International relations is a field where Feminist Theory can be applied very effectively and critically. As you know, International relations is mostly centered around militarism, war, and bombs, and traditionally, war has been predominantly carried out by men. Similarly, much of the research on war is conducted by men, and the international relations analysts who frequently appear on television are predominantly men. Likewise, there are many resources that Feminist Theory can use in an area where patriarchy prevails. We don’t specifically have an issue with men, of course, but we certainly have an issue with the male-dominated culture within the scientific realm. Let’s emphasize once more that scrutinizing a cultural issue through the lens of individuals is merely a form of scapegoating; hence, our concerns do not lie with individuals. In fact, it was precisely this point that initially captured the attention of Carol Cohn, who spent a year among a group of defense professionals, most of whom were men. Cohn states that she appreciates these individuals (p. 690). As time goes on, she begins to perceive the other end of the spectrum. She endeavors to comprehend why the situation arises, contradicting her own tempered judgments regarding these individuals. Cohn identifies the issue as the language employed within the group. She labels the language used by defense experts when discussing nuclear warfare as “technostrategic language.” One of the notable aspects of this language is that techno strategic language alters people’s thought processes, and consequently, their actions and behaviors. By observing the transformation of language in thought patterns, Cohn eliminates the gender bias embedded within the language. When referring to the gender bias embedded within the language, we are addressing the words employed, metaphors, and the language’s subjects and objects. Technostrategic language is a gender-biased language, but it extends beyond mere gender bias. Who employs this language, how, and why? Providing answers to these questions can facilitate an understanding of military discourse and behavior. Since both behavior and discourse need to be interpreted within their respective contexts, failing to do so leads to abstractions and limits us to contemplate over brief excerpts. Throughout her article, Cohn exemplifies technostrategic language by recounting her experiences and suggests that we interpret these instances within the framework of the relationship between language and perception. Indeed, it is this aspect that motivated her to observe intellectuals within this context. Ultimately, what truly matters is that the language employed shapes or modifies our perception of reality.

Cohn divides the process of language acquisition into four parts: listening, learning to speak, dialogue, and terror. In the listening phase, she is merely exposed to language. As an outsider, she discovers two significant points about the language: Through sterilized abstractions, real-world concepts are connected to the new and unreal world. Consequently, those who use the language tend to lose their perception of the real world and diminish the reality of the new world through these concepts. Sterilized abstractions bridge the gap between image and reality, intertwining these two realms. For instance, the phrase “clean bombs” in nuclear terminology is one of the examples provided by Cohn. When we examine this expression, it signifies the absence of radioactivity in a bomb. The notion that a bomb lacking radioactivity is considered clean raises the question: How clean can a bomb really be? Furthermore, with the term “collateral damage,” can the unfinished lives and the grief of those left behind be adequately portrayed? Or is the loss of millions of lives reduced to a term devoid of a plural suffix? These expressions reduce significant matters, such as human life, to mere damage, transforming death into a sanitized issue. This language imports expressions from the real world into the new world, causing words to lose their original meanings. A more significant danger becomes apparent here: expressions like “clean bombs” and “collateral damage” are employed by humans but dehumanize the discourse. Despite being used by humans, it lacks humanity because weaponry is the focal point of the logic shaping the language. Technostrategic language is centered around weapons, not humanity. So, what transpires when individuals employ this dehumanized language? Cohn terms this phenomenon the “militarization of the mind.” She realizes that by earning the language of nuclear experts, she not only acquires their language but also witnesses a transformation in her thought process. Hence, language holds a dominating influence over thought patterns. Technostrategic language militarizes the mind, exerting control over human thinking, and, naturally, we cannot anticipate humane outcomes from such a mindset. Moreover, I not only emphasized previously that technostrategic language is not centered on humanity, but I also highlighted its focus on weaponry. For instance, if one of your warheads kills another warhead of yours, it is referred to as fratricide (p. 699). As humans become collateral damage, weapons morph into entities capable of being slain in this language. An alternate reality is fashioned based on concepts existing in the real world. A stark contrast emerges between the worldconstructed through language and the actual world.

Despite all the inaccurate references, there are certain issues you would not want to draw upon from the real world when creating a scientific alternative reality. One of them is religion, against which science has been contending for legitimacy for a considerable time. However, surprisingly, religious references are abundant within technostrategic language. The very name of the world’s first nuclear atomic test was “Trinity” (see p.702). This language intertwines conflicting images, utilizing both domestic and untamed imagery, referencing family relationships and sexuality alike. Cohn expresses her willingness to interpret the arms race not solely as a psychoanalytic phallic envy, but rather more comprehensively (p. 693). While the use of phallic imagery is conspicuously apparent, its overt nature could potentially hinder perception (p. 693). Cohn reinforces her stance through several illustrative examples. What renders the relationship between armament and the masculinity complex intriguing is not solely rooted in psychological inadequacy. In fact, the very underpinnings of the arms race risk minimizing, thereby tempering the nuclear rivalry (p. 698). Competitiveness can relegate the arms race to a trivial and inconsequential contest among boys. Within a power dynamic grounded in reciprocity, addressing the opposing facet of the subject becomes inevitable. A professor’s comparison of a nuclear bomb explosion with the metaphor of losing one’s virginity (p.693) is just one of the depreciating similes about the other. The names given to devastating bombs (such as “Fat Man” and “Little Boy”), as well as the comparison of bombs to infants in ministerial telegrams, collectively contribute to shaping the image of the new world brought into existence by bombs, attributing the act of creation to men (p. 700-701).

During the language learning phase, Cohn begins to use language and starts to observe how using language makes her and others feel. Utilizing the language and mastering the abbreviations that few utilize bestows a sense of privilege, as not everyone speaks this language, and only a few are proficient (p. 704). Secondly, discussing nuclear weapons leads to a sense of detachment from one’s own position. Engaging in conversations about nuclear weapons can create the misleading illusion that one is not the affected party. Using language lessens the fear of nuclear war, Cohn argues (p. 704). The reason is as follows: the technical and emotionally detached language used to describe an experience must be detached from both technicality and emotionality. Thus, this language becomes selectively permeable, selectively biased. Describing an experience from a victim’s position using this language becomes impossible; you cannot use the term “collateral damage” when you are affected by an atomic bomb attack. In the third part, the dialogue, Cohn discusses the more severe consequences of this exclusion in language. Cohn felt pressured to use this language because, simply put, using terminology is deemed fashionable, implying knowledgeability. However, if she doesn’t want to pay this social price and uses the language, she will struggle to express her own values and will have to compromise herself. So, if she doesn’t use this language, she may appear less professional, but if she uses it, she will not be true to herself. Cohn discusses the difficulty of conveying the victim’s perspective in discussions. If this is not acknowledged in discussions, the humanistic perspective will be absent in strategic planning, and there will be no sense of responsibility. Humanitarian concerns may be articulated, but they can be conveyed in a non-linguistic manner. Therefore, when considering these concerns, they are positioned alongside the professional, scientific, and rational aspects. Since the expertise of defense intellectuals does not typically include the moral realm, this provides them with a valid reason not to address it. In the last part, Cohn mentions that her way of thinking is affected by language as she uses language. This is precisely why efforts to transform language from within may fail; the more she is exposed to the language, the more she becomes what she wants to change. Her mind becomes “militarized”. Upon reading Cohn’s article, I was deeply impressed, and then I started to look at the terminology I was exposed to from a different perspective. Whose viewpoint does the adopted perspective exclude and disregard? What are the boundaries of this language? How humane is it? How can moral concerns be integrated into a rational perspective? That’s why I wanted to incorporate Cohn’s article into my own work. I believe these questions hold value. Perhaps this will provide an opportunity for you to reflect on this topic or allow you to further developyour previous thoughts.

Sources;

Carol Cohn’s “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals”