Response to The Spirit of Terrorism
Baudrillard lays out a scary picture of terrorism in The Spirit of Terrorism. Terrorism is presented as something intangible and undetectable, something that can’t be stopped by force. Since 9/11 terrorism has taken on a new face. Everyday we are bombarded by ideas of terrorism in the media—from constant images of the twin towers falling to the fear of anthrax. If 9/11 had just been an attack, one that we could look at and at least know the motives of the enemy and how to stop them, then it wouldn’t be such a shocking memory. What makes 9/11 different is that we don’t know how to stop events like that from occurring again. We don’t have a real enemy to fight. The U.S. may try to calm down its citizens by proclaiming a War on Terror, but it is impossible to fight this kind of terrorism with force. As Baudrillard points out, we are fighting against terrorists who will gladly take their own lives in pursuit of destroying America. How do you fight someone who doesn’t care if he lives or dies? When we faced Japanese suicide bombers in WWII we reacted with dropping nuclear bombs on their country. How will we react this time? We are fighting an enemy who has its own wealth, who may or may not have access to nuclear weapons, who in the six years since 9/11 we have not been able to really stop. This is true incalculable terror. We seem to be just biding time before terrorists strike again. This terror is mental terror. It comes from the knowledge that we could be attacked at any time, and that we don’t know when or how we can’t stop it.
katie wrote:
I agree that the idea of terrorism as an ever-present and imminent event is frightening. But, I find that perhaps, the more interesting idea is the political: we are fighting a war that we are in turn funding by our addiction to fossil fuels, which we are forced to import from the very countries we are at war with.
I think this backs up Baudrillard’s idea that America is essentially asking for terrorism. That its citizens have been envisioning it, and expecting it, and even wanting it, for years, as evidenced by our myriad disaster movies and our actions in the world. We are helping to create the terror and tensions, we are funding it, we are supporting it, and we are not working to overcome it. You can’t fight a war on terror, especially as the enemy will always be ahead: they have many of the same resources, but their willingness to give up their lives gives them the advantage.
Furthermore, the US will always be hated, and therefore susceptible to terrorism simply because it is powerful and successful. It has taken on the image of the enemy, and even if those we fight gain power, we will still be the symbol of the repressive elements. The idea of globalization itself is rejected by the globe, and this results in the clash represented by terrorism. Power is resisted.
Posted 16 Nov 2007 at 12:33 am ¶
alison wrote:
Baudrillard makes a bold claim at the beginning of “The Spirit of Terrorism.†He asserts that the WTC attacks weren’t simply like all other events with worldwide coverage, but rather that they “represent a setback for globalization itselfâ€â€”an assertion that I didn’t quite understand and never came to grasp, because there was never much of a follow-up, as far as I could see.
Two other big things I didn’t get were the idea that the West as a power “has fomented all this violence.†I actually disagree with the point Katie brought up—that “we have dreamt of this event…everyone without exception has dreamt of it—because no one can avoid dreaming of the destruction of any power that has become hegemonic to this degree.†As a general rule, isn’t it risky to say “everyone without exceptionâ€? Baudrillard may be getting at a good point, but some of his language raises flags for me. It’s too extreme…too presumptuous. He goes on to say “they did it, but we wished for it†and that “by seizing all the cards for itself, it forced the Other to change the rules.†Whether benefiting from the power or not, Baudrillard argues that people possess the “malicious desire†to act upon to their allergy to power (which was represented by the two towers). Can all of this be said so definitively? Maybe we do love disaster movies as much as porn. Yes, we are very powerful. And no, maybe it was not a “pure accident, a purely arbitrary act, the murderous phantasmagoria of a few fanaticsâ€. But I think it’s a stretch to say that it is our fault because we all, without exception, dreamt of this and pout ourselves in this precarious position of influence. Somewhat similarly, what Baudrillard titles the “terrorist hypothesis†is that “the system itself will commit suicide in response to the multiple challenges posed by deaths and suicides.†I don’t get the point he makes about the buildings collapsing, almost as if they were committing suicide. I can see that maybe we have been losing some of what had defined our country previously, such as freedom. I can see that we have taken a phenomenal blow due to this event. Baudrillard even makes many extremely interesting points, such as with regard to the necessity of quick anticipation in period of stagnation and of taking your time once events pick up in pace, the idea that “good and evil advance togetherâ€, and the power of images. But I still find Baudrillard’s hyperbole to be disconcerting, and sometimes not even to make sense.
If anyone can help me out with some of it, I’d appreciate it.
It was very intriguing to have a post-9/11 novel assigned in an English class. Reading it brought my head back to the canon debate. It made me question who chose this book for us to read. It made me wonder whether we tend to correlate the age of a book with legitimacy, trusting older publications to be more worthwhile. I found this reading to be very worthwhile. I’m glad we had to read it. But part of why I’m glad is that it was not perfect, and while I learned a lot, I also had a lot to criticize.
Posted 17 Nov 2007 at 3:46 pm ¶
Samantha wrote:
Alison, I had many of the same questions that you did. I think maybe though that I’m able to grasp the idea of the buildings appearing to commit suicide. I think it seems like they were fated to do so when they were built, because “every machinery of domination [secretes] its own counterapparatus, the agent of its own disappearance†(10). I think that the machine of domination is (or can be) represented by “forceâ€; the counterapparatus that it induces functions by “sacrifice†(10). And force can never overcome symbolic sacrifice. Therefore, building the towers condemned them to suicide eventually. Or something like that. Another problem I had with the text though was on page 15: “…it was at that point that a ghostly enemy emerged, infiltrating itself throughout the whole planet, slipping in everywhere like a virus, welling up from all the interstices of power: Islam. But Islam was merely the moving front along which the antagonism crystallizedâ€. We read a chapter by John Esposito in ID class called Contemporary Islam: Reformation or Revolution? One of the main premises was that Islamic fundamentalism is a misused term. A return to fundamental beliefs can be done within established order—what most people pejoratively refer to as fundamentalism is actually “revivalism†or “activismâ€. Either way, I do not think that Islam is an antagonizing force. I think that making a statement like this fails to separate the religion from the actions that it is burdened with. And I think that that can be a dangerous and harmful mistake.
Posted 18 Nov 2007 at 2:27 pm ¶
hammad wrote:
I also had a problem with Baudrillard’s quote about Islam. Islam is a religion, a way of life, but not an ideology of violence or hatred. I feel like it is easy for people to attach the word terrorism to a specific group of people, and therefore project most of the blame onto “them†as opposed to “us†or “our systemâ€. I feel like this is somewhat to V’s argument in V for Vendetta. He criticizes the masses of people who allowed England to become an authoritarian state. It was their system that provoked V to commit several acts of terrorism, not his inherent hatred of English people.
Also, I do believe that Baudrillard makes a valid point when he criticizes and comments upon the influence of globalization on terrorism. Globalization has the potential to be a polarizing force that promotes close-mindedness and the concept of winners and losers. Globalization has also led to rapid advances in technology and innovation, which helps both consumers and terrorists alike. The reach of wealthy nations in the present world is often seen as an attempt at imperialism and an over-stepping of national jurisdictions. People often criticize the United States’ meddling in the affairs of other nations, which may incite more terrorism against the US or US interests.
Posted 18 Nov 2007 at 7:40 pm ¶
pink martini wrote:
Jamie’s post and all comments to it inspire many thoughts. One of the most important ideas I took away from Baudrillard’s text was the discussion of the symbolism of a terrorist act and the action-reaction relationship between what Samantha calls the machinery of domination and the counterapparatus. The case of the Twin Towers, I believe, is very interesting. As the author suggests, being two, the buildings achieve a wholeness and a weight that make any attack against both of them seem purposeful, not incidental. Thus, the demolition of both towers leaves not doubt about the intentions. As far as suicides go, I found the interpretation fascinating: the towers have to respond to the challenge of the terrorists who are ready to give up their lives, and the only adequate response would be a similar suicidal sacrifice. All this goes back to the statement that terrorism without symbolism is a mere accident. That is why images are so important: they create a path along which the symbolic meaning can reach the mind. I will never forget what I saw on CNN on September 11th. I was 13 and, well, did not think and analyze the event the way I would today, but the images of the buildings and the planes biting into them are still vivid in my head.
I agree with Baudrillard’s idea that any power would at some point call for terrorism. I see many examples for that. Whether one accepts the United States as an indirect inspirer of terrorism against the United States or not, I think that it would be impossible for a country that meddles with others’ affairs on so many levels to be loved by most.
The discussion that Katie brought up (”America is essentially asking for terrorism”) I have found extremely interesting ever since. In fact, I remember discussing it with my grandmother
Sorry for the long post, such an interesting discussion.
Posted 20 Nov 2007 at 10:15 pm ¶