I'm curious about what other people made of Robinson's enigmatic response. In class, Mohit suggested it was an attempt to dissociate himself from his actions in Vietnam. I'm assuming in this view, he saw "reconciliation" as the direct subjugation of Robinson's freedoms to the "needs" (or more accurately power) of the state - and was placing the burden of his actions on the State. In my own view, I saw it as the reconciliation of the ideals. Robinson isn't an anarchist, he seems to feel a need for a state. But in war, he had to come to terms with the inconsistencies between his ideal of freedom and his ideal of state. Similar to Arnold's Folklore, Robinson previously viewed States as actors themselves. But in war, he fully realized that a state can only act through its individuals. Rather than dissociating himself from his actions, he recognizes the essential incongruity and disconnect in those concepts and "reconciled" them. His ideals didn't match reality, but he accepts the moral consequences of his actions. Part of my belief that he isn't dissociative comes from the quickfollowing anecdote about "C. Robinson". C as in "See what you have done".

-- StephenSevero - 17 Feb 2010