What do the costumes that soldiers wear have to do with the ethics of war? This article tackles this question. It argues that military uniforms operate as a site and source of ethics of war discourse, reproducing codes of conduct as the dress code. It advances an account of the uniform as a material interface where the ethics shows itself in aesthetic form, and vice versa. It elaborates this position via a case study of the 2018 decision of the Australian Defence Force to respond to the commission of war crimes by its members by tightening uniform regulations – specifically by banning patches that displayed death symbology (e.g. the Grim Reaper logo, Punisher emblem, etc.). While critics and former military personnel have derided this move as superficial, we suggest that it reflects a sophisticated attempt to leverage dress code as a means of reinforcing ethical code. We build on this insight to mount a case for a new approach to the ethics of war. Contemporary ethics of war scholarship focuses predominantly on textual sources, treating them as if they are the only vector of ethical reasoning about war. This overlooks the reality that ethical positions bearing on war are routinely transmitted via a range of non-textual conduits, including material, aesthetic, and ritual practices. The argument, which we develop over the course of this article, is that ethics of war scholars should widen their aperture to account for the full range of forms that ethical claims about the use of force assume.
O’Driscoll et al. (Tue,) studied this question.