A professor explores the idea of sacrifice

"What would you die for - and, what would you kill for?"

Questions like these, asked in university ethics, public policy, or globalization classes, seemed purely academic in the days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

They proved not to be, of course. On that fateful day, Americans learned that the idea of self-sacrifice was anything but theoretical to 19 terrorists willing to kill themselves to attack the United States.

Yet "self-sacrifice" - whether it means dying in battle or doing without butter - is also deeply embedded in American history and culture. It's a concept getting more attention on campus these days, and one likely to be essential to any successful war on terrorism.

Carolyn Marvin, a professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania, has long grappled with the interlinked concepts of patriotism, nationalism, religion, and sacrifice. She is co-author with David Ingle of the 1999 book "Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag" (Cambridge University Press).

US success in its "war on terrorism" depends largely on how unified the nation remains during a long fight, Dr. Marvin says. And that unity depends on how deeply Americans from all walks of life are willing to sacrifice. "The argument that the American public is not prepared to lose even one casualty is not true at all," Marvin says. "It's what they're prepared to lose them for that counts."

Franklin Roosevelt called for all Americans to sacrifice in World War II, following the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. And they did. Rich and poor sent young men to fight, and many to die, in battle with the forces of Hitler and Tojo.

In that case, Marvin says, the threat was clear, and personal sacrifice was widely shared. Nearly every American community and family planted victory gardens, rationed gasoline and food, or lost sons. Unity was sustained throughout.

No war since has enjoyed such broad-based support among Americans. In the Vietnam War and others - including the Gulf War, where sacrifice by the public was uneven or minimal - national unity waned quickly, she notes.

Whether the "war on terrorism" rises to the level of a Pearl Harbor in the national consciousness remains to be seen, Marvin says. A few commentators have recently argued that President Bush is not capitalizing on current unity by calling for more public sacrifice for the war effort - for example, pushing energy conservation to make the US less dependent on Mideast oil. Dr. Marvin agrees - but points out that the amorphous war on terror handicaps Mr. Bush. Even if he did make a call for enlistment, she asks, "where would they go to fight?"

Still, the country has taken some steps toward a sense of self-sacrifice, Marvin says. The televised impact of more than 5,000 lives lost to terrorism permeated the national psyche. As a result, many Americans - college students among them - are for the first time dusting off and deeply pondering the idea of sacrificing self for country.

Page: 1 | 2