Sarah Kane: Cool Britannia's reluctant feminist

Aleks Sierz in his important survey of mid 1990s drama has identified the plays of Sarah Kane as exemplars of what he terms ‘In-Yer Face’ theatre. Sierz argues that Kane and her contemporaries such as Mark Ravenhill and Judy Upton represent a break with the ideological concerns of the previous generation of playwrights such as Doug Lucie and Stephen Lowe, whose work was shaped through recognizable political concerns, often in direct opposition to Thatcherism. In contrast Sarah Kane and her generation have frequently been seen as literary embodiments of ‘Thatcher’s Children’, whereby following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the inertia of the Major years, their drama eschews a recognizable political position, and seems more preoccupied with the plight of individuals cut adrift from society. In the case of Sarah Kane her frequently quoted statement, ‘I have no responsibility as a woman writer because I don’t believe there’s such a thing’, has compounded this perception. Moreover, its dogmatism also echoes the infamous comments attributed to Mrs Thatcher regarding the role of the individual to society. However, this article seeks to reassess Kane’s position as a woman writer and will argue that her drama is positioned somewhere between the female playwrights who emerged after 1979 such as Sarah Daniels, Timberlake Wertenbaker and Clare McIntyre, whose drama was distinguished by overtly feminist concerns, and its subsequent breakdown, best exemplified by the brief cultural moment associated with the newly elected Blair government known as ‘Cool Britannia’. Drawing on a variety of sources, including Kane’s unpublished monologues, written while she was a student just after Mrs Thatcher left office, this paper will argue that far from being an exponent of post-feminism, Kane’s drama frequently revisits and is influenced by the generation of dramatists whose work was forged out the sharp ideological positions that characterized the 1980s and a direct consequence of Thatcherism.

Conjecture, proof, and sense in Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics

One of the key tenets in Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics is that a mathematical proposition gets its meaning from its proof. This seems to have the paradoxical consequence that a mathematical conjecture has no meaning, or at least not the same meaning that it will have once a proof has been found. Hence, it would appear that a conjecture can never be proven true: for what is proven true must ipso facto be a different proposition from what was only conjectured. Moreover, it would appear impossible that the same mathematical proposition be proven in different ways. — I will consider some of Wittgenstein’s remarks on these issues, and attempt to reconstruct his position in a way that makes it appear less paradoxical.

Military doctrine, command philosophy and the generation of fighting power: genesis and theory

Military doctrine is one of the conceptual components of war. Its raison d’être is that of a force multiplier. It enables a smaller force to take on and defeat a larger force in battle. This article’s departure point is the aphorism of Sir Julian Corbett, who described doctrine as ‘the soul of warfare’. The second dimension to creating a force multiplier effect is forging doctrine with an appropriate command philosophy. The challenge for commanders is how, in unique circumstances, to formulate, disseminate and apply an appropriate doctrine and combine it with a relevant command philosophy. This can only be achieved by policy-makers and senior commanders successfully answering the Clausewitzian question: what kind of conflict are they involved in? Once an answer has been provided, a synthesis of these two factors can be developed and applied. Doctrine has implications for all three levels of war. Tactically, doctrine does two things: first, it helps to create a tempo of operations; second, it develops a transitory quality that will produce operational effect, and ultimately facilitate the pursuit of strategic objectives. Its function is to provide both training and instruction. At the operational level instruction and understanding are critical functions. Third, at the strategic level it provides understanding and direction. Using John Gooch’s six components of doctrine, it will be argued that there is a lacunae in the theory of doctrine as these components can manifest themselves in very different ways at the three levels of war. They can in turn affect the transitory quality of tactical operations. Doctrine is pivotal to success in war. Without doctrine and the appropriate command philosophy military operations cannot be successfully concluded against an active and determined foe.