The Inevitable War Machine?

In one of my classes we’re reading Brecht’s Mother Courage, and most people claimed that the novel itself had no messages to offer, that war was something eternal, and that we learned nothing from war. I found their cynicism very interesting, and pointed out that the play is a cynical text because it wants us to see just how dangerous that sort of cynicism really is. The virtuous characters (really only two of them) displayed their courage and selflessness in an environment where this sort of behaviour does not reward their behaviour in any way, but gets them killed. I said that Brecht does not want us to believe there are no lessons to be learned in war, but that this is in itself a sort of lesson already. If war does not really benefit anybody, if it is ultimately a money making enterprise that causes incredible evil and destruction in order to have a sort of “profit”, then the lesson should be clear – we need to stop these wars instead of settling and believing that they are all “inevitable”.

In the play, Mother Courage loses her three children as she struggles to profit off the war and keep her business running. In the last scene, she briefly mourns her deceased daughter, and decides that it’s back to business for her and marches forward. I think that Brecht wants us to be affected by this image, to not just believe that this is how the world has to be. Many of the other students seem to believe that the play eliminates the need to be virtuous, or that because the virtuous are not rewarded it is useless to have virtues. It does not matter what you act like, you must play the war game in order to survive, and so on. I disagree. The character Kattrin is, at every turn, willing to sacrifice herself for others around her. She retains her virtue, though war has been cruel to her: because of a (presumed) rape she has been left unable to speak, has been disfigured, and so on. There is something incredibly beautiful about her ability to still have faith in the human race, and also beyond that – to want to better the world and reduce suffering, though it may cause more harm to her.

Still, there is an important question on my mind, and what I was thinking about afterwards – why is Kattrin so moved to help those who would not sacrifice themselves for her? Even worse, she wishes to help those who she does not know, who might be cruel to her, etc. Throughout most of the play Kattrin, as I’ve mentioned before, has been hardened by war and abused by many people. The question is… what makes people worth risking your life for? Why should I risk my life for someone I do not know, for a human being who has hurt me or is generally abusive? And the conclusion, for me, seems to be that not everyone is worth saving, that some human beings are more worthy of life than others. This is probably why I’m not looking to join the peace corps, and why I’m not part of life-saving organizations. I often feel uneasy around such idealists, because the idea of sacrificing oneself for an ideal/people you do not really know is one I feel is irrational. Then again, others who are part of such organizations would probably see me as an incredibly selfish individual.

Asking whether people are “worthy” of saving though… that is also quite tricky. Are people who have been indoctrinated into believing in violent scripture not worthy of saving? Are those who have been abused and as a result often become abusive as well worth risking your life to save? My intuitive reaction is that, yes, every human being is made of flesh and blood, feels pain, and has a right to life (trying not to sound too much like a pro-lifer here, but yes). However, I also feel that people have a responsibility to act in accordance to a moral code that at least is respectful of other people and does not seek to exploit them, a moral code that makes one treat people well as ends-in-themselves, not as means to some other ends. I think that this is something both innate and developed through social interaction with other individuals. If someone is bullied or abused as a child and grows into an adult who is extremely aggressive, I think that we should try to help them through stronger social support, a therapy that focuses on making the individual realize that while he is still a worthy human being his learned treatment of others will just cause cyclical harm. However, I do not think anyone should risk their lives to save such an individual. Regardless of what happens to a person, we are all able to control how we react to the situation – though those aggressive reactions can develop, it’s ultimately up to the person to learn to control their impulses and move beyond the past.

Anyways, I feel like I am getting off topic, but writing like this helps me to sort through the mess and contradicting thoughts that make up my mind. I do believe that those who are virtuous, like Kattrin, should obviously be rewarded in a perfect world. However, our world is imperfect – but this is not something we should be satisfied with. There is something very, very wrong with placing business (war, or capitalism, the two are interchangeable and one in the same really) above human lives, and as simplistic as that sounds, we should not tolerate living in such a dystopia and claim “that’s just the way it is.”

- Nina Jankovic