Before You Enlist Video -
Researching Pop Culture and Militarism -
If you have been Harassed by a Military Recruiter -
War: Turning now to Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson - Christian Science Monitor
Click through to find out
Religion and militarism -
‘A Poison in the System’: Military Sexual Assault - New York Times
Change your Mind?
Talk to a Counselor at the GI Rights Hotline
Ask that your child's information is denied to Military Recruiters
And monitor that this request is honored.
Military Recruiters and Programs Target marginalized communities for recruits...
..and the high schools in those same communities

 Militarization of our Schools

The Pentagon is taking over our poorer public schools. This is the reality for disadvantaged youth.


What we can do

Corporate/conservative alliances threaten Democracy . Progressives have an important role to play.

 Why does NNOMY matter?

Most are blind or indifferent to the problem.
A few strive to protect our democracy.

Against the Militarized Academy

Henry A. Giroux -

While there is an ongoing discussion about what shape the military-industrial complex will take under an Obama presidency, what is often left out of this analysis is the intrusion of the military into higher education. One example of the increasingly intensified and expansive symbiosis between the military-industrial complex and academia was on full display when Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, announced the creation of what he calls a new "Minerva Consortium," ironically named after the goddess of wisdom, whose purpose is to fund various universities to "carry out social-sciences research relevant to national security."(1) Gates's desire to turn universities into militarized knowledge factories producing knowledge, research and personnel in the interest of the Homeland (In)Security State should be of special concern for intellectuals, artists, academics and others who believe that the university should oppose such interests and alignments. At the very least, the emergence of the Minerva Consortium raises a larger set of concerns about the ongoing militarization of higher education in the United States.

In a post-9/11 world, with its all-embracing war on terror and a culture of fear, the increasing spread of the discourse and values of militarization throughout the social order is intensifying the shift from the promise of a liberal democracy to the reality of a militarized society. Militarization suggests more than simply a militaristic ideal - with its celebration of war as the truest measure of the health of the nation and the soldier-warrior as the most noble expression of the merging of masculinity and unquestioning patriotism - but an intensification and expansion of the underlying values, practices, ideologies, social relations and cultural representations associated with military culture. What appears new about the amplified militarization of the post-9/11 world is that it has become normalized, serving as a powerful educational force that shapes our lives, memories and daily experiences. As an educational force, military power produces identities, goods, institutions, knowledge, modes of communication and affective investments - in short, it now bears down on all aspects of social life and the social order. As Michael Geyer points out, what is distinctive about the militarization of the social order is that civil society not only "organizes itself for the production of violence,"(2) but increasingly spurs a gradual erosion of civil liberties. Military power and policies are expanded to address not only matters of defense and security, but also problems associated with the entire health and social life of the nation, which are now measured by military spending, discipline and loyalty, as well as hierarchical modes of authority.

As citizens increasingly assume the roles of informer, soldier and consumer willing to enlist in or be conscripted by the totalizing war on terror, we see the very idea of the university as a site of critical thinking, public service and socially responsible research being usurped by a manic jingoism and a market-driven fundamentalism that enshrine the entrepreneurial spirit and military aggression as means to dominate and control society. This should not surprise us, since, as William G. Martin, a professor of sociology at Binghamton University, indicates, "universities, colleges and schools have been targeted precisely because they are charged with both socializing youth and producing knowledge of peoples and cultures beyond the borders of Anglo-America."(3) But rather than be lulled into complacency by the insidious spread of corporate and military power, we need to be prepared to reclaim institutions such as the university that have historically served as vital democratic spheres protecting and serving the interests of social justice and equality. What I want to suggest is that such a struggle is not only political, but also pedagogical in nature.

Over 17 million students pass through the hallowed halls of academe, and it is crucial that they be educated in ways that enable them to recognize creeping militarization and its effects throughout American society, particularly in terms of how these effects threaten "democratic government at home just as they menace the independence and sovereignty of other countries."(4) But students must also recognize how such anti-democratic forces work in attempting to dismantle the university itself as a place to learn how to think critically and participate in public debate and civic engagement.(5) In part, this means giving them the tools to fight for the demilitarization of knowledge on college campuses - to resist complicity with the production of knowledge, information and technologies in classrooms and research labs that contribute to militarized goals and violence.

Even so, there is more at stake than simply educating students to be alert to the dangers of militarization and the way in which it is redefining the very mission of higher education. Chalmers Johnson, in his continuing critique of the threat that the politics of empire presents to democracy at home and abroad, argues that if the United States is not to degenerate into a military dictatorship, in spite of Obama's election, a grass-roots movement will have to occupy center stage in opposing militarization, government secrecy and imperial power, while reclaiming the basic principles of democracy.(6) Such a task may seem daunting, but there is a crucial need for faculty, students, administrators and concerned citizens to develop alliances for long-term organizations and social movements to resist the growing ties among higher education, on the one hand, and the armed forces, intelligence agencies and war industries on the other - ties that play a crucial role in reproducing mili tarized knowledge.

Opposing militarization as part of a broader pedagogical strategy in and out of the classroom also raises the question of what kinds of competencies, skills and knowledge might be crucial to such a task. One possibility is to develop critical educational theories and practices that define the space of learning not only through the critical consumption of knowledge but also through its production for peaceful and socially just ends. In the fight against militarization and "armed intellectuals," educators need a language of critique, but they also need a language that embraces a sense of hope and collective struggle. This means elaborating the meaning of politics through a concerted effort to expand the space of politics by reclaiming "the public character of spaces, relations, and institutions regarded as private" on the other.(7) We live at a time when matters of life and death are central to political governance. While registering the shift in power toward the large-scale pr oduction of death, disposability and exclusion, a new understanding of the meaning and purpose of higher education must also point to notions of agency, power and responsibility that operate in the service of life, democratic struggles and the expansion of human rights.

Finally, if higher education is to come to grips with the multilayered pathologies produced by militarization, it will have to rethink not merely the space of the university as a democratic public sphere, but also the global space in which intellectuals, educators, students, artists, labor unions and other social actors and movements can form transnational alliances to oppose the death-dealing ideology of militarization and its effects on the world - including violence, pollution, massive poverty, racism, the arms trade, growth of privatized armies, civil conflict, child slavery and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the Bush regime comes to an end, it is time for educators and students to take a stand and develop global organizations that can be mobilized in the effort to supplant a culture of war with a culture of peace, whose elemental principles must be grounded in relations of economic, political, cultural and social democracy and the desire to sustain human life.


Revised: 10-11-2019


(1). Brainard, Jeffrey. (April 16, 2008) "U.S. Defense Secretary Asks Universities for New Cooperation," The Chronicle of Higher Education, online at

(2). Michael Geyer, "The Militarization of Europe, 1914-1945," in The Militarization of the Western World, ed. John Gillis (Rutgers University Press, 1989), p. 79.

(3). William G. Martin, "Manufacturing the Homeland Security Campus and Cadre," ACAS Bulletin 70 (Spring 2005), p. 1.

(4). Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004). p. 291.

(5). See Cary Nelson, "The National Security State," Cultural Studies 4:3 (2004), pp. 357-361.

(6). Chalmers Johnson, "Empire v. Democracy," (January 31, 2007), available online at (Archive)

(7). Jacques Rancière, "Democracy, Republic, Representation," Constellations 13:3 (2006), p. 299.

What can an analysis of everyday life tell us about the militarisation of popular culture?
In the 21
century, militar isation has become a prominent aspect of our lives. Fro meducation to entertainment, our daily life is full of militaristic ideas, values andunderstandings. That impact shows itself primarily in popular culture. Digital war games,movies, toys or camouflage clothes seem so cool that
any people can easily becomemilitarized in their thinking in how they live their daily lives, in what they aspire to for theirchildren or their society, without ever wield
ing a rifle or donning a helmet?
(Enloe 2000)Militarisation as a process seems inevitable for popular culture. While digital war games andmovies in particular explore undiscovered militaristic fantasies, legitimize and justify militaryinterventions, and teach some basics of using weapons, they are also used as an effectivemilitary recruitment tool and a propaganda machine.In this paper I aim to consider what an analysis of everyday life can tell us about themilitarisation of popular culture. As a criterion, I have tried to look at the most popular andthe most effective dimensions of everyday life in terms of the militarisation of popularculture. My central argument is that there are four universal dimensions of everyday life -entertainment, fashion, media and education
which are arenas of the militarization of popular culture, first in thought and then in practice, and that, therefore, militarisation hasbecome absolutely inevitable in our daily life.My study is constructed from two sections. To begin with, I will briefly define theterms
and „popular culture?
. The main part of my essay, which is composed of four parts, consists of an analysis of everyday life with regard to the militarisation of popularculture. Firstly, I will analyze the military-entertainment complex; secondly, I will examinethe relations between the military and fashion/shopping; Thirdly, I will look at military-mediarelations; and lastly, I will discuss the military-education dimension.
First and foremost, in order to analyze the militarisation of popular culture in everydaylife, it is vital to understand
what „militarisation? is.
There are a number of definitions, whichmakes it a challenging task to distinguish between militarisation and militarism. However, inthis analysis, I used militarisation as
a process which leads to militarism
(Ross, cited inShaw 1991: p.13). Militarisation is a process which privileges, legitimizes and justifies themilitaristic ideas and values that arise from it. Enloe supports this definition when he writesthat militarisation is
a step-by-step process by which a person or a thing gradually comes tobe controlled by the military or comes to depend for its well-being on militaristic ideas
(2000: p.3; 2002). On the other hand, Crandall defines militarisation more specifically. Heconsiders that
militarization is tied into the media and entertainment industries and verymuch a player in the youth-driven field of video game culture
. Also, he thinks that
it is apowerful rhetorical frame and a machine of territorialisation, indoctrination and recruitment
(Crandall, cited in Power 2007: p. 274). I will argue that this process of militarisation affectsboth thought and the practice of everyday life.Secondly, I define popular culture as a group of people, who are heavily influenced bymass media, entertainment, trends in fashion, and characteristic language. These aspectscreate popular culture. Having provided these definitions of militarisation, a broad analysis of everyday life will make it easier to understand how complex and purposeful the militarisationof popular culture is.
In this main part, everyday life is analyzed in terms of the militarisation of popularculture, in which popularity and effectiveness are used as criteria. Four main dimensions of daily life: entertainment, fashion, media and education, are discussed respectively.
The Military-Entertainment-Fashion-Media-Academics Complex
1) The Military- Entertainment Complex-
Generally speaking, two main forms of entertainment, digital war games and warmovies, may be considered as being of the highest importance to an analysis of themilitarisation of popular culture in the entertainment world.
a) Digital War Games
More and more people, especially teenagers, are becoming addicted to digital wargames every day. Today, a walk through the corridor of any digital games
shop „
can seem likea visit to your local military academy
(Kane, cited in Power 2007: p.272), which offers a
range of “grittily realistic” games that seek to
glorify the war. A big part of the appeal of such
games is that most seek to “proudly transport the gamer into immersive, gut wrenching virtual battlefields. They persuade the gamer that, in an echo of WWII era journalism, „“you arethere”? –
on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam, in modern military hotpots[like the deserts
of Iraq]” (Cowlishaw, cited in
Power 2007: p. 272)
. As Nieborg argues, „the
increasing militarisation of game culture, as an extension of the military-entertainmentcomplex, has never been so cool and deliberately
chosen to directly interact with the “Internetgeneration” ?(Nieborg 2006).
The influence of digital war games upon the militarization of popular culture and the shaping
of people?s
understandings serves some deliberate aims:(1) Digital games provide a way to explore undiscovered militaristic fantasies in aneasy and clean way. As Power indicates, war games present
a clean, sanitized and enjoyable
version of war for popular consumption, obscuring the “realities”, contexts and consequences
f war? (2007: p.
274), most importantly, doing so bloodlessly. (2) Digital war gameslegitimize and justify military interventions by targeting an already demonised enemy, givingwrong information and glorifying the art of war. (3) Digital war games serve as anincreasingly effective military recruitment tool and teach some basics of using weapons fromgame play.On the one hand, as Allen
argues, „the official site for America?s Army game
consistently denies that players can learn the basics of using weap
ons from game play? (citedin Power 2007: p.281). On the other hand, „Chris Chambers, a graduate of the University of
Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, a former Army major and the deputy director of development for "America's Army"admits that the game is a recruiting tooland Turse argues

Share this

FacebookTwitterStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditLinkedInRSS FeedPinterestInstagramSnapchat
The National Network Opposing the Militarization of Youth (NNOMY) is supported by individual contributions and a grant by the Craigslist Charitable Fund - 2023 Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. NNOMY websites are hosted by The Electric Embers Coop.

Gonate time or money to demilitarize our public schools



This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues connected with militarism and resistance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Contact NNOMY


The National Network Opposing

the Militarization of youth
San Diego Peace Campus

3850 Westgate Place
San Diego, California 92105 U.S.A.  +1 619 798 8335
Tuesdays & Thursdays 12 Noon till 5pm PST
Skype: nnomy.demilitarization

Mobile Menu