While images and accusations of terrorism feature prominently in the mainstream media, a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism evades us. This is due in part to the subjective nature of describing terrorism. As American political critic Chomsky points out “It’s hard to craft a definition of terror that applies solely to the terror that they carry out against us and our clients, but excludes the terror (often far worse) that we and our clients carry out against them.” The us/them dichotomy referred to here is a crucial consideration in observing and understanding how issues of terrorism are addressed in the public sphere. Political discussion of terrorism is often scripted in unconditional terms of good versus evil to engender moral panic. The profit-driven media amplify the pitch of panic to shape the debate further. Little attention is paid to the cause of conflict and absolute attention is paid to the effect. From this reactionary position politicians can assign blame to an ominous ‘other’ and be absolved of accountability. Although every conflict or dispute has two sides, through the smokescreen of moral panic the public is informed by fear rather than rationale. This atmosphere of vulnerability is the ideal condition for the state to step in to restore ‘order’ and thus maintain hegemony amidst a sense of crisis.
In the media coverage of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the USA in 2001, then President George W Bush announced unequivocally “You’re either on our side or you’re on the side of the terrorists”. Rather than exploring the possible causes of this thing we call terrorism and seeking out a peaceful solution the Bush administration’s reaction was to indict the speculative Islamic ‘other’ and declare a ‘War on Terror’; a “facile polarization which demonizes dissent and muzzles critical debate.” (New Internationalist) This public crusade against terrorism instilled fear and triggered devout patriotism in Americans and bolstered the President's approval rating to an unprecedented 90%.
While the history of terrorism dates back beyond the inception of the modern nation-state, the September 11 attacks immediately took the title of the largest and most notorious act of terrorism in modern history. The world looked on in awe at saturated media coverage of Islamic terrorists in hijacked civilian airliners attacking the Pentagon and the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. In response to the September 11 attacks the United Nations defined terrorism as “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
From this and other similar definitions of terrorism, parallels can be drawn between acts of terrorism, dissent, war, state-sponsored terrorism, rebellion and separatism. Human conflict that results in violence is an unfortunate tendency in all societies. The us/them political discourse pertaining to terrorism deems certain methods (their methods) of violence unacceptable even though U.S. Foreign Policy has a long history of supporting, financing and inspiring state terrorism in Asia, South America and the Middle East.
The scale and spectacle of the September 11 attacks gave a dramatic visual representation of terrorism. Public anxiety and vulnerability escalated as the footage of the attacks was aired countless times. Like civilians in a war zone, American citizens felt vulnerable to the threat of terrorism. Though the likelihood of further attacks was unknown “fear and paranoia were mined by the usual array of right-wing militants, ‘security experts’, knee-jerk patriots and academic hacks from corporate-funded think tanks.” (New Internationalist)
I was living in New York at the time and in the months following the attacks the city was stifled by uncertainty and distrust. As revisions were made to the death toll, the President waxed lyrical with a spurious rhetoric of weapons of mass destruction and commercial TV and radio broadcasts transmitted misguided propaganda. The Department of Homeland Security implemented a colour-coded system for measuring and communicating the terrorist threat level in the U.S. Every time an Amber Alert was announced duct tape sales would surge as the credulous masses prepared to seal their windows. And though there were no successive attacks in New York I was bombarded with daily Threat Condition warnings. Discussion of an “Axis of Evil” dominated the media and a spate of racist attacks against Muslim Americans stirred the melting pot.
The fear and ambivalence that New Yorkers felt, and indeed the entire Western world felt, was a natural response to tragedy and conflict. Fear breeds vulnerability and vulnerability in turn provides a window of opportunity for the hegemonic institutions of government and media to manipulate public perception to the tune of dominant ideology. Where people lack experience on which to make a judgement, they accept the dominant ideology. By focusing attention on fear tactics and retaliation the state reinforces it’s role as defender and avenger. Terrorism and counter-terrorism end up shadow-boxing in a theatre of cruelty which by its nature reduces active citizens to fearful, anxious spectators. Meanwhile the underlying lines of power and control remain undisturbed.
In the media coverage of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the USA in 2001, then President George W Bush announced unequivocally “You’re either on our side or you’re on the side of the terrorists”. Rather than exploring the possible causes of this thing we call terrorism and seeking out a peaceful solution the Bush administration’s reaction was to indict the speculative Islamic ‘other’ and declare a ‘War on Terror’; a “facile polarization which demonizes dissent and muzzles critical debate.” (New Internationalist) This public crusade against terrorism instilled fear and triggered devout patriotism in Americans and bolstered the President's approval rating to an unprecedented 90%.
While the history of terrorism dates back beyond the inception of the modern nation-state, the September 11 attacks immediately took the title of the largest and most notorious act of terrorism in modern history. The world looked on in awe at saturated media coverage of Islamic terrorists in hijacked civilian airliners attacking the Pentagon and the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. In response to the September 11 attacks the United Nations defined terrorism as “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
From this and other similar definitions of terrorism, parallels can be drawn between acts of terrorism, dissent, war, state-sponsored terrorism, rebellion and separatism. Human conflict that results in violence is an unfortunate tendency in all societies. The us/them political discourse pertaining to terrorism deems certain methods (their methods) of violence unacceptable even though U.S. Foreign Policy has a long history of supporting, financing and inspiring state terrorism in Asia, South America and the Middle East.
The scale and spectacle of the September 11 attacks gave a dramatic visual representation of terrorism. Public anxiety and vulnerability escalated as the footage of the attacks was aired countless times. Like civilians in a war zone, American citizens felt vulnerable to the threat of terrorism. Though the likelihood of further attacks was unknown “fear and paranoia were mined by the usual array of right-wing militants, ‘security experts’, knee-jerk patriots and academic hacks from corporate-funded think tanks.” (New Internationalist)
I was living in New York at the time and in the months following the attacks the city was stifled by uncertainty and distrust. As revisions were made to the death toll, the President waxed lyrical with a spurious rhetoric of weapons of mass destruction and commercial TV and radio broadcasts transmitted misguided propaganda. The Department of Homeland Security implemented a colour-coded system for measuring and communicating the terrorist threat level in the U.S. Every time an Amber Alert was announced duct tape sales would surge as the credulous masses prepared to seal their windows. And though there were no successive attacks in New York I was bombarded with daily Threat Condition warnings. Discussion of an “Axis of Evil” dominated the media and a spate of racist attacks against Muslim Americans stirred the melting pot.
The fear and ambivalence that New Yorkers felt, and indeed the entire Western world felt, was a natural response to tragedy and conflict. Fear breeds vulnerability and vulnerability in turn provides a window of opportunity for the hegemonic institutions of government and media to manipulate public perception to the tune of dominant ideology. Where people lack experience on which to make a judgement, they accept the dominant ideology. By focusing attention on fear tactics and retaliation the state reinforces it’s role as defender and avenger. Terrorism and counter-terrorism end up shadow-boxing in a theatre of cruelty which by its nature reduces active citizens to fearful, anxious spectators. Meanwhile the underlying lines of power and control remain undisturbed.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment