The Photograph.

There is a photograph that most Australians of a certain age will recall without much effort. A man in uniform, impossibly tall, chest arrayed with decoration, jaw set at an angle that suggests the concept of doubt has never seriously troubled it. The image was reproduced with the enthusiasm that Australians reserve for occasions when the national character appears to have taken physical form: here, the photograph said, is what we are capable of producing. Here is the proof.

The photograph did not require a caption. The medals explained themselves. The Victoria Cross, which is awarded rarely enough that its recipients become, by definition, singular, the sort of person about whom documentary films are made and school visits are arranged, sat at the top of the array with the quiet authority of a full stop.

We stared at it for years. We put it on television and in newspapers. We invited the man inside it to chair the National Australia Day Council, to speak at civic functions, to be the face attached to the idea that the country had not gone entirely soft. He was, in the useful shorthand of those occasions, a hero. The word was deployed freely, and nobody thought to ask what, precisely, they meant by it.

Words like hero are doing considerable work when they are being used most enthusiastically. They are not merely descriptive. They are load-bearing. They hold up something that the people using them need held up, a sense of national self-worth, a justification for the wars that produced the heroism, a reassurance that the men sent to Uruzgan province were engaged in something coherent and good. The photograph was not just an image of one man. It was an argument. And like most arguments made in the form of imagery, it discouraged reply.

The awkward thing about load-bearing words is what happens when the structure they are holding shifts. The facts established in the Federal Court in 2023, established to the civil standard, not beyond reasonable doubt, did not sit comfortably alongside the photograph. The man in it, according to the findings, had not merely bent the rules of engagement in the heat of combat, which is the kind of thing that military mythology has always been able to absorb. He had, the court found, behaved in ways that the judge described with the compressed clarity of legal language as a disgrace to his country. The word sat there in the judgment, precise and unadorned, doing its own kind of work.

The photograph, of course, did not change. It cannot. This is the particular difficulty of images that have been allowed to stand for something larger than themselves. The man in the frame remains upright, decorated, untroubled. The argument it was making continues to circulate, because arguments made in the form of imagery are persistent in a way that corrections are not. The judgment ran to hundreds of pages. The photograph ran to one.

What the whole episode reveals, more than it reveals about one man, or one war, or one court case, is the cost of the transaction Australia makes when it builds a hero. Not the ordinary cost, the investment of public affection and civic honour, which is reasonable enough. But the specific cost of building a hero who is also an argument. Of taking a human being of genuine physical courage and complicated private character and pressing him into service as evidence that the national story is intact. That the wars were worth it. That the institutions are sound. That the men who went are the kind of men the country can be proud of.

None of that was ever his to guarantee. The photograph carried the expectation regardless.

He was recently arrested. The charges are the most serious that can be laid against a soldier. The photograph is still out there, doing its patient work, waiting for the rest of the country to decide what it means now.

If you know someone who’d appreciate this, they probably will. Please share. Sharing's nice.
...
If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more, 'Buy the Goose a Coffee →'.
...
The views expressed are those of the correspondent. Factual claims draw on publicly available sources.