Re-affirming and rejecting the rescue narrative as an impetus for war: to war for a woman in a song of ice and fire

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

From Paris’ capture of Helen in Homer’s Iliad, and the resulting ten-year war in retaliation, Western literature has a long tradition of narrativising the turn to war as a dispute in service of a woman. Yet in contemporary Western legal accounts it is assumed that legal arch-positivism now governs the decision to go to war, and so any such action can be considered rational and just. However, contemporary turns to war are increasingly invoking just war theory that is wrapped in a similar patriarchal gender narrative. George RR Martin’s ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ evokes the European tradition of war in the middle-ages, but also explores modern aspects of liberalism, statehood, and international relations. This paper explores how the turn to war is narrativised and understood by various characters in the novels. It does so in order to demonstrate how calls to war rooted in chivalry and protectionism can gain more currency than those rooted in legalist language, but outlines how this then perpetuates and cements a regressive view of women as passive and helpless. This article ultimately calls for an alternative account of law’s understanding of war which does not invoke the rescuer paradigm, and so offers potential reimagining of contemporary justifications for war.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)229-250
Number of pages21
JournalLaw and Humanities
Volume12
Issue number2
Early online date4 Sep 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

song
narrative
legal positivism
Impetus
Rescue
Song
protectionism
statehood
retaliation
liberalism
middle ages
currency
international relations
paradigm
Law
gender
language

Cite this

@article{0548655edcb941109dc9cf336f31886f,
title = "Re-affirming and rejecting the rescue narrative as an impetus for war: to war for a woman in a song of ice and fire",
abstract = "From Paris’ capture of Helen in Homer’s Iliad, and the resulting ten-year war in retaliation, Western literature has a long tradition of narrativising the turn to war as a dispute in service of a woman. Yet in contemporary Western legal accounts it is assumed that legal arch-positivism now governs the decision to go to war, and so any such action can be considered rational and just. However, contemporary turns to war are increasingly invoking just war theory that is wrapped in a similar patriarchal gender narrative. George RR Martin’s ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ evokes the European tradition of war in the middle-ages, but also explores modern aspects of liberalism, statehood, and international relations. This paper explores how the turn to war is narrativised and understood by various characters in the novels. It does so in order to demonstrate how calls to war rooted in chivalry and protectionism can gain more currency than those rooted in legalist language, but outlines how this then perpetuates and cements a regressive view of women as passive and helpless. This article ultimately calls for an alternative account of law’s understanding of war which does not invoke the rescuer paradigm, and so offers potential reimagining of contemporary justifications for war.",
author = "Lynsey Mitchell",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1080/17521483.2018.1514952",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "229--250",
journal = "Law and Humanities",
issn = "1752-1483",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re-affirming and rejecting the rescue narrative as an impetus for war

T2 - to war for a woman in a song of ice and fire

AU - Mitchell, Lynsey

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - From Paris’ capture of Helen in Homer’s Iliad, and the resulting ten-year war in retaliation, Western literature has a long tradition of narrativising the turn to war as a dispute in service of a woman. Yet in contemporary Western legal accounts it is assumed that legal arch-positivism now governs the decision to go to war, and so any such action can be considered rational and just. However, contemporary turns to war are increasingly invoking just war theory that is wrapped in a similar patriarchal gender narrative. George RR Martin’s ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ evokes the European tradition of war in the middle-ages, but also explores modern aspects of liberalism, statehood, and international relations. This paper explores how the turn to war is narrativised and understood by various characters in the novels. It does so in order to demonstrate how calls to war rooted in chivalry and protectionism can gain more currency than those rooted in legalist language, but outlines how this then perpetuates and cements a regressive view of women as passive and helpless. This article ultimately calls for an alternative account of law’s understanding of war which does not invoke the rescuer paradigm, and so offers potential reimagining of contemporary justifications for war.

AB - From Paris’ capture of Helen in Homer’s Iliad, and the resulting ten-year war in retaliation, Western literature has a long tradition of narrativising the turn to war as a dispute in service of a woman. Yet in contemporary Western legal accounts it is assumed that legal arch-positivism now governs the decision to go to war, and so any such action can be considered rational and just. However, contemporary turns to war are increasingly invoking just war theory that is wrapped in a similar patriarchal gender narrative. George RR Martin’s ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ evokes the European tradition of war in the middle-ages, but also explores modern aspects of liberalism, statehood, and international relations. This paper explores how the turn to war is narrativised and understood by various characters in the novels. It does so in order to demonstrate how calls to war rooted in chivalry and protectionism can gain more currency than those rooted in legalist language, but outlines how this then perpetuates and cements a regressive view of women as passive and helpless. This article ultimately calls for an alternative account of law’s understanding of war which does not invoke the rescuer paradigm, and so offers potential reimagining of contemporary justifications for war.

U2 - 10.1080/17521483.2018.1514952

DO - 10.1080/17521483.2018.1514952

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 229

EP - 250

JO - Law and Humanities

JF - Law and Humanities

SN - 1752-1483

IS - 2

ER -