CROSSROADS IN CULTURAL STUDIES
Fourth International Conference
June 29 - July 2, 2002, Tampere, Finland
Collateral
Language: Mapping the Discourses of America’s New War
Organiser:
Danielle Egan
Llorente, Marina (St. Lawrence
University) DECONSTRUCTING THE DISCOURSE OF CIVILIZATION VS.
"BARBARISM"
"Civilization under attack" has been one of the headlines used by
politicians, journalists and commentators to describe the events of September
11, 2001. While not always obvious, the full meaning of this headline reads
"Civilization Under Attack by "barbarism"." How does the
word "civilization" bring to mind the word "barbarism"? What
do civilization and "barbarism" mean in this context? How does the
opposition between civilization and "barbarism" work so effectively?
Finally, for what ends and by whom has the dichotomy been employed after
September 11? In order to answer these questions, one has to look first at the
binary structure of language. Almost every noun, adjective, adverb, and verb has
its opposite; usually this opposition implies a devaluation of one term in
relation to the other. The assumption of inequality between the two terms goes
without question; one word is lacking something that the opposite embodies.
Man/Woman, Good/"evil", Urban/Rural, and East/West are well-known
examples of how this binary system works. In the case of
Civilization/"barbarism", the last term is devalued. This presentation
tells the story of how "barbarism" became the devalued term in
relation to civilization and shows how this story is also the story of how the
powerful nations of "the West" came to exert their political,
economic, and military domination over the rest of the world.
Glover, Ross (St. Lawrence University)
CRACK HOUSES AND DAISY CUTTERS: THE RELATIONSHIP OF POVERTY TO U.S. WARS
This presentation explores the use of the phrase "The War On ______"
in three specific contexts: poverty, drugs and "terror(ism)". By
tracing the use of the phrase "The War On ______," I demonstrate how
vague terms inserted at the end of this phrase can be and have been used to
justify a variety of political activities, including the current US military
actions in Afghanistan. The general trajectory of the presentation plays with
the idea that Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty" has been actualized
through both Ronald Reagan's "war on drugs" and George W. Bush's
"war on terrorism." By demonstrating the effects of such policies on
impoverished peoples across the world, and also demonstrating how the current
"war on terrorism" emerged out of the "war on drugs," I show
that the former is only another manifestation of the U.S. global oppression. By
playing on the vague meanings inherent in these "war on" phrases, I
demonstrate that the U.S., in its systematic attacks on the most impoverished of
nations, has been literally warring on poverty. Ultimately, I show both the
historical connections among poverty, drugs and terrorism as well as the dangers
of declaring war on terms vague enough to justify almost any action by the U.S.
government with no regard for informed citizen support.Racialization, Xenophobia
and the Discourse of Anthrax
Egan, R. Danielle (St. Lawrence
University) RACIALIZATION, XENOPHOBIA AND THE DISCOURSE OF ANTHRAX
In the "aftermath" of September 11th numerous forms of cultural panic
swirl through our collective imaginary from ceramic knives that can get past
metal detectors to biological "weapons of mass destruction". In this
presentation, I examine the cultural panic surrounding
"Anthrax".Specifically, I examine "Anthrax" as something
other than a weapon and map how "Anthrax" itself represents a much
larger cultural, xenophobic dis-ease. The underling discourse of
"Anthrax" exemplifies the racist fears of infestation from the
"primitive" Middle East into the pure (disease free) capitalist United
States. When viewed in this way, "Anthrax" justifies the continued
military presence in Afghanistan and potential other Middle Eastern countries as
a way to keep others from infesting or infiltrating our borders. As such,
"Anthrax" serves two purposes: 1) to create panic over the other and
2) to justify military activity. Lastly, this presentation explores the
contradictions between "Anthrax" as a "weapon of mass
destruction" and U.S. "smart bombs" as weapons not considered
"weapons of mass destruction," addressing how such a contradiction
reinforces xenophobic U.S. perspectives.
Collins, John (St. Lawrence University)
TERRORISM: A GENEALOGY OF TAUTOLOGY
One of the supreme ironies of the post-September 11 situation is that the United
States government has launched a war against something ("terrorism")
without having bothered to define it. Following in the footsteps of its
predecessors, the Bush administration has chosen instead to draw on an
already-existing discourse and to label its enemies as "terrorists."
In response, many critically-minded citizens are asking an obvious question:
What, exactly, is "terrorism"? In this essay, I argue that we must
also ask a more complicated question: What is "terrorism" such that we
can declare war on it? In exploring the remarkable flexibility of the concept of
"terrorism" and its place in what Noam Chomsky calls "the
American ideological system," I advance four related arguments. First, the
category of "terrorism" has always been applied, selectively, to
support the imperatives of US policies, and these policies often lead to or
support more human suffering than the so-called terrorist groups the U.S.
opposes. Second, official definitions of "terrorism" are almost always
vague and tautological (e.g. "terrorism is terrorism," in the recent
words of Britain's ambassador to the UN). This lack of clarity feeds directly
into an incestuous "cult of expertise," with "terrorism"
defined implicitly as whatever "terrorism experts" say it is. Third,
the language of "terrorism" and "counter-terrorism" is
directly linked with the fomenting of anti-Arab racism in the US. Finally,
privileging the category of "terrorism" diverts attention from a host
of policies through which the US has historically projected its imperial power
in the Middle East. This includes its unconditional support of Israel, its
backing of repressive Arab regimes,its regular military adventures in the
region, and its ongoing strategic presence in the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. I
conclude by highlighting the specific ways each argument above emerges in the
uses of the term "terrorism" to respond to September 11.
|