I don’t necessarily believe that all military uniforms are linked to fascism.
Throughout the history of military uniforms, however, it is rare to find a masterpiece that so closely approaches the quintessence of military uniforms as those of Nazi Germany: the ominously stiff silhouette; the rhyming verse refrain of menace and death; the full satisfaction of aesthetic demands without the slightest loss of combat functionality.
Yet the military is fundamentally the backbone of state power, so it is hardly surprising if its aesthetics make a zealous display of its power. In the case of the modern military, however, the rapid development of firearms has led to the disappearance of uniforms with the classic warning coloration and a concomitant advance in the design of combat-based protective coloration. In aesthetic terms as well, what is now sought is a truly prosaic style that goes hand in hand with the hypocrisy of the modern state. Whereas ostentatious and exaggerated uniforms were suited to the “king’s” army, practical uniforms are better suited to the “modern state.” In fact, compared with the magnificent regalia of the guards of the Vatican, whose military strength is nonexistent, even the uniforms of the American military, which boasts of being the strongest in the world, are so plain as to remind one of fatigues. The trend of making military uniforms increasingly prosaic has now become so general that I am tempted to set forth a principle regarding the inverse proportionality between the evolution of contemporary uniforms and their aesthetic perfection.
Now in the case of Nazi uniforms, exactly what kind of ingenuity was required in order to achieve such a brilliant effect of power? Was it the lion’s mane or the swelling of the rattlesnake’s tail? In any event, these uniforms were mass-produced, thereby restricting any waste or exaggeration intended solely for dramatic effect. They could not be like the uniforms of the Vatican guards, who number but a hundred men, apparently still clad today in the same regalia designed by Michelangelo. In terms of the emphasis on functionality, Nazi uniforms were perhaps even the equal of recent American uniforms. While certain Prussian-style traces can be perceived at the base of the steel helmet, these did not impair visibility and were quite rationally shaped so as to offer protection to the head.
Nevertheless, it would be immediately clear to anyone how different these Nazi uniforms were from the American fatigues style. Yet it is difficult to express this difference in quantitative terms. It would be easier to do so with warning coloration-type dress that allows one to emphasize the expression of attributes rather than essence, as with the feathered headdresses worn by warriors of the Kenyan plains, but it is not so easy with functionbased uniforms (and, more broadly, manufactured objects in general), as these repel all existing adjectives in the same way that oil repels water. For example, it is impossible for adjectives to properly describe the design of the latest supersonic aircraft as determined by wind-tunnel experiments. This represents an entirely new prototype of adjectives, for such things could not be described in any way other than by themselves. In terms of the Nazi uniforms as well, there seem to be no suitable expressions apart from saying that they appear in the Nazi style.
Even though the context would be identical if we described American uniforms as appearing in the American style, however, there seems to be a slight difference in nuance here.
As I mentioned, the prosaic quality of American-style design as representative of contemporary military uniforms derives from its functionalism, for these uniforms appear to call to mind fatigues. If one were to ungraciously cast suspicion on such design, however, there seems to be something intentional in the fact that these uniforms “appear to call to mind fatigues.” In comparison with Nazi uniforms, which are indifferent to appearances in their pure status as uniforms, the American design conspicuously overemphasizes its quality of everydayness.
The definition of fatigues here is simple: generally speaking, they must be thoroughly practical. Yet today there are many different types of jobs, and so there must be various designs appropriate to each. If fatigues are efficient, safe, and low priced, then there is no real need to conceive of a specific design for them. Rather, taste and habit are much more important in shaping their image. Ultimately, they represent a kind of everyday sensibility. They embody an image of labor as projected onto a screen of everyday sensibility.
In other words, American military uniforms can be seen as very shrewdly designed in terms of smuggling in the everyday sensibility of Americans under the name of functionalism. They are masked uniforms that are truly suited to the hypocrisy of the “modern state.” Their meaning is the very reverse of the feathered headdresses worn by Kenyan warriors, for their prosaic nature reveals less the essence of military uniforms than those attributes needed to conceal that essence. Such uniforms resemble a certain kind of singer who deliberately sings in a hoarse, guttural voice so as to exaggerate his folk qualities.
In comparison with these American military uniforms, the Nazis can be said to have had pure uniforms that did away with all such hypocrisy. Indeed the design of those uniforms was characterized by the negation of everydayness. Today all reality is produced and consumed in accordance with the structure of the state. If therefore it is the state that guarantees everydayness to the individual, then it is also the state that can confiscate and repossess that everydayness. In principle, democratic states reject identifying the destiny of individuals with the state, but military matters are considered an exception. Soldiers are treated differently from civilians, as even stipulated by law. In other words, good soldiers are placed under the direct control of the state, to which they are forced to surrender their civil everyday life. As such, it is only natural that military uniforms that truly appear as military uniforms are severed from everydayness, and there is nothing strange if they shamelessly gesture toward state power. Just as the results of aircraft experiments in wind tunnels typically provoke interest in aesthetics, it stands to reason that the pure uniforms of the Nazis also produced a kind of aesthetic effect. Those were truly the uniforms of men who were one hundred percent soldiers.
I am now holding two photographs in my hand. One is of several Nazi soldiers immediately before they storm into Stalingrad. A soldier aims his automatic rifle while kneeling on one knee as another is seen with his upper body floating as he appears to throw a grenade into the crack of a partially destroyed building. Faint winter sunlight shines dully on their steel helmets and drably emphasizes the wrinkles in their dust-covered uniforms. They are no doubt utterly exhausted, but they are unmistakably soldiers of Nazi Germany. Like seasoned actors, they appear in the photograph to be intently performing the role suited to their Nazi uniforms.
The other photograph was perhaps taken several months later. The place is different, but this too is of two Nazi soldiers who are walking toward the camera away from a gap between destroyed buildings. One soldier has his hands folded on top of his head while the other, several steps behind, approaches the camera with a fearful gait holding a white handkerchief in front of his face. There are perhaps Red Army soldiers behind the camera. In other words, they are surrendering Nazi soldiers. Or more accurately, they are two Germans who have just ceased being Nazi soldiers.
However, what stands between these two photographs is not simply a span of several months. The change these soldiers underwent is quite striking. It is like an actor’s face, vivid and real, after he has returned to his dressing room and washed off his role together with his makeup. This real face takes me by surprise. More than fear or exhaustion, it is actually this face that strips the Nazi soldier of his status as soldier. One of the soldiers looks like an honest youth who was perhaps the son of a farmer in some remote German village. It is difficult to see the face of the other soldier, but he might be an apprentice. Their real, everyday faces have suddenly returned, and it is the uniforms that appear perplexed and confused. This is similar to the actor who has removed his makeup, making his Hamlet costume now appear false.
At the same time, this also proves how perfectly their Nazi uniforms erased their real faces and eliminated the everyday. Defeat robbed these soldiers of more than the will to fight. It also stripped them of the meaning and idea behind their uniforms as well as deprived them of the state itself, which gave those uniforms their own identity as uniforms.
These two photographs must be described as a valuable record of the death of a certain military uniform. They also document the death of a state. Just as the signs of an animal’s death first appear in its heart, so too might the signs of a state’s death first appear in its uniforms.
This relation between the state and military uniforms is doubtless not limited to the particular circumstances of Nazi Germany. Even if only a question of degree, this relation contains a certain universal principle. Just as buildings are buildings regardless of whether they are made of wood or ferroconcrete, or whether they are prisons or palaces, the state’s function as a state, regardless of differences in social system and national conditions, means that there must be certain commonalities. If we consider the military as an armed group that is forced by state power to remain isolated from everydayness, then all military uniforms (apart from those worn by militias and guerilla clans) will in any case certainly die out in the manner of the second photograph. Otherwise they might continue living in the manner of the first photograph. And if they live, their aesthetic impulse will remain more or less dormant.
No matter how much the military pretends to indulge everydayness with its fatigues style, one never hears about their recognition of unions or abolition of medals and decorations. Insofar as the state functions as a state, what is ultimately desired of military uniforms is that they become better uniforms. In all armies, therefore, the fastidious inspection of soldiers’ uniforms and gear remains one of a sergeant’s major duties.
It was several years ago when I first heard rumors about the military-look fad. Frankly, I was unable to hide my sense of bitterness at this news. According to articles in the glossy weekly magazines, exclusive military-look corners had been set up in certain sections of department stores, and such items as Nazi swastika armbands had become popular. Following the eradication of the Nazis, of course, military uniforms of such pure beauty had completely disappeared. Military power itself had greatly expanded, but uniforms in general had become much more modest, perhaps out of political concerns. It was perhaps in revolt against such hypocrisy that restless youths had been driven toward uniforms of greater purity.
I am well aware that youths often rebel. Rather than claiming that such rebellions arise from their dissatisfactions, one might even say that youths seek out those dissatisfactions in order to rebel. This tendency no doubt derives from a kind of dropout mentality that is particular to adolescence. This phrase “dropout mentality” might sound bad, but there is no negative implication here. Rather it refers to the sense of fear one gradually grows conscious of in the relation between oneself and the world, and this reveals a sensitivity that is essential for objectifying and expanding one’s own potential. Such a dropout mentality appears as suspicion and discomfort with the established order, which otherwise presents itself as perfect and complete. By focusing its antennae on the heretical rather than the orthodox, this dropout mentality also functions as an auxiliary fuel tank for society. As long as these youths have an indefinite future, there is nothing particularly strange about such rebellion, even if it appears to be “without a cause.”
My sense of bitterness is thus not at all directed to the military-look fad itself. Rather, it is directed to the world that implants the foolish illusion that aesthetic military uniforms, as represented by the swastika armband, can become present-day heresies and function as an emblem that satisfies the rebellious spirit of these youths. As long as the military look remains a fad, peace will appear in the eyes of these angry youths as an orthodoxy that rules over most of the contemporary world.
In this sense, of course, one can certainly see in the recent discourse of so-called “progressives” a tendency to rest on the laurels of their peacebased orthodoxy. As if in response, conservative commentators howl back by adopting a tragic, faux-minority pose. These two groups make a perfect picture when matched up together—a cartoon in which the majority forces for peace support the status quo while several lean, hungry wolves bide their time, waiting for their opportunity.
If this were true, then the military look would be perfectly fine. No matter what, one must unsettle any orthodoxy that rests on its laurels. Besides, youths are rebelling against the concept of “peace” rather than peace itself. Rebellion is inherently an awareness of one’s own powerlessness and ends up attacking concepts at most. Just as conservative forces regard left-wing rebellion as harmless, so too is right-wing rebellion more or less unthreatening.
But today how much orthodoxy has been promised for peace? Of course affirmation of war itself seems to be over. If someone advocated war for the purpose of war, that might certainly deserve to be called heretical. But the idea of war as a necessary evil has now been consumed as our daily bread for a disgustingly long period of time. Japan merely happens to be one of those exceptional countries where people don’t need to directly smell the scent of gunpowder. War for peace. Using war as an excuse to maintain the orthodoxy of peace. A suspicious-looking long-term bill of high face value for which there appears no date of payment. Ironically, the reality of this situation is such that the peace orthodoxy also supports the war orthodoxy.
Even if the Vietnamese War were to end tomorrow and the day came when people would no longer die in battle, such peace would ultimately be but another name for a cease-fire. Even if that peace were to last ten years, that would be nothing more than a long cease-fire. Unfortunately, the conditions under which the military look could become an actual rebellion are nowhere to be found.
Perhaps for this reason, the military look disappeared without becoming a major fad. According to one theory, it was forced in Japan to make way for the sensation of the Twiggy miniskirt, thereby missing out on its chance to become a real fad. That was a fad for women, however, whereas I am interested here in fads for men. Yet trendsetters these days are not overly concerned about this distinction between men and women. It seems that the trend now is to develop unisex strategies, so it might be naïve to think of fads as separate for men and women. In any event, without causing any great fuss, the military-look fad quickly disappeared with barely a shout of encouragement.
Just recently, however, I unexpectedly had a chance to see the real military look, despite the fact that it is now quite out of season. The place was Shinjuku, at a corner of a very crowded underground shopping area. Let me begin by introducing the style: the coat of course had a stand-up collar and the color was navy blue with ocher embroidery around the ribs. Its shape resembled an eighteenth-century European military uniform, but the actual impression was that of something handed down from a cabaret doorman. All manner of crests and badges were affixed everywhere. Gold braid fell from the left shoulder. On the right arm, shamelessly, there appeared a Nazi swastika armband. The trousers were made of black woolen cloth with red embroidery on the sides. On the feet, moreover, rubber zōri sandals were worn instead of shoes. The hair was very long, in the style of hippies.
I instantly felt ashamed by my lack of foresight. It seems that I had seriously mistaken the military-look fad, or perhaps the fad’s meaning. If that outfit were what is meant by the military look—or if that were its parody—then I could fully understand it and make sense of it. The outfit mostly didn’t match, but one could detect some expression precisely in that mismatched quality. If someone were showing off a pure military uniform in this manner, he could only be a schizophrenic patient who had escaped from a mental hospital. However, it would be quite impossible for a schizophrenic patient to offer such comment. If I were to arrange strictly from memory the crests and badges worn in place of military decorations on the outfit, there was for example a ski tournament memorial award, a woman’s large red lips holding a cigarette, a clipping from a department store brand, and a membership badge from the Japan Automobile Association, etc. I suspect that those rubber zōri sandals might actually have been intended as part of the Vietcong look.
It was truly an insolent farce. As someone who seriously turns his head merely upon hearing the phrase “Nazi swastika,” I myself was unwittingly part of the group being mocked.
When one considers this style, which cannot be mass-produced, one realizes that it cannot easily become a fad in the manner of changing skirt lengths or tie widths. Fads begin by insinuating themselves into people’s desire to assert themselves by appearing different from others; these fads then incite people’s desire to remain current by joining a group that asserts itself until, finally, the fads completely sell themselves to the point of obsolescence. A masterful cocktail of rebellion and sycophancy provides a chance for trendsetters to show their skill, and while this cocktail makes one drowsy, it has virtually no stimulating effects. As can moreover be seen in the fate of Nazi uniforms, those uniforms that are divorced from the state no longer even retain the form of uniforms. In particular, since military uniforms began to assume a mask of hypocrisy, they barely appear as real uniforms, and those that do appear as uniforms can exist only as parodies. In the past when military uniforms still existed in Japan, I used to see such soldier doll figures as toy soldiers made of lead, but even these were imitations of an earlier era of soldiers with warning coloration-type uniforms. Parody can’t even be seen in dolls. Parody fads are a parody of fads themselves, which is not logically possible. Rather than attributing the decay of the military look to its defeat to Twiggy, must we not regard it as a defeat to itself?
Ultimately, the outfit that I saw was perhaps not a fad at all but simply an irregular blooming of the military look that appeared slightly out of season. There would be nothing odd about it being a parody if it were such an irregular blooming.
But then how are we to consider the Beatles? One theory claims that it was the Beatles who pioneered the military look. Twiggy, who is said to have killed off the military look in Japan, vanished all too soon while the Beatles’ name still lives on even today.
In, for example, their record Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, the title, of course, and even the album jacket are the very epitome of the military look. In the center of the jacket are the Beatles, looking quite serious in military uniform. Yet this uniform is a gaudy affair with all the frills from the era of uniforms of protective coloration. The Beatles’ serious expressions naturally produce a comic effect. In front of them is a flower bed adorned with marijuana flowers, while gathered behind them stands a sculptured group of such contemporary heroes as Marx, Marilyn Monroe, Edgar Allen Poe, Marlon Brando, Che Guevara, and Al Capone. This is quite an insolent design.
The content of the album is no less ingeniously devised than its jacket. Come on, everyone, please listen! “It was twenty years ago today that Sergeant Pepper—i.e., the hot-tempered sergeant—carefully taught our ‘Lonely Hearts Club’ band to play. So let me introduce to you a song by the famous Mr. ‘Castration Knife.’”1 Through these very funny lyrics, ultimately, the dreams and ideals of a lonely and hard-hearted sergeant are fully transformed into parody.
In other words, the military look did not first become parody after it had drifted to the town of Shinjuku. Such parodying was clearly prepared by the Beatles, who pioneered the military look. If we consider parody as an awakening, the very opposite of fads, then this look seems to be an antifad fad. What had been impossible for conventional theories actually began in this manner. Of course the military look could not become a major fad. As an antifad fad, it could only be a flower that blooms out of season. Even for comic actors, however, knowingly wearing a parody is an advanced technique that requires a great deal of experience.
Among contemporary youths, has a new premonition thus come about that already allows them to understand this era as comedy? The concept of a parodied military look goes beyond a mere farcifying of military uniforms and even touches upon a farcifying of the state itself in its attempt to preserve the orthodoxy of military uniforms in exchange for the orthodoxy of peace. But this is in any case a rebellion, so it’s no big deal. No doubt the Beatles were presented with medals because it’s not such a big deal. Nevertheless, one can detect in their prank a poison that even medals cannot dilute. I might simply be imagining things, but I do believe that in this parodying of heresy there exists a daring kind of wisdom that might also parody the grounds of orthodoxy.
In any event, the era of anguished heresy seems to have already disappeared. Genuine heresy will perhaps come wearing a clown costume.