Everyday War: How Small Intimate Moments Shape Wartime Realities in Ukraine with Greta Uehling

Adam:

Welcome back to another episode of this Anthro life the podcast that digs deep into the fascinating world of anthropology and explores the diverse ways in which humans navigate their lives. I'm your host, Adam Gamwell. And today we have a guest who will challenge your perceptions of war, peace and the intricate dance of human relationships. Now, you may think that war is all about soldiers battling it out on the frontlines, or politics being decided from afar by those in power. But what if I told you that war isn't just fought on battlefields but also around breakfast tables? On today's episode, we explore concept that challenges our understanding of war and its impact on ordinary people. And our guest today has developed a groundbreaking concept known as everyday war, a term that might sound paradoxical at first, but trust me, it'll leave you questioning everything you thought you knew about conflict. Joining us today is Dr. Greta Uehling is an anthropologist and expert specializing in conflict and identity. Her research takes us deep into the heart of Ukraine during times of intense conflict to share the stories and lived experiences of ordinary people caught in the web of everyday war. But here's the twist. Instead of focusing on violence and destruction, she takes us on a journey to discover how everyday acts of kindness, connection and even resistance, shape and transform communities amidst the chaos. Now throughout our conversation with Dr. Uehling, we explore captivating anecdotes in thought provoking stories that challenge the conventional perception of war. From a man who forms a connection with those who want shot him to the dynamics and complexities of family relationships is shattered by the conflict. Each tale unfolds the intricacies of humanity amidst chaos. And this is the heart of it. It's not just these big headline grabbing stories that matter. Doctor Uehling reveals the power of small, intimate moments in choices that people make that offers a fresh perspective on the impact of war, identity and the strength of communities. So get ready to shed a preconceived notions and join us as we step into this fascinating world of everyday war, looks for resilience, hope in the surprising connections that emerge amidst the turmoil, we're also going to be diving into the ethics of doing research in war torn in wartime environments. So without further ado, go ahead and hit that subscribe button if you're new to the podcast. Great to have you on board. And let's dive into our conversation with Dr. Grid. Just to kick us off, I want to welcome you credit to the program. I'm really excited to talk with you today. You know, again, this conversation has been a long time coming and excited that we are finally here. So thanks for joining me on the podcast today.

Greta: 

It's great to be here.

Adam:

Awesome. So for folks listening at home or watching at home, I'd love to kind of have you walk us into the work itself, you know, getting a sense, you know, as a, as a co fellow anthropologist, get assistance about like what it is that your your work you were looking at, you know, we're talking a bit about everyday war and the book that you've recently published, as well as kind of the broader questions that raise from the themes of, you know, what is civilian life, like during war, I thought, this is a really powerful book, an examination to make us stop and think about what is everyday life actually, like, in a wartime environment? Because we often think and you point this out in your book, too, about state level politics, and you know, the top level talking to one another. And I find that difficult because it is your work, your work points on your work helps us see is that there's actually this entire world. You know, anthropologically, of course, you know, we see this all the time, but there's everyday people living their lives in these extraordinary environments. And so I'll stop talking about it. Now, I'd love to hear and get a sense from your perspective of walk us into this this kind of arena and your work and what you're doing to get a sense of what's happening in this space around immigrant.

Greta:

Absolutely. So I am a cultural anthropologist who, whose research is broadly concerned with international migration. And I was planning a project in 2013 that involved Ukraine, when the Crimea was occupied by Russian forces. And so that was the initial context for the research. And I think that actually, the cover does a good job of providing us with an entree, because if you think about the images that we see on the news about the war in Ukraine, many of them show us these apartment buildings with the walls or the ceilings that have just been sheared off by shelling. And what this book tries to do is actually provide a perspective from within the war. And that's the reason that the cover shows a picture I'll view from inside one of those buildings, looking out at a landscape. So in the corner, you see some plush toys. The window appears to be broken out, there's some debris in the other corner, but it's a fairly typical Ukrainian apartment building, with a view on the Ukrainian landscape outside and I think that that is the beauty of anthropology for studies of war and conflict. which is that they can at least begin to give us a slightly more in depth perspective on what goes on for civilians during war. And give us a view from the civilians perspective. Like, that's,

Adam:

that's such an important point to, again, because oftentimes media in different, you know, storytelling apparatuses, you know really kind of prop up these like higher level state level and abstract stories that kind of obscure the everyday lives of beats people. And so that's why I also appreciate your cover and walking us through it there to get a sense of this is actually, someone's home with something that you'd expect to have plush toys in their, their kid's bedroom, being able to look at a nice, fairly bucolic looking, you know, window window scene outside today, to remind us that this is what we think about when you say everyday life, and to recognize that it happens in these spaces, too. So tell me a bit about the student that that kind of decision that we're, you're kind of playing with and wrestling with this notion. War means life stops, everyday life stops, right. And even the fact that your title, your book is called everyday war is obviously breaking down that, that barrier. So tell me a little bit about this. And the kind of the choice of drawing on this concept. Like, let's, let's break down what the concept is. But even think about that as the title of the book. You know, how, what kind of inspired you to save, let's actually bring ourselves into the story of the folks making lives? Yeah.

Greta:

Yeah, I mean, I think one of the things that surprised me the most, when I embarked on my research, expecting to find recipients of humanitarian aid and victims of a of a violent conflict, what I actually found when I listened really carefully was that people were engaging with the war in very conscious and creative ways that gave rise to the title everyday war, which really just refers to these, you know, strategic and deliberate ways that civilians participated in the conflict. And I think, you know, Alexandra's story is a really classic example, because instead of continuing her university studies after she was displaced from the east, she chose as her first priority to provision her father with the, you know, the the night vision goggles and the tactical gloves that he needed for his position as a sniper. And she did that, knowing full well that the people that he would most likely be aiming at were their former neighbors and friends. Another example of this everyday kind of war is Yuri, who, after he demobilized, you know, decided that he was going to set up a, like a war themed cafe to educate patrons and give veterans an alternative to depression. And so what really distinguishes this everyday kind of war is that it is its motivation, which is more about preserving selected connections, like not all connections, but selected ones. And so it's more interested in preserving intimate family friend connections than in killing, per se, but it doesn't stop short of that. And I think that, that is what really distinguishes it from war itself.

Adam:

Yeah, and it's, it's such a powerful framing, because it's something that, you know, I as a reader, and you know, as a as a human being, I, you know, I find myself, it's like, it was very jarring to kind of think about this idea of everyday war, right. And I want like, my brain wanted to jump to the question of conflict, but, you know, kind of as your as your work shows that we're kind of talking you through here, it's that it's actually really war is enacted in so many different levels in different ways, right. And so it's not just about violence, and killing, those are those are pieces, of course, and there, they can be very large pieces, obviously, you know, but then also when we talk and listen to people's stories and kind of listen in this, like deeper and wider sense, we realize that there's a lot underlying that. And so, I think this is again, a really this, this powerful idea of what does it mean to like preserve these selected connections that really matter to us. And they become defined in very, very kind of distinct ways, when the contours of the other relationships, you know, I mean, even though I agree to Alexander story is really compelling and challenging, right? How she's like choosing to purchase war gear for her father, who was a sniper, right? And so, you know, knowing that he's gonna go be shooting at probably former neighbors and friends, right. But in this case, like this was kind of her choice of how to support her family and how to support the connections that she was really trying to hold on to in this in the time of change. Yeah, I thought that was really interesting kind of question. And so one of the things that this kind of brings us to then is, as we're thinking about conflict studies, or how we talk about conflict and war in kind of traditional settings, the idea of every day brings us again, more to the kind of the ethnographic read the level of horror People living in these in these spaces. And so I'm curious to kind of get your reflections in this regard to of like when we talked about preserving selective connections, like how are people deciding who they wanted to keep those connections with another sect depended on the person. But I think it's a curious question of like, when we have to make tough choices, how do you see that play out for folks in the field?

Greta:

That's a wonderful question. And I like to think about it in terms of ethics of care, as well as intersectionality. So one of the things that this kind of everyday war does is force people to think carefully about human vulnerability. And when people start thinking carefully about human vulnerability, they find that they have very difficult choices to make. And those choices are really continually changing. Think Alina is a really good example. Because from from the book, you know, because she became very involved in volunteering to help people who had been displaced from the war. And this was really a way for her to cope with everything that was going on around her. But the more the deeper that she became involved in volunteering, the more her values and priorities started to change. And so she tells me the story of, you know, coming home from volunteering one evening, and she's just filled with these emotions and these ideas about life and death and mortality. And she walks in the door, and her husband says, Where's my abortion? And she says, What, borscht, right? Because their perspective on life has shifted in these intervening months in which they have been involved in in the war. And so I think that the reason that intersectionality is helpful here is, you know, if we think about intersectionality, as emphasizing the overlapping quality of social identities, and the way that people can be curiously advantaged or disadvantaged by these multiple sources of oppression, if we flip our perspective and say, Okay, well, the object of our analysis, now the relationships between people, we can see that war changed the relationships, that people had both with each other with people that they knew very well and with people that they had only recently met. And so this is really important for Ukraine, where brothers could end up fighting on opposite sides of war. At the same time that you know, somebody that you met, yesterday, becomes a key ally in your survival. And so people made decisions based on both their immediate situation, but also on the politics of the situation, and the extent to which they were politicized by the conflict itself. And so this is why and when one of the chapters, the chapter is devoted to friendship, I talk about how people sort of had two strategies for this, like, one was kind of D, politicizing the relationships and developing a form of like selective deafness to maintain a relationship in the face of political disagreement. And then the other strategy was to say, look, if if we don't see these, if we don't see this word, the same way, then we can't have a relationship, right. And that's why romantic partnerships broke up, friendships ended, and even parent child relationships were destabilized. In the in the book, I give an example of that with a woman named Larissa, whose only son voluntary ly enlisted to fight in the war. And unfortunately, you know, within days of joining this elite Airborne Division, he was shocked out. And it just so happened he was shot down, like within miles of the place where he had been born and spent his first years of life. Well, Larissa looked at the situation and she realized that her mother had contributed financially to the Russian administration, in the region where he was shot down. Her sister was working for that administration. And she just decided that, you know, to her way of seeing things the situation they were partly responsible for his death and she could no longer so See it with them? She said, You know, I still love them. But do I speak to them? Absolutely not. And so that gives you a sense of how relationships were reconfigured. And it was both, you know, there were situations in which it was advantageous, and situations in which it was dis happened, he just but fundamentally, the reason that I think that looking at relationships in a time of war is really illuminating is that it liberates us from being locked into looking at identity categories like child soldier, elderly, female, trans, whatever, those categories, maybe that's very important for anthropological research. However, what I'm saying is, well, there's an additional way to look at this, which is, look at the look at this interstitial layer, not the individual trauma, or the geopolitical conflict. But what's going on in between those two things. And there's this whole world of relationships that are absolutely crucial to whether or not a person survives, whether or not a person survives with some peace of mind or not. So we can think about Alexander's father, he had night vision goggles and tactical gloves that the military couldn't provide. Alexander helped him survive. And so it's has enormous implications for war as a whole how these interpersonal relationships play out.

Adam:

That's a really powerful example. I mean, there's a ton that you just showed that even just thinking about the the last one right there with thinking about Alexandra and her father, and that, you know, the other the other piece you point out the other is, there's the geopolitical connection there that that oftentimes the the Ukraine military was saying that we actually can't provide, like, get your own boots, right, it was something else or like, you know, you have to bring your own tools for certain things. And that's an interesting thing to think about. Because I really appreciate the way that you broke down this, this idea that we, you know, even as I was saying, when I'm walking us into this, too, it's like I was getting stuck in the geopolitical question. And oftentimes, the I think the other side, that gets really interesting, too, that we often may not realize that we're doing is that we're, we're boxing people into different kind of identity categories, and thinking about them as a certain kind of the the, you know, the elderly, the, the child soldier. And so I think you're really beautifully connected these ideas, making us rethink what's actually happening in the middle there, because that's where most of us live. Also, none of us live as an identity category or as a geopolitical entity or a pawn of the global chessboard. Right? Right. So it's interesting, and I think important for us to pause and recognize when we're doing that, when we're thinking about global stories, right. And seeing these pieces in these these, I mean, these like small, intimate moments, these choices that people are making, whether it is kind of selective deafness, I'm not going to choose not to listen to, you know, what I'm hearing over here, or, you know, a family that gets kind of broken up, because of the job position in the role that one has, they get their sister as when we before the hand didn't really realize that was that was an issue, right? It became an issue upon her son's death and recognizing, like, where it happened, where he was shot down. That's really interesting challenge, you know, as we think about this idea of like, how identities can change. And so, I mean, I agree with you, I think in terms of like intersectionality is an important way to approach this, this kind of conversation. I mean, it really helped me recognize where my bias was of how I was thinking a story of like, like around more would be told, you know, especially from a citizen perspective, something else is interesting to to kind of there's there's an additional tension that you actually add to this. And that's around the idea of politicizing friendships too, right, that some people choose to only be friends, because of a national identity. And this, this causes tensions to rise. So I'm kind of curious to add this just a little bit into the mix in terms of like, part of it is what like minded individuals do I feel safe talking with about what's happening, but then, obviously, in you in Ukraine itself, right, there was there are people that were kind of pro separatism in other people that were saying, no, we want to we do not condone the attempted taken back by Russia, of eastern provinces. And so how did that how did that kind of play out to them this is, you know, getting a bit of the geopolitical but also, it really is plays out like on this very personal level, though, too. And like, even this idea of like, of taking something very intimate, like friendship, but then like, casting it into this this, like, national political set of conversations instead of choices of like, this is how I can choose if I'm friends with somebody or not. How did that how did that kind of play out? For some folks, this is a really interesting piece, as well, like, what do we do when we have these kind of opposing views? And then where do I feel safe talking to different folks based on our national or political standing?

Greta:

Yeah, and and so in answer to your question, I think it's useful to divide the war into two phases. There's a phase that begins in 2014 with the occupation of Crimea and the outbreak of military hostilities in the Eastern Region. then. And that lasts really up until 2022, when we have this full scale invasion that engulfs the entire country of Ukraine in a response to military aggression. And if we look at that first phase, and that's the phase that the book is primarily concerned with, what we see is that there was actually a great deal of space to select whether we're going to organize our social circle along political lines, or not. Now that the full scale invasion and the counter offensive are underway, the amount of like emotional and social space for that kind of relating has shrunk dramatically. So in the, in the book, I give the story of Svetlana who had male friends on both sides, the one who enlisted on the Russian side, the other had enlisted on the Ukrainian side, and they were part of contract armies, primarily getting involved to, you know, both defend their country, but also because there was a salary that was wetted at higher available to those people in those jobs, then outside of the military. And so those two soldiers were able to drink tea, and eat cake at her kitchen table in the evenings, because she had established this policy that, you know, we're just not going to talk about politics in this house. And so they talked about everything else. They talked about the weather, they talked about how they talked about sometimes they talked about like sports, their family, their children, how their children were doing topics like like that. That's no longer possible, right? There's not the space for that anymore, given the scale of Russian aggression against Ukraine. And so, you know, what we hear now is that if, you know, for Ukrainian person sits on a international airliner to travel and they discover that they're sitting next to a Russian person, they might not even stay in that seat, let alone talk to that person. Right. So things have changed quite a bit. Yeah,

Adam:

I mean, that that's an interesting point, too, as we think about, you know, when the the geopolitical scale changes, then the identity categories that we we work across, right, like the it's I mean, it's interesting to note, like, it reminds us that they're dynamic, they're organic, too, right? They're never, they're never fixed categories. And this is a great example of how that happens. Right? I mean, it's also not very common that you go from a I mean, I want to say non non nationalized crisis to a nationalized crisis, because they were both national crises from 2014. Until now, like at the full scale invasion, starting last year in 2022. But like, this, is this an interesting question in terms of then the social space that that people have, and like how they will only be able to respond so much. And I think it's interesting to as you note this, too, because when you're doing the research primarily for this book, right, we're in the earlier period, kind of 20 2014, up to 2022, and 2017, I think 2024 to 2017. And then to kind of, you know, I don't know, be given this ethnographic bomb of it also happening again, like on a bigger scale, is, I think, a huge challenge point. I mean, I'm curious if that has changed your thoughts about how to do fieldwork? You know, as an anthropologist, you know, if we're going to wartime space, I mean, something that I thought was really harrowing, too, even as you're kind of opening up in the book, thinking about the, you know, red, yellow, and green zones of where is the safe, where's it most dangerous to go, and hearing stories about about folks, you know, going to get bred in the market, but then like, having to time when they're running out, you know, and just kind of being aware of if they're, if they're in like a high conflict zone versus versus not, versus you may just hear kind of gunfire further away. And so even just thinking about this, it harkens to, I mean, I don't know, a very, very dangerous sounding type of scholarship, you know, and type of work, I think, very important to connect people's stories to broader communities. But But tell me a little about this, too. And like how you approach this. I mean, this is a kind of a methodological question, for folks that are thinking about doing field work and finding themselves in difficult scenarios. But then also just broadly, like what does it mean to do research in a in a place like this? I mean, as I'm asking this, because I'm thinking mythologically, but then also, I also want to dive into, for example, the idea of empathetic listening and how we have to employ that in these these tough spaces. So let's, let's go with the kind of the methods first, like how did that how did that kind of work for you, and how did you kind of navigate the and strategize around doing work in Ukraine during this time?

Greta:

You know, when I was working in Ukraine, really one of my primary concerns was to do the research ethically in such a way that it didn't harm anybody that I spoke with. Because as you know that you know, there's a there's a really important anthropological literature about how difficult it is to talk about violence, and the ways in which violence creates these enormous silences that can't be spoken. And in many ways, you know, the silence is, is the message. And so I was very cognizant of that anthropological literature when I embarked upon my research, and I decided that, you know, there was a number of ways to work ethically in this situation. And really, the first thing was actually not interviewing people who I knew to be traumatized at all, because there's other ways to relate with people and communicate with people that don't involve really asking any questions at all. And, or two, we have the beauty of anthropology, right participant observation, where it can be something as simple as having a meal, or going for a walk with a person that enables you to understand something about the world in which they live without eliciting for them what they went through in the past. You know, it emerges in different ways. And one of the ways that it emerges is letting people talk about the things that they want to talk about. And so, and one of the chapters, I talked about this woman who had fled the Eastern Region, and before she left, she had to sell all of her, her furniture in her kitchen appliances to fund the bus tickets for each of her five daughters, who she was very afraid might be subject to violence from Russian military. And her narrative was not about her daughters, it was about the kitchen appliances. And at first, I got very frustrated by that, because I had absolutely no interest in the make or model of her refrigerator. But it was by giving her a really, really free rein to talk about it in the way that she wanted to talk about it, that I realized there was a pattern, right, we went clients by appliance, daughter by daughter. And that was her way of speaking to the very important things that she had had to give up. Right, which is for her, it was like life in a modern European city, to live out in the country with no conveniences or comforts of home, but also like what she had gained, which is that, you know, all five daughters had survived had had exited the war zone. Um, or I give the example of so objects was one way to learn. And then embody and experiences, were another way to learn. So I, in towards the end of the book, I talk about my visit to a shelter for recently internally displaced people from that from the conflict in the east, and they talk about going to this barbecue, and then you have a meal, go upstairs into the dining area. And I'm very careful not to probe people that I know have, you know, left the warzone within months. And so really all that we do is have a meal. But I learned so much from that meal by the questions they asked me, or they asked me a lot of questions about food, what kind of food I have access to questions of that nature, topics they bring up with each other, we're really illuminating. And then finally, there's a woman who's sitting directly across from me, who is anxious and traumatized enough that she can't actually eat the food in front of her. And so what she does is she puts it into a recycled pickle jar. She starts with a soup, and then she puts the salad on top of the soup. And then she puts the meatballs on top of the salad. And then you know, the dessert gets crammed in there on top of that, and then she seals the lid. And that pickled jar, that greasy pickle jar that was not very appealing to look at also became a metaphor for me to understand her food insecurity. Her relationships with the other people in the shelter who she did not yet entirely trust the interpersonal work that had to be done between mean, the people in the shelter that were coming from different regions, ribbit, you know, put up with the, you know, her eating out of the pickle jar when she finally felt safe in the middle of the night. Like it, there's there are ways into the experience of civilians at war that don't involve a lot of talking. So that's one way then with the people who I didn't did interview, anonymity was essential, I did not write down the vast majority of the people's names, they got numbers right away. Um, they knew they were getting numbers, and that I had no way to contact them. That made me feel at ease, because I felt like any anonymizing system with a computer could be hacked. If I had been, you know, arrested, detained, questioned if my, any of my electronic equipment had been stolen, or confiscated, I just, I wanted to completely exclude that possibility. So I've kept in touch with a subset of people who, like subsequently reached out to me on different platforms of social media, and I'm in daily contact with a subset of like, 2530 people. So you know, that I'm current on what's happening now. But anonymity was important. And then letting people choose, the language of the interview was important, Russian, English or Ukrainian, because language two has become politicized. And if at the beginning of my research, the majority chose Russian, because they had just exited these Russian areas, towards the end, they were choosing Ukrainian or English, to avoid having to speak the language of the colonizer. So there too, you can help people be at ease in an interview situation with, with in many, many different different ways.

Adam:

That's, that's really helpful in that, thanks, thanks for walking through that. Because, you know, there's these ideas, you know, to kind of recap some of these these issues that stood out to me here is that one, you know, we think about doing interviews and participant observation, kind of as the bread and butter of a lot of anthropological research, right. But I think you really well pointed out there that it doesn't have to be talking is how we both can glean and learn from people, and especially learning from ways that they want to teach us right. And so in this case, like how we can spend time with someone over a meal. And that just Yeah, I mean, that that also just echoes very true. In my my own fieldwork, I did in southern Peru with quinoa farmers and agricultural scientists, and people don't always want to talk about the political thing that's happening, you know, but they'll have a meal with you, right? And they may not even ever mention any politics thing, but like, how they serve you food, in what context? And like, do they, you know, you know, you may get an off comment here or there. So that that kind of gives you some slight clue. But really, it's like, I think it's, I think one of the joys of anthropology, I mean, it's, you know, as much as Mason, like we're talking about joy here, but in terms of methodological work, in terms of that it has an openness to kind of follow people where they're at, and kind of meet them where they are in order to actually, you know, if we are to understand folks, we have to be where that we have to be where they are, and let them kind of take us there in that space, like when they want to on their own terms. And so I think that's, that's a really powerful example, and that the pickle jar example really stood out to me in the book, as well as this, you know, also, this reminder of these, these small acts of rebellion or protection that people do, like, do give us important metaphors for how they're existing in their environment, in ways that they won't tell us or they won't maybe even tell themselves sometimes, right? You know, and that's part of the work is to help observe that and to tell that story. So other folks can kind of wake up to the fact that this is this is how reality is for, for different people in different places, you know, especially when you're looking at, like an ethics of care in a traumatized population, right? And like, how do we not re ignite some of that trauma by kind of saying, you know, of course, never to say, So how was the war today? You know, but like, recognizing that, like, you know, thinking about this as other researchers, if they're heading into the field or thinking about this, too, it's like providing that space for folks to be human and remembering that we are humans working with other humans, right. And this is the communities that we're working with, and they live with. So having that kind of idea of like embodiment is such an important part of this, this kind of work. And also, I appreciate your point about interviews, too. And that one animated T is important. And like we talked about that in a non non more time environment, too, right? Like, you don't necessarily want to have your interlocutors names, because they might be disclosing things that are politically sensitive in the community, you know, or just, for some reason, fleep acquired them to my mind and like, you'd want to be using people's names talking about, you know, dope sellers in the city, you know, because it might not be safe for the community members that are sharing these stories, but but then it seems doubly important, obviously, in these like both politically charged and politically volatile in war environments, like this, but then also this idea of like letting folks choose their language. That's really interesting to note that kind of folks began to switch their their language choice over time, as a signal saying this is this is where I'm standing in, you know, just by doing that itself is going to this, I think is trying to let us know something of where we are. I think that that's, that's really important. One thing I would I glosses over this, I wanna I want to make sure we come to this this other point here, because we talked a bit about the idea of everyday war, but there's the there's the kind of correlate not quite opposite, but everyday peace, right? And then kind of reminding us to that there's this other side, as people are navigating both relationships in, in the space and part of it is like, how do we contribute as a noncombatant civilian to the war effort and build relationships around that, but then the other side is a bit of, of everyday peace. And so like one of the one of the things, of course, is the the idea of practicing kind of the the political deafness for a little while, and we could earlier on right, that I can get to pretend you're talking about what you're talking about. I don't believe that but but tell us a bit about this idea to in terms of everyday peace as this other important part, because war doesn't just exist by itself. But there's obviously people think about what's the absence of war? Some people say please, tell me a bit about this idea of like the choice to also kind of contrast everyday war and everyday peace as these two kind of forces at play in people's interstitial relationships.

Greta:

Sure, sure. So I developed this concept of everyday war in critical dialogue with the international relations theory of everyday peace. And this theory of everyday peace looks like basically, it seeks to take the the actions of non highly actors more seriously by considering these multiple societal levels simultaneously. This is a huge advance for international relations, theorizing. But the challenge is, it's first of all, it's difficult to apply in a situation of all out war since 2022. Plus, there is a disciplinary focus here that comes into play. Whereas International Relations scholars as primarily political scientists, are primarily interested in figuring out ways to scale up these every day, conflict calming mechanisms that individuals come up with in their daily interactions. I was, as an anthropologist, much more interested in the sort of proximate outcomes, right for people like Alexandria or her father. And so I was interested in the local and immediate effects of civilians actions, and probably the best example I can give you to flesh that out is the guy named, I think his pseudonym was eager. And what happens to him is he is a very, he describes himself as a right wing pro Ukrainian at the inception of the hostilities. And so when the Russian backed authorities come to power in those eastern regions, he is on their hit list and they come to his house one morning in black balaclavas, covering their faces, civilian clothes, they're armed. And they said, you know, you're coming with us, he follows them. And because he didn't want to get his wife to be harmed in any way. But as soon as he's in his front yard, he decides to make a run for it, the shoot him in the back, to bring him down, throw him in the local basement jail, where his wounds are tended to, you know, he's fed conditions are difficult, but not not a pourraient. He's not, he's not tortured, he's just imprisoned. And they keep in there for about 30 days. And then they release him, at which point, you know, a human rights organization that's been working with his wife basically swoops in with to train tickets and evacuate them to another part of Ukraine. So when I interviewed him, what surprised me the most is if he said, You know, I'm only too glad to keep in touch with them. When I was surprised by that these are people who shot him. But the more we talked, the more sense it seemed to me because from his perspective, politics was epiphenomenal. The people who shot him could change their stripes tomorrow and decide differently about politics. So one part with the politics part, another part was vague. He had essentially recused himself of any godlike responsibility for punishment. He just felt like that wasn't his call to make and so he just felt like it was his role in life to be as good to any person that he encountered. But then there's this third layer, because we've got politics, we have religion. And then we have this third layer of really pure pragmatism, because he viewed the people who shot him as his future neighbors. He wanted to go back. And as he established something of a relationship with them, they had gone from being rebels to being in the police and the administration. And they were in an excellent position to like, repair his garage door. They broke to re secure his house when it was broken into to drive his car and keep it running in in good working order for when he went back. And the last time I spoke with him, he said, Yeah, sure enough, they changed their views on on politics. And so I think that, you know, all of those variables play a role politics, religion, pragmatism, you know, your vision for your future, in these conflict calming mechanisms.

Adam:

Yeah, that's such a powerful story. In it's so intense to, to kind of think about, I mean, you know, as we put our if you put ourselves in elections, and it's like, would you how would I feel if I was dragged out shot, you know, thrown in jail, thankfully rescued, but then also the entire time, you know, or across this process, kind of saying, well, it's not up to me to judge them. And, and I think, what's I think, what sounds perhaps most surprising, you know, in contemporary United States right now, in terms of Arab political polarization is that, oh, well, my neighbor could change their mind about their politics, when this thing is over, or, you know, they could they can kind of switch their perspective at any moment. And that's, that's a really, you know, interesting and powerful example, that, you know, even at the deepest levels, that, you know, there are people that recognize that those things can change. And I think what's most interesting, is also the fact that his captors did change their perspective, right, they change their kind of politics also, as part of that. And so it's a really interesting question. I mean, does that does that offer, I guess, does that do you think that echoes anything that we might think about here in the US, you know, in terms of how we approach political conversations today, in terms of that, we're because we're just told that things are so so polarized in that, like, you know, it's, it's, it's a zero sum game, right. I mean, this is I know, this is also very, could actually link into our zombification of media propaganda that the folks also talk about in Ukraine, but, you know, I guess, yeah. What reflections might that get us to think about, you know, when we, when we find, I think these really interesting stories that people are willing to share with us in the field that that can change how we think about life at home, you know, and so again, for me, that was a question of how I think about American politics, right? I'm curious for your perspective, too, did that story, change a little bit of how we might think or give us something to think about some food for thought, of how we tell stories about who we are at home?

Greta:

Yeah, I mean, I do think it gives us food for thought for dealing with a polarized society at home. And I think everybody has to make these calls for themselves with there's no single way to navigate these very complicated political waters. That's like, right or wrong, everybody has to find their own way, based on their own belief, but I do think that it helps to think about the environment in which a person is thinking and speaking. And that's where the media comes in. Because, you know, in Russia and Ukraine, many regions, people cannot easily access. The other perspective. Washoe was very careful to shut down Russian and Ukrainian, television, and social media in the territories that it control. And that's why people started to feel like they, the people were zombified, that they were brainwashed, that they were completely sort of steeped in the political atmosphere of which they had become a part. And in a way, that is hugely unfortunate that, you know, there's individuals who are, are no longer like seeking out alternative points of view, trying attempting to triangulate different points of view. But in a way, it's also a little bit of a, what I try to point out in, in the book when I'm discussing zombification is that it enabled people to blame the situation instead of scribing a deep internal fault to their friend or their relative, right. So instead of saying, they are a bad, bad person, they could say, they are a person who has been profoundly affected by the media environment in which They love. And I think that that's a less individualistic and a less essentialist way of understanding both politics and relationships, right is to look at people holistically, in terms of the situation in which they find themselves. And maybe some of the blame lies with them. Maybe some of the blame lies with the media, obviously, it's distributed. But I do think that it enables us to soften a little bit and keep our minds open for potential change, you know, at the same time that we're fully realistic, that, you know, nothing I say, is going to change their mind. Well, I might not want to even try, right, we might just have to talk about vegetables for now. Even we're very realistic, right? Do you want the vanilla ice cream? Or do you want the chocolate? Because I know I'm not going to persuade you about anything else. Yeah. And

Adam:

I've got both flavors, which is great. So yeah, but that's, that's I think it's a really important point to to recognize. I mean, even though like sorry, to like pragmatism was a huge piece of how he was also approaching his life, his livelihood, right, just recognizing that there's a pragmatic way that these people can become my neighbors. And so we can see that, you know, I think you're right, like play out in the media context. I think that's also just really important and powerful point that you made that I want to underscore to that, given that it's very hard to access media from other perspectives. Rather than saying those people are bad or crazy, it's that they've actually been deeply affected by the stories that they've been told. And that's what they're believing. It's not about them being a bad person. But they've been zombified on one level, and that's, I, that also stood out to me too, as a really, really powerful example, in which, you know, the emphasis on relationships really shines through, right, this is people are here to preserve relationships as much as possible, you know, with with their loved ones, and, and find the right selective pathways for that. And so even in this case, too, in terms of not getting into the, you know, quote, unquote, unmoving character of somebody, but kind of getting to the How are they affected by what's around them, and that they might then get back to being a person that I'd rather, you know, spend more time with her, like, get to get to talk about other things with, you know, beyond that. It's really interesting. And to me, I think, just as bright and interesting echo for how we can think about what does it mean to give space to people, you know, instead of just kind of jumping into judgment to kind of put a little bit more space and just kind of say, what's, what's the context that people are coming from? And how are they approaching conversations? What are they trying to understand? And recognize when I don't do that? And also, you know, yes, sometimes ice cream is a better thing to talk about. Because there's not a change, not a change to be had in that in that space. One thing, I'm curious about this too, like if we kind of have the the media question in our head, but then also, just like, thinking about media also has a bigger the idea of like a mass media program, you know, just thinking about this idea of, how can the work of getting to know folks at this kind of individual level, like help us challenge existing assumptions that we have about, like, how conflicts in Ukraine are like, I think, I mean, we've been talking to kind of, like at this idea pretty directly. But I also just want to ask it directly, also, because I think it's really interesting question that you would tackle really well, in your book is this idea of like, we have to challenge these narratives that are told to us that this is not conflict works. This is how violence works. This is how war works. And so we're looking at folks individual stories, it's a quite a different narrative that we that we have playing out. So, you know, how do you how do you see your work and kind of an anthropologist helping us understand and like, how do we we're challenging these kinds of narratives that we get told from media, you know, from from kind of top down perspectives of how violence and war work by looking at people's individual lives. And so I'm just curious to get you know, your perspective on this, like with the role of your work and doing that, and also the role of anthropology and helping us question those kinds of assumptions that we're told of how the world works, especially in a very conflict ridden moment. You

Greta:

know, I think that what the war in Ukraine is teaching us is that civilians are so much more than victims, their protagonists, their perpetrators and brave defenders, healers, wives, mothers, you name it, they're not tangents, they're not backdrops. They're part of, they're a big part of war. And this really applies to war and conflict all over the world. Because, of course, Ukraine is not the only place where international humanitarian law is being broken on a daily basis and civilian residential areas are the target of bombing campaigns, right. And so any pretty much anywhere, that civilians are not protected from war or conflict is a place where this everyday kind of war that draws upon civilians can become very important. A corollary of that, I think, is that countries are destroyed. Groups of people are just droid not only by bombs and weaponry, but from the inside out, right. And this is what the concept of genocide also teaches us that, you know, there are millions of families, the majority of Ukrainians have a family member or a close friend that is either in Russia or Russia. And so you can imagine the scale of the interpersonal crisis. And so kind of one of the overarching arguments I tried to make with the book is that the military and geopolitical crisis is accompanied by a relational crisis that, in many ways will be more complex to resolve than rebuilding infrastructure, or reestablishing international because the scale of that damage is deep, it's often invisible. And this has policy implications for humanitarian responses, as well as the multitrack diplomacy system that tries to not only establish peace, but to maintain it. And I think, really, maybe a more concrete way to visualize that is that what I mean by countries get destroyed from the inside out, the destruction of interpersonal relationships, is if you think about the children that have been removed unlawfully from Ukrainian territory, and either adopted into Russian families, or housed in various forms of, you know, orphanages, and facilities and institutions, if you think about that, right, that that prevents Ukrainian families from transmitting family values, cultural values, language, that's a form of destruction all by itself. And that's why it's a part of the definition of genocide, removing children is, you know, one of the components of genocide and related, and that is actually very closely related to the book because, you know, talk in the book about these sibling relationships, that became very fraught when siblings had differing political views. And in some recent cases that I'm familiar with, it's actually been some sibling pairs that have taken the taking children and given them to Russian authorities for relocation. So you have this, you have this political layer where they don't see eye to eye on politics, they might not be really talking lunch. But then if one of them is enlisted, that gives the other one an opening to go get the children. Take them to the Russian authorities say, you know, these children aren't being looked after you should really put them on one of your buses and find a facility for them somewhere in Russia where they can get a proper reeducation. You know, and so that's how the fabric of society is destroyed. And on the positive side, I think that this has some very concrete and specific policy implications for how Ukrainians work with themselves and others after this war ends, which is that it can't just be individuals and trauma, or the geopolitics of the situation. I think I really believe that there are anthropologists who can work with psychologists to create models and practices that remit a society divided by war. And in fact, Ukrainians are already developing some of these models and some of these practices. I, you know, it's my impression that American society tends to be pretty interested in individual agency and individuality. And so it's really interesting to see the way that psychologists and anthropologists work in Ukraine, which is much more focused on like collective values and collective goals. And so they're finding all of these ways to work with one another in a society where individual therapy isn't really tradition. Right? That wouldn't be a traditional way of a healing the wounds of wars to like, talk to another person in a private space above it that wouldn't be comfortable for from not all, not all people, not many.

Adam:

That is I think such an it's such a powerful point to think about that. When we contemplate where do we go from here? You know, on the one hand, I think what your work is so powerfully shows us is that It can't, right. As you said, it can't be just this pure individual or pure geopolitical change. And even this, I think, heart wrenching notion that, like the invisible wounds of war are often relational, right, that we don't see, they're much more complex to solve, as you know. And so it's like, yeah, we can sign a peace treaty. But we've just like, split families down the middle. And that doesn't just get fixed. Or if you have if, you know, I took my siblings kids and put them on a bus to Russia, where they would be, quote, unquote, safer, you know, that doesn't, you know, just walk back and say, Okay, well, okay, we signed a piece for you. We're good. Now, you know, let's do you have to hear this, this piece that we're seeing kind of anthropologists and psychologists taking a different approach to how do we how do we heal in these spaces? I think that's it, like, both powerful and makes me feel optimistic. Because, you know, we, as a species have evolved to work in communities in, you know, groups and, you know, to see the social sciences or to hear the social sciences is like developing models to help kind of read it in that way. I think it's really powerful, because this is nice is it is to have psychological therapy, I would love to see more anthropological therapy, right? I mean, I think I literally once did a look may have changed at this since the last time I looked at like some for like therapeutic anthropology, there was like one article from 1976. There may be more than that. But just like, I think that's a really powerful and exciting notion to think about the idea of like, what is the application of anthropology in society rebuilding? You know, that gives me a lot of hope for I'm gonna use the anthropologist card. Now, if we need to conflict space? Well, I've just studied culture, it's like, well, not quite.

Greta:

Yeah, no, the anthropology card is extremely valuable in this context. And to just give you one, like, specific example of what I mean, you know, I worked with a group of people that was concerned about, you know, all of these things that we've been talking about how you know, and when a man returns from biting at the front, it's not just him that's affected, his entire family is affected by his changes, he's affected by his changes. And one of the things that they found was most effective was actually not not trying to drill into problems, or like adjustment disorders, or emotional dysregulation, or any of these big buzzwords, you know, I'm putting in air quotes these, these words, what they found was, what was really effective was to put a small group of demobilized soldiers in a van, and take them to nature. And the first thing that happens is they realize that they're not alone in their, in their challenges, right, they're not alone. And then once they figure out that they're not alone, they start talking, comparing notes. And then also, once they're in a natural setting away from, you know, away from the front, among other things, they start feeling better physically, and then that enables them to start feeling a little bit better emotionally. And it's at that point that you can start developing skills for healthy relationships, dealing with symptoms, very, very serious things of that, that nature. So that would be like a specific example of what I'm talking about right is not to hold somebody's body off to the therapists couch, but to really kind of work with it social work, was it holistically.

Adam:

Yeah, no, I love that. I love that. And I think it's that's such a such an exciting idea. Because, yeah, I mean, I'm just thinking through in terms of like, even conversation sets that I've had this year on this afterlife, there's been this, I didn't set that set out to do this. But there's just been this, like, important theme that came through with this, that is this exact idea that that we actually are going to get through this life together only. You know, it's not, that's not a newsflash, but it's like, it's nice to be initially reminded in all these different contexts. And so this is a really, it's a really powerful example, too, as we think about when we're looking at healing one, like being in a going to kind of a small group out in nature, and being provided the space to recognize that we're not alone. I mean, that that's such such a powerful, both simple, but then incredibly profound. Right. And also, I yeah, let's, uh, I don't know, there's, if there's not a anthropological therapy group, I think that I hope you started or at least, join your Slack group. And let's see. See if we can Yeah,

Greta:

yeah, yeah. And you know, I think, as you're talking, the anecdote that comes to mind is somebody that I introduced to readers towards the, towards the beginning of the book, somebody that gave me personally a lot of hope, which is the individual I call Pasha, to pot there was a pastor. His home was destroyed in a mortar attack and will ha And he flees with his wife to the complete opposite side of the country, you know, he's really pessimistic that he's going to be accepted there, because he's come from the Russian occupied territory, right, people are going to take him for a Russian. And what observes is that, you know, slowly, people start to drop by this shack that he's attempting to rebuild with his wife and ask him what he needs. And then pretty soon after that, people start showing up with pretty much everything from canned tomatoes to, you know, that spare door that they're not using from their garage, and little by little Pasha and his wife are, are able to, you know, make a shelter out of a shack, and a home out of a house. And Tasha observed that, because of receiving this care that he did not expect to receive his experience of being dispossessed actually relieved, instead of aggravating his fears about finding himself without support. And I think that too, is a powerful reminder of what you were just talking about, right of like, we're only going to get through this if we do it together. Like there's kind of no other.

Adam:

Yeah, that's a beautiful example. I yeah, I love that. That example, too. And even Yeah, just this idea that that I remember when he when he moved to town, that they just they found an abandoned house to it. So that was also pretty, pretty incredible. And like, folks, let him Let him kind of move in there is something and then yeah, then just to kind of see, like, different folks from around town came to just share some food on this they materials like a door, you know, yeah, I think it's, it's an incredible example of that, too. So it is, I mean, I think too, it's like we're interesting about this is like, and what your book does really well is it helps us both think about and get real about that we actually have to pay attention to this interstitial space between like the so called fixed categories of identity, and then like the geopolitical machinations, but then also this idea that, in that space, like, even as we're dealing with both everyday war and everyday peace, like in that is also where we find hope, you know, as people in the power of community to do that, in spite of all these other challenges, right, in terms of like, we have some inter family conflicts, or I don't want to listen to my neighbor talk about this, or if they might be my neighbor leader. So I just have to deal with that backdrop, but I'm, help my father, get his his gloves, and his night vision goggles, even though he's shooting at our neighbors, but I'm going to take care of him and make sure he's taken care of, because the military is not. I think it's really such an interesting thing. So thank you for the lovely, wonderful, like complex, layered adventure. And I think challenging work. But I think really an important story and set of stories for us to hear and think about now, if I can, if I can just ask kind of one one kind of wrap up question then is, you know, I think we just went through one of the major ones, but like, is there any other kind of takeaways in your mind that you want readers, I mean, or whether whether they're policy makers or students or, you know, professionals just kind of thinking about how they can do research, and either other kind of takeaways that you would hope folks would find from this work. So

Greta:

in addition to this idea that civilians are absolutely central to the way that wars unfold. I think that another really key point is that these everyday ethics of care, enable us to hold back the destruction of war for long enough to acknowledge the reassertion of human dignity and also human agency that take place in the midst of all of this terror and destruction. And I think what the book tries to do is, you know, intervene in our ideas and our thinking about war so that we can see that this intense harm and profound care coexist in the same place. And so, War and Peace exist on Continuum, they are in binary. They aren't necessarily opposites are on the continuum, just like this extreme harm and this profound care. Go Well, Greta,

Adam:

thank you so much for chatting with me on the pot. This has been it's been really great. And I appreciate the time and wisdom shared.

Greta:

Hey, thanks for having me. I really enjoyed speaking with you.

Adam:

And that brings us to the end of another fascinating episode of this Anthro life and I want to extend a warm thank you to our guests Dr. Greta Uehling for her valuable insights and expertise in the concept of everyday war. Now throughout this episode, we've explored the complexities of war beyond violence and killing, delving into the intimate choices and actions of non combatant civilians. The idea of everyday war challenges our conceptions and reminds us that war has lasting effects on individuals and communities. So I encourage you, our listeners and watchers to reflect on the themes discussed today, and consider how they resonate with your own lives in broader society. How to personal choices and relationships intersect with conflicts and politics, something that might To be a little familiar to bolts. If you found this episode thought provoking, I invite you to keep exploring the topic further, you can dig into Dr. Hugh willings book on everyday War, where you can find additional information and deeper subjects and stories. You can grab a copy from wherever you find books, but if you want to use the affiliate link in our show notes below, you'll be supporting the author independent bookstores and your favorite podcast this Anthro life so it's a win win win that we appreciate your continued support and engagement with this Anthro life. So remember to subscribe to the pod, leave us a review and share the episode with someone who you think will appreciate it. Your feedback and suggestions are always welcome. And please reach out to your thoughts for future episodes, topics, guests and whatever else. In the meantime, be sure to check out the Anthro curious substack for more anthropological insights in discussions where we dive deeper into topics discussed on the episodes and hear from the community as well. So don't forget to join our vibrant community you can get the link in the show notes below and connect with like minded individuals. Thank you once again for being a part of this Anthro life. Stay curious, stay engaged and we'll catch you in the next episode. I'm your host Adam again. We'll see you next time.