefitting. It needs better politics. It’s delusional to think that by consuming superficial headlines on atrocities, we will change anything.
END OF ARTICLE
