Reps K 4 Week ENDI 2010

Reps K - 4 Week HLMS 2010
1/44
Index
Index......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Reps 1nc................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Reps 1nc................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Overview Evidence................................................................................................................................................... 5
Reps Come First....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Language Creates Reait!........................................................................................................................................ "
Language In#uences $iitar! %ositions................................................................................................................ 1&
Language In#uences $iitar! %ositions................................................................................................................. 11
Language In#uences $iitar! %ositions................................................................................................................. 12
Can't Ignore R(etoric............................................................................................................................................. 13
Lin) * +ecurit! * se#,#u#iing prop(ec!.............................................................................................................. 1-
Lin) * terrorism..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Lin) * terrorism..................................................................................................................................................... 1.
Lin) * /egemon!0Leaders(ip............................................................................................................................... 17
Lin) * 1emocrac!.................................................................................................................................................. 12
Lin) * C(ina 3(reat............................................................................................................................................... 1"
42 * 5ut our C(ina 4dvantage is Rea................................................................................................................... 21
Lin) * 6egative %eace........................................................................................................................................... 22
Lin) * 6egative %eace........................................................................................................................................... 23
Lin) * 7ood vs Evi R(etoric................................................................................................................................. 25
Lin) * R(etoric o# 8Ot(ers9................................................................................................................................... 2.
Lin) * :orst Case +cenario 4voidance................................................................................................................. 22
Lin) * :orst Case +cenario................................................................................................................................... 2"
Impact * 3a)es out t(eir 4dvantages.................................................................................................................... 3&
Impact * 3a)es out t(eir 4dvantages.................................................................................................................... 31
Impact * E;uivaent to <ioence........................................................................................................................... 32
4t +oves * C(ange t(e +!stem............................................................................................................................. 33
42 * +ecurit! is Inevita=e..................................................................................................................................... 3-
42 * 5ut we didn't sa! t(at.................................................................................................................................... 35
>>>4FFIR$43I<E................................................................................................................................................. 35
3urn * ? no Lin)................................................................................................................................................... 3.
Language 1oesn't +(ape Reait!............................................................................................................................ 37
%oic! 4na!sis 5e#ore Language........................................................................................................................... 32
%oic! 4na!sis First............................................................................................................................................... 3"
1e=ate 4=out +ecurit! 7ood................................................................................................................................. -&
<ioent Reps 7ood.................................................................................................................................................. -1
4t Fais.................................................................................................................................................................. -2
4t Fais.................................................................................................................................................................. -3
%erm +oves........................................................................................................................................................... --
Needs more impact work
Look in the Security K 6-week file for more generic K evidence you can use.
2/44
Reps 1nc
A. Decisions to withdraw troops are historically tied to a rhetorical act we must focus on language first.
DAUBER 1 PhD Professor of !ommunication at "N!
#!ori $. Dau%er& 'he Shots Seen ()ound the *orld+ 'he ,mpact of the ,mages of -ogadishu on .merican -ilitary
/perations& )hetoric 0 Pu%lic .ffairs 1.1 234456 678-69:;
!onclusions
/n one night in /cto%er 5<<8& 59 .merican servicemen were killed in a single firefight on the streets of -ogadishu. *ithin days&
President !linton announced that the "nited States would %e withdrawing from Somalia. *hat is striking a%out the historical representations of these events
is the consistency with which the impetus %ehind the withdrawal is articulated as %eing not the 59 deaths that took place that night& %ut the
distur%ing images of several of the corpses released over the ne=t several days. !he idea that the images of the dead were the impetus & not the deaths
themselves--the two who were photographed& and not the 56 others who were lost that night %ut not photographed--has not changed in the intervening years. ,t would %e
hard to find a more powerful e=ample of the role images can play in the shaping of policy. >or as shocking and distressing as the images are& they are still
images& over and against 59 actual lives lost. ?ow is it that the images are %elieved to have played more of a role than the actual casualties& and to have
more of a hold on the .merican imagination@ #$nd Page 6:6;
'his Auestion is of far more than academic interest. 'he %elief that the images of -ogadishu had such a powerful effect on .merican pu%lic opinion that a president(s hand was forced is widely
held. ?istorically Auestiona%le& %ased on assumptions a%out the way imagery works that are also Auestiona%le& this %elief has gained greater and greater currency in
policy circles. .s a result& the concern that the use of military force in humanitarian crises may produce compara%le images to those from
-ogadishu is having direct effects on the conduct of .merican foreign policy. A more sophisticated understanding of "oth imagery
and the interaction "etween imagery and discourse could increase the options a#aila"le to senior leadership during a crisis and
ma$e it less li$ely that responses will "e generated "ased on either false predictions or self%fulfilling prophecies regarding
pu"lic responses to hypothetical images. 541
Photos are e=igencies+ a rhetorical e=igence is a moment that demands a response& calls forth a response. .s Stephen Livingston notes& it is the nature of that
response that makes the difference+
Bet in the long-run& pictures may not matter as much as conte=t and leadership. 'he key varia%le may %e the presence of a clearly articulated policy and a pu%lic sense that the policy is Cworth
it.C !olin Powell e=pressed this point+ C'hey(re 2the .merican people6 prepared to take casualties. .nd even if they see them on live television it will make them madder.C 547
*hen the president responds in a way that offers fle=i%ility& he opens a wide range of potential moves for himself. *hen he does not& he may %e trapped %y an interpretation that& though of his
own making& he cannot call %ack. !onsider President Dush(s specific decision to remain at Kenne%unkport after the ,raAi invasion of Kuwait. 'o return immediately to *ashington would have
created a sense of crisis that might have %o=ed him in or made him look out of control. ?e had learned well the lessons of President !arter(s response to the ,ranian hostage crisis& when !arter
%ecame& in a rhetorical sense& a hostage as well. *hen Korean .irlines 2K.L6 >light 44: was shot down& and President )eagan was asleep& Eeorge SchultF immediately announced that this
was a crisis of immense proportions& %o=ing in the rhetorical options the president would have availa%le to him throughout. .s 'he $conomist o%served+
*hatever one thinks of these claims& it is certainly true that Kosovo was a reminder of the president(s considera%le opportunities in foreign policy. Pu%lic support& even at the start& was mild
and it eroded at the end. !ongress was a sham%les. . . . *ith no coherent alternatives %eing put forward %y !ongress and little clear pu%lic support one way or the other& the president can
initiate and argue for whatever he wants+ though what he wanted 2such as no ground troops6 was often dictated %y what he knew the pu%lic would swallow. 546 #$nd Page 6::;
'et& and Lyndon Gohnson(s response to it& is in many ways an e=emplar case& particularly given the need to frame and interpret photographic images. Peter Draestrup& in perhaps the most
definitive analysis& argues+ C>or two months the President had left a vacuum--which others hastened to fill. 'hus& simply to descri%e #the coverage of; >e%ruary--arch 5<69 as willful or
ideological ignores . . . the President(s own failure to respond decisively. . . . 'et was a self-inflicted wound.C 54: Deyond presidential responses& the images presented must %e understood
within a specific historical conte=t. ,n Septem%er 5<18 the first photographs showing dead .mericans from *orld *ar ,, were pu%lished. C)ather than depress .mericans& the photograph #of
three dead on Duna Deach in the Pacific; seemed to inspire them. 'hey did not see only the lossH they saw instead& as directed& the death of men fighting for (freedom.( .nd& to them& the fact
that men had died for it made freedom only that more precious& that more essential& that more urgent.C 549
'he impact the -ogadishu images have had on .merican foreign policy is clear. Dut their impact is not inescapa%le or inevita%le. ,t is %ased on the incorrect assumption that people can only
read images unidirectionally. No matter how similar& no matter how powerfully one te=t evokes another& every image is uniAue. $ach comes from a different historical situation& is placed
within a different story& and offers an am%iguous te=t that can %e e=ploited %y astute commentators. ,mages matter profoundly& %ut so do their conte=ts and the
words that accompany them. 'he implications of this shift in interpretation are potentially profound. -ogadishu& or the mention of a potential parallel with -ogadishu& need not %e
a straightIacket or a deterrent to the use of .merican power. )hetoric& whether discursive or visual& has real power in the way events play out. *hat this article makes
clear is that rhetoric 2and therefore rhetorical analysis6 also has power in the way policy is shaped and defined. ,n a recent %ook on the conflict in
Kosovo& the authors note that when the president spoke to the nation on the night the air war %egan& he immediately ruled out the use of ground
forces. 'his was done& they argue& due to fears that leaving open the possi%ility of ground force participation would sacrifice domestic
pu%lic and congressional 2and allied6 support for the air war. Dut Cpu%licly ruling out their use only helped to reduce -ilosevic(s uncertainty
regarding the likely scope of N.'/(s military actions&C 54< and possi%ly to lengthen the air war as a result. Bet& they report& National Security .dvisor Sandy Derger& Cwho
authored the critical passage in the president(s speech& maintains that (we would not have won the war without this sentence.(C 554 ,t would %e difficult to
find more direct evidence for the profound impact and influence pu%lic rhetoric and de%ate have--and are understood to have--on
policy& policymaking& and policymakers at the highest level. 'hat means that rhetorical analysis can ha#e a role to play and a #oice at
the ta"le "efore policies are determined. .cademic rhetoricians& through their choice of proIects and the formats in which they pu%lish& can stake a claim
to having an important voice at the ta%le--and they should do so.

3/44
Reps 1nc
B. !heir representations aren&t neutral their security rhetoric creates a rigged game they assume the
ad#antages to "e true.
!he Alternati#e is to RE'E(! !)E R)E!*RI( of the 1A( that allows for a necessary examination of the world
+R*,DI, - )aoul-Dandurand !hair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies
#David Erondin& 2)e6*riting the JNational Security StateK+ ?ow and *hy )ealists 2)e6Duilt the2ir6 !old *ar&K /ccasional Paper no. 1. "niversitL du MuL%ec N
-ontrLal;
Language is an autonomous system in which interte=tuality makes many interpretations possi%le. ,nterte=tuality& as )oland Darthes e=plains it&
cele%rates the Jdeath of the authorK+ it is not the author who speaks& %ut the te=t& %y referring to other te=ts& through the readerOs mind.1 'he meaning of a te=t is thus enacted
%y the reader instead of %eing articulated passively in the te=t. ,nterte=tuality assumes that a te=t can %e read only in relation to other te=ts& as an Jinterte=tK. 'he
reader will read the te=t %y virtually reinterpreting te=ts he already read in light of this new te=t. Such an interte=tual approach thus allows endless interpretations and readings+ J#P; as
relevant as sources are& the list of unknowa%le sources that inform a readerOs interpretation of a te=t is what makes interte=tuality a powerful social and personal e=perienceK 2Porcel& 3443+
5746.
,nterte=tuality and deconstruction are used in a complementary way. JDeconstruction QisO a way of reading a particular te=t& in which it is demonstrated that the QauthorO fails to produce the
logical& rational& construction of thought that was intendedK 2Drown& 5<<1+ 56676. ,t is not a testa%le theory& nor a standard methodH it is an ongoing QproIectO 2Dutler& 3443+ 396. ,t produces
JstoriesK& not JtheoriesK. ,n effect& in deconstruction& %inary oppositions encoded in language and hierarchical antinomies hidden in discourse are revealed. ,t is thus assumed that the meaning
of a concept can %e revealed only in relation to at least one other term.
,n e=plaining national security conduct& realist discourses serve the violent 6 purposes of the state& as well as legitimiFing its actions
and reinforcing its hegemony. 'his is why we must historiciFe the practice of the analyst and Auestion the Jregimes of truthK constructed %y realist
discourses. *hen studying a given discourse& one must also study the socio-historical conditions in which it was produced. )ealist analysts are part of the su%field of Strategic Studies
associated with the !old *ar era. $ven though it faced numerous criticisms after the !old *ar& especially since it proved irrelevant in predicting its end& this su%field retains a significant
influence in ,nternational )elations as evidenced& for instance& %y the vitality of the Iournal ,nternational Security. 'heoretically speaking& Strategic Studies is the field par e=cellence of
realist analyses+ it is a way of interpreting the world& which is inscri%ed in the language of violence& organiFed in strategy& in military planning& in a military order& and which seek to shape and
preserve world order 2Klein& 5<<1+ 516. Since they are interested in issues of international order& realist discourses study the %alancing and %andwagoning %ehavior of great powers. )ealist
analysts %elieve they can separate o%Iect from su%Iect+ on this view& it would %e possi%le to a%stract oneself from the world in which
one lives and studies and to use value-free discourse to produce a non-normative analysis. .s Stephen Drooks and *illiam *ohlforth assert& J#s;uch
arguments #a%out .merican moderation and international %enevolence that stress the constraints on .merican power; are unpersuasive& however& %ecause they fail to acknowledge the true
nature of the current international systemK 2Drooks and *ohlforth& 3443+ 856. 'hus it would seem that Drooks and *ohlforth have the a%ility to JknowK essential JtruthsK& as they JknowK the
JtrueK nature of the international system. >rom this vantage point it would even %e possi%le Jto set aside oneOs own su%Iective %iases and values and to
confront the world on its own terms& with the hope of gaining mastery of that world through a clear understanding that transcends the limits of such personal determinants as oneOs own values&
class& gender& race& or emotionsK 2Klein& 5<<1+ 566. ?owever& it is impossi%le to speak or write from a neutral or transcendental ground+ Jthere are
only interpretations some stronger and some weaker& to %e sure %ased on argument and evidence& which seems from the standpoint of the
interpreter and his or her interlocutor to %e QrightO or QaccurateO or QusefulO at the moment of interpretationK 2-edhurst& 3444+ 546. ,t is in such
realist discourse that Strategic Studies %ecome a technocratic approach determining the foundations of security policies that are disguised as an academic approach a%ove all critical reflection
2Klein& 5<<1+ 3:-396.
!ommitted to an e=planatory logic& realist analysts are less interested in the constitutive processes of states and state systems than in their functional e=istence& which they take as given.
'hey are more attentive to regulation& through the military uses of force and strategic practices that esta%lish the internal and e=ternal %oundaries of the states system. 'heir main
argument is that matters of security are the immuta%le driving forces of glo%al politics. ,ndeed& most realists see some strategic lessons as %eing eternal&
such as %alance of power politics and the Auest for national security. >or Drooks and *ohlforth& %alance of power politics 2which was synonymous with !old *ar politics in realist discourses6
is the norm+ J'he result R %alancing that is rhetorically grand %ut su%stantively weak R is politics as usual in a unipolar worldK 2Drooks and *ohlforth& 3443+ 3<6.
National security discourses constitute the Jo%served realitiesK that are the grist of neorealist and neoclassical realist theories. 'hese theories rely
upon ".S. material power 2the perception of ".S. relative material power for neoclassical realists6& %alance of power& and the glo%al distri%ution of power to
e=plain and legitimate .merican national security conduct. !heir argument is circular since they depict a reality that is
constituted "y their own discourse. in addition to legitimiFing .merican strategic %ehavior. Realists often disagree a"out the use of
force on military restraint #ersus military inter#ention& for e=ample %ut the differences pertain to strategies of power& that is& means
as opposed to ends. )ealist discourses will not challenge the "nited StatesO position as a prominent military power. .s Darry Posen maintains&
J#o;ne pillar of ".S. hegemony is the vast military power of the "nited States. #P; /%servers of the actual capa%ilities that this effort produces can focus on a favorite aspect of ".S.
superiority to make the point that the "nited States sits comforta%ly atop the military food chain& and is likely to remain thereK 2Posen& 3448+ :6.
)ealist analysts Jo%serveK that the ".S. is the world hegemonic power and that no other state can %alance that power. ,n their analyses& they seek to e=plain how the "nited States was a%le to
%uild and lead coalitions in .fghanistan and ,raA with no other power capa%le of offering military resistance. Darry Posen JneutrallyK e=plains this %y emphasiFing the "nited StatesO
permanent preparation for war+
, argue that the "nited States enIoys command of the commonsRcommand of the sea& space& and air. , discuss how command of the commons supports a hegemonic grand strategy. #P;
!ommand means that the "nited States gets vastly more military use out of the sea& space& and air than do othersH that it can credi%ly threaten to deny their use to othersH and that others would
lose a military contest for the commons if they attempted to deny them to the "nited States. !ommand of the commons is the key military ena%ler of the ".S. glo%al power position. ,t allows
the "nited States to e=ploit more fully other sources of power& including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. !ommand of the
commons has permitted the "nited States to wage war on short notice even where it has had little permanent military presence. 'his was true of the 5<<5 Persian Eulf *ar& the 5<<8
intervention in Somalia& and the 3445 action in .fghanistan 2Posen& 3448+ :-<6.
-oreover& in realist theoretical discourses& transnational non-state actors such as terrorist networks are not yet taken into account. .ccording to Drooks and *ohlforth& they need not %e+
J'oday there is one pole in a system in which the population has tre%led to nearly 344K 2Drooks and *ohlforth& 3443+ 3<6. ,n their system& only states are relevant. .nd what of the .l-Maida
terrorist network@ .t %est& realist discourses accommodate an interstate framework& a JrealityK depicted in their writings as an
oversimplification of the comple= world in which we now live 2Kratochwil& 34446.: ,n their theoretical constructs& these analysts do not address national or state
identity in any su%stantive way. -oreover& they do not pay attention to the security culture in which they as individuals are em%edded 9. 'hey
rarely if ever acknowledge their su%Iectivity as analysts& and they proceed as if they were a%le to separate themselves from their
cultural environment. >rom a poststructuralist perspective& however& it is impossi%le to recogniFe all the ways in which we have %een shaped %y the culture and environment in which
4/44
we were raised. *e can only think or e=perience the world through a cultural prism+ it is impossi%le to a%stract oneself from oneOs interpretive cultural conte=t
and e=perience and descri%e Jthe world as it isK. 'here is always an interpretive dimension to knowledge& an inevita%le mediation %etween the Jreal
worldK and its representation. 'his is why .merican realist analysts have trou%le shedding the !old *ar mentality in which they were
immersed. Bet some scholars& like Drooks and *ohlforth& consciously want to perpetuate it+ J'oday the costs and dangers of the !old *ar have faded into history& %ut they need to %e kept
in mind in order to assess unipolarity accuratelyK 2Drooks and *ohlforth& 3443+ 846.
'he Language of )ealism2s6
Neorealist and neoclassical realism offer themselves up as a narrative of the world institutional order. !ritical approaches must
therefore seek to countermemorialiFe Jthose whose lives and voices have %een variously silenced in the process of strategic practicesK 2Klein& 5<<1+
396. 'he pro%lem& as revealed in the de%ate %etween gatekeepers of the su%field of Strategic Studies 2*alt& 5<<56& is that those analyses that
contravene the dominant discourse are deemed insignificant %y virtue of their differing ontological and epistemological foundations.
.pproaches that deconstruct theoretical practices in order to disclose what is hidden in the use of concepts such as Jnational securityK have something valua%le
to say. 'heir more refle=ive and critically-inclined view illustrates how terms used in realist discourses& such as state& anarchy& world order& revolution in military affairs& and security
dilemmas& are produced %y a specific historical& geographical and socio-political conte=t as well as historical forces and social relations of power 2Klein& 5<<1+ 336. Since realist
analysts do not Auestion their ontology and yet purport to provide a neutral and o%Iective analysis of a given world order %ased on
military power and interactions %etween the most important political units& namely states& realist discourses constitute a political act in
defense of the state. ,ndeed& J#P; it is important to recogniFe that to employ a te=tualiFing approach to social policy involving conflict and war is not to
attempt to reduce social phenomena to various concrete manifestations of language. )ather& it is an attempt to analyFe the interpretations governing policy
thinking. .nd it is important to recogniFe that policy thinking is not unsituatedK 2Shapiro& 5<9<a+ :56. Policy thinking is practical thinking since it imposes an
analytic order on the Jreal worldK& a world that only e=ists in the analystsO own narratives. ,n this light& Darry PosenOs political role in legitimiFing .merican
hegemonic power and national security conduct seems o%vious+
".S. command of the commons provides an impressive foundation for selective engagement. ,t is not adeAuate for a policy of primacy. #P; !ommand
of the commons gives the "nited States a tremendous capa%ility to harm others. -arrying that capa%ility to a conservative policy of selective engagement
helps make ".S. military power appear less threatening and more tolera%le. !ommand of the commons creates additional collective goods for ".S. allies. 'hese
collective goods help connect ".S. military power to seemingly prosaic welfare concerns. ".S. military power underwrites world trade& travel& glo%al telecommunications& and commercial
remote sensing& which all depend on peace and order in the commonsK 2Posen& 3448+ 11 and 166.
.dopting a more critical stance& David !amp%ell points out that J#d;anger is not an o%Iective condition. ,t 2sic6 is not a thing which e=ists independently of those to whom it may %ecome a
threat. #P; Nothing is a risk in itselfH #...; it all depends on how one analyses the danger& considers the eventK 2!amp%ell& 5<<9+ 5-36. ,n the same vein& national security discourse
does not evaluate o%Iective threatsH rather& it is itself a product of historical processes and structures in the state and society that produces
it. *hoever has the power to define security is then the one who has the authority to write legitimate security discourses and conduct
the policies that legitimiFe them. !he realist analysts and state leaders who in#o$e national security and act in its name are the
same indi#iduals who hold the power to securiti/e threats "y inserting them in a discourse that frames national identity and
free/es it.0
5/44
*#er#iew E#idence
Engaging in 1ostructuralist Analysis of the text is $ey allows us to open space for new texts. A,D attempts to
loo$ for 2real%world3 policies only continue the pro"lem. 4e must step outside the search for a policy solution
first.
-ontrLal;
?ans -orgenthau once said that Jthe intellectual lives in a world that is %oth separate from and potentially intertwined with that of the politician. 'he two worlds are
separate %ecause they are oriented towards different ultimate valuesP truth threatens power& and power threatens truthK 2-orgenthau& Auoted in ?ill and Deshoff&
5<<1+ =i6. >or !hristopher ?ill and Pamela Deshoff& this means that& as international relations practitioners and theorists& JLike it or not& we
are Qintellectuals in politicsO and Qthe study of international relations is not an innocent professionOK 2?ill& 5<<1+ 536. !omments
such as these are commonplace in academia& %ut many scholars would contend that the latter is wrong. Positivists %e they neoclassical realists& neorealists& neoli%eral
institutionalists& or mainstream constructivists hold that %y e=ercising parsimony and rigor& and %y employing the Jscientific methodK& international relations can %e
studied in an o%Iective manner& and scientific& neutral& and true knowledge can %e produced. !ritically-inclined scholars would& however& argue otherwise& on the
grounds that J#t;heory is always for someone and for some purposeK 2!o=& 5<95+ 9:6. .dopting a critical stance is not an easy task in
,nternational )elations today. .nd it is even more difficult if one chooses to view the field through poststructuralist
lenses& as this means choosing to work on %orderlines and in the margins 2.shley& 5<9<6. .s a discipline& ,nternational )elations is
dominated %y .merican scholars and scholars trained in the ".S. 2*aever& 5<<96. .s Steve Smith noted in his ,S. presidential address in 3448& predominantly
.merican rationalist theories such as neorealism and neoclassical realism enIoy a hegemonic status within the discipline which reduces the theoretical pluralism and
diversity of the field 2Smith& 34436. ,n this paper& , adopt a poststructuralist approach with the aim of developing a critical understanding of how the hegemonic status
of realist theories serves to legitimiFe current ".S. national security policy. , focus on two main points. >irst& , e=plore how the realism prevalent in the
theoretical discourse of ,) in the "nited States is itself a political practice that is constitutive of a particular reality& rather
than merely neutrally descri%ing it. Second& , maintain that these realist discourses su%Iectively and artificially lock ".S. national
identity into a !old *ar-like national security focus. .s such& the "nited States remains constructed as a national security
state in realist discourses. ,ndeed& realist discourses do not merely seek to e=plain %ut also serve to legitimate ".S. national
security conduct and its hegemonic power in the wake of <S55. , want to show how the idea of the ".S. as a national security
state is %eing 2re6produced %y practices that would neither appear nor claim to do so.
. poststructuralist approach to international relations reassesses the nature of the political. ,ndeed& it calls for the
repoliticiFation of practices of world politics that have %een treated as if they were not political. >or instance& limiting the
ontological elements in oneOs inAuiry to states or great powers is a political choice. .s Genny $dkins puts it& we need to J%ring the political %ack inK 2$dkins& 5<<9+ =ii6.
>or most analysts of ,nternational )elations& the conception of the JpoliticalK is narrowly restricted to politics as practiced %y politicians. ?owever& from a
poststructuralist viewpoint& the JpoliticalK acAuires a %roader meaning& especially since practice is not what most theorists
are descri%ing as practice. Poststructuralism sees theoretical discourse not only as discourse& %ut also as political practice. 'heory therefore %ecomes
practice.
'he political space of poststructuralism is not that of e=clusionH it is the political space of postmodernity& a dichotomous one&
where one thing always signifies at least one thing and another 2>inlayson and Talentine& 3443+ 516. Poststructuralism thus gives primacy to the
political& since it acts on us& while we act in its name& and leads us to identify and differentiate ourselves from others. !his political act is ne#er
complete and cele"rates undecida"ility& whereas decisions& when taken& e=press the political moment. ,t is a critical attitude which
encourages dissidence from traditional approaches 2.shley and *alker& 5<<4a and 5<<4%6. ,t does not represent one single philosophical approach
or perspective& nor is it an alternative paradigm 2'vathail& 5<<6+ 5:36. ,t is a nonplace& a %order line falling %etween international and domestic politics 2.shley& 5<9<6.
'he poststructuralist analyst Auestions the %orderlines and dichotomies of modernist discourses& such as insideSoutside& the
constitution of the SelfS/ther& and so on. ,n the act of definition& difference there%y the discourse of otherness is highlighted& since one always
defines an o%Iect with regard to what it is not 2Knafo& 34416. .s Simon Dal%y asserts& J,t involves the social construction of some other person& group& culture& race&
nationality or political system as different from QourO person& group& etc. Specifying difference is a linguistic& epistemological and& most
importantly& a political actH it constructs a space for the other distanced and inferior from the vantage point of the person specifying the differenceK 2Dal%y&
cited in 'vathail& 5<<6+ 5:<6. Indeed. poststructuralism offers no definiti#e answers. "ut leads to new 5uestions and new
unexplored grounds. !his ma$es the commitment to the incomplete nature of the political and of political analysis
so central to poststructuralism 2>inlayson and Talentine& 3443+ 576. .s Gim Eeorge writes& J,t is postmodern resistance in the sense
that while it is directly 2and sometimes violently6 engaged with modernity& it seeks to go %eyond the repressive& closed aspects of
modernist glo%al e=istence. ,t is& therefore& not a resistance of traditional grand-scale emancipation or conventional radicalism im%ued with authority of one
or another sovereign presence. )ather& in opposing the large-scale %rutality and ineAuity in human society& it is a resistance active also at the everyday&
community& neigh%ourhood& and interpersonal levels& where it confronts those processes that systematically e=clude
people from making decisions a%out who they are and what they can %eK 2Eeorge& 5<<1+ 357& emphasis in original6.
,n this light& poststructural practices are used critically to investigate how the su%Iect of international relations is constituted
in and through the discourses and te=ts of glo%al politics. 'reating theory as discourse opens up the possi%ility of
historiciFing it. ,t is a myth that theory can %e a%stracted from its socio-historical conte=t& from reality& so to speak& as neorealists and neoclassical realists %elieve.
6/44
,t is a political practice which needs to %e conte=tualiFed and stripped of its purportedly neutral status. ,t must %e understood with respect to its role in preserving and
reproducing the structures and power relations present in all language forms. Dominant theories are& in this view& dominant discourses that shape
our view of the world 2the Jsu%IectK6 and our ways of understanding it.
Eiven my poststructuralist inclinations& , do not su%scri%e to the positivistic social scientific enterprise which aspires to test hypotheses against the Jreal worldK. ,
therefore reIect epistemological empiricism. Since epistemology is closely intertwined with methodology& especially with positivism& , eschew
naturalism as a methodology. , study discourses and discursive practices that take shape in te=ts. 'his does not mean that there is no material world
as such& only that it must "e understood as mediated "y language. which in the end means that it is always interpreted
once framed "y discourse 2through the spoken word or in written form6.3 J. discourse& then& is not a way of learning Qa%outO something out there in
the Qreal worldOH it is rather a way of producing that something as real& as identifia%le& classifia%le& knowa%le& and therefore&
meaningful. Discourse creates the conditions of knowingK 2Klein Auoted in Eeorge& 5<<1+ 846. *e consider JrealK what we consider significant+ a
discourse is always an interpretation& a narrative of multiple realities inscri%ed in a specific social or sym%olic order. Discursive representation is
therefore not neutralH individuals in power are those who are JauthoriFedK to produce JrealityK& and therefore& knowledge.
,n this conte=t& power is knowledge and the a%ility to produce that which is considered JtrueK. . realist discourse will produce the sociolinguistic
conditions that will allow it to correspond& in theory as in practice& to JrealityK. $vidently& this JrealityK will %e nothing %ut the Jrealist
discourseK that one has constituted oneself. 'his is why& from a poststructuralist perspective& discourse may %e considered as ontology 8.
7/44
Reps (ome 6irst
6ramewor$ 5uestions should come "efore policyma$ing 5uestions "ecause they determine the effecti#eness.
acceptance. and possi"ility of a policy. 6ailure to prioriti/e the framing is to ignore reality. !ruth is a 5uestion of
framing not of facts.
'?$ >).-$*/)KS ,NS','"'$ 48 >rame*orks research has %een presented at the *hite ?ouse !onference on 'eenagers& -ac.rthur
>oundation )esearch Network on Successful Pathways 'hrough -iddle !hildhood& Erantmakers for !hildren& Bouth and >amilies Learning !ircle on !onstituency
Duilding& National .cademy of Science Doard on !hildren& Bouth and >amilies& Surgeon Eeneral(s !onference on !hildren and /ral ?ealth& the first Ioint meeting of
the .ssociation of State and 'erritorial Dental Directors and .merican .ssociation of Pu%lic ?ealth Dentistry& the >ord >oundation& *. '. Erant >oundation& and
numerous other forums. !urrent proIects focus on such issues as gender eAuity and school reform& leadership development& glo%al warming& neigh%orhood
transformation& glo%al interdependence& positive youth development& children(s oral health& and children(s issues.
#J'he >rame*orks Perspective+ Strategic >rame .nalysis&K ,ntroduction& http+SSwww.frameworksinstitute.orgSstrategicanalysisSperspective.shtml;
>or the past five years& a rare coa=oration =etween communications sc(oars and practitioners (as =egun to evove a
new approac( to expaining socia issues to the pu%lic. Strategic frame analysis is an approach to communications research and practice that pays attention to the
pu%lic(s deeply held worldviews and widely held assumptions. 'his approach was developed at the >rame*orks ,nstitute %y a multi-disciplinary team of people capa%le of studying those
assumptions and testing them to determine their impact on social policies. Recogni@ing t(at t(ere is more t(an one wa! to te a stor!A strategic
#rame ana!sis taps into decades o# researc( on (ow peope t(in) and communicate. 3(e resut is an
empirica!,driven communications process t(at ma)es academic researc( understanda=e& interestingA and
usa=e to help people solve social pro%lems. 'his interdisciplinary work is made possi%le %y the fact that t(e concept o# #raming is #ound in t(e
iteratures o# numerous academic discipines across t(e sociaA =e(aviora and cognitive sciences. Put simply&
#raming re#ers to t(e construct o# a communication B its anguageA visuas and messengers B and t(e wa! it
signas to t(e istener or o=server (ow to interpret and cassi#! new in#ormation. 5! #ramingA we mean (ow
messages are encoded wit( meaning so t(at t(e! can =e e##icient! interpreted in reations(ip to existing =eie#s
or ideas. Frames trigger meaning. 'he Auestions we ask& in applying the concept of frames to the arena of social policy& are as follows+ ?ow does the pu%lic
think a%out a particular social or political issue@ *hat is the pu%lic discourse on the issue@ .nd how is this discourse influenced %y the way media frames that issue@ ?ow do these pu%lic and
private frames affect pu%lic choices@ ?ow can an issue %e reframed to evoke a different way of thinking& one that illuminates a %roader range of alternative policy choices@ 3(is
approac( is strategic in t(at it not on! deconstructs t(e dominant #rames o# re#erence t(at drive reasoning on
pu=ic issuesA =ut it aso identi#ies t(ose aternative #rames most i)e! to stimuate pu=ic reconsideration and
enumerates t(eir eements 2reframing6. *e use the term reframe to mean changing Cthe conte=t of the message e=changeC so that different interpretations and pro%a%le
outcomes %ecome visi%le to the pu%lic 2Dearing 0 )ogers& 5<<1+ <96. Strategic frame analysis offers policy advocates a way to work systematically through the challenges that are likely to
confront the introduction of new legislation or social policies& to anticipate attitudinal %arriers to support& and to develop research-%ased strategies to overcome pu%lic misunderstanding. *hat
,s !ommunications and *hy Does ,t -atter@ 'he domain of communications has not changed markedly since 5<19 when ?arold Lasswell formulated his famous eAuation+ who says what to
whom through what channel with what effect@ Dut w(at man! socia poic! practitioners (ave overoo)ed in their !ests t"
#"rm!$ate e##e%ti&e strategies #"r s"%ia$ %hange is that %"mm!ni%ati"ns merits their attenti"n
'e%a!se it is an ine(tri%a'$e part "# the agen)a-setting #!n%ti"n in this %"!ntr*. Communications
pa!s a vita roe in determining w(ic( issues t(e pu=ic prioriti@es #or policy resolution& w(ic( issues wi move #rom
t(e private ream to t(e pu=ic& w(ic( issues wi =ecome pressure points #or poic!ma)ersA and w(ic( issues
wi win or ose in t(e competition #or scarce resources. No organiFation can approach such tasks as issue advocacy& constituency-%uilding& or promoting
%est practices without taking into account the critical role that mass media has to play in shaping the way .mericans think a%out social issues. .s *illiam Eamson and his colleagues at the
-edia )esearch and .ction ProIect like to say& media is Can arena of contest in its own right& and part of a larger strategy of social change.C One source o# our con#usion
over communications comes in not recogni@ing t(at eac( new pus( #or pu=ic understanding and acceptance
(appens against a =ac)drop of long-term media coverage& o# perceptions formed over time& o# scripts we (ave earned since
c(id(ood to (ep us ma)e sense o# our word& and folk %eliefs we use to interpret new information. .s we go a%out making sense of our world& mass media
serves an important function as the mediator of meaning R teing us w(at to t(in) a=out Cagenda,settingD and (ow to t(in) a=out it
Cmedia e##ectsD =! organi@ing t(e in#ormation in suc( a wa! C#ramingD t(at it comes to us #u! con#ated wit(
directives 2cues6 a=out w(o is responsi=e #or t(e socia pro=em in t(e #irst pace and w(o gets to #ix it 2responsi%ility6. ,t
is often the case that nonprofit organiFations want communications to %e easy. ,ronically& they want sound%ite answers to the same social pro%lems whose comple=ity they understand all too
well. *hile policy research and formulation are given their due as tough& demanding areas of an organiFation(s workplan& communications is seen as Csoft.C *hile program development and
practice are seen as reAuiring e=pertise and the thoughtful consideration of %est practices& communications is an Canyone can do it if you have toC task. ,t is time to retire this thinking. Doing
communications strategically reAuires the same investment of intellect and study that these other areas of nonprofit practice have %een accorded. . Simple $=planation of >rame .nalysis ,n
his seminal %ook Pu%lic /pinion 25<35+566& *alter Lippmann was per(aps t(e #irst to connect mass communications to pu%lic attitudes
and poic! pre#erences =! recogni@ing t(at t(e Et(e wa! in w(ic( t(e word is imagined determines at an!
particuar moment w(at men wi do.C 3(e modern extension of Lippmann(s o%servation is =ased on t(e concept o# E#rames.C
%eope use menta s(ortcuts to ma)e sense o# t(e word. +ince most peope are oo)ing to process incoming
in#ormation ;uic)! and e##icient!A t(e! re! upon cues wit(in t(at new in#ormation to signa to t(em (ow to
connect it wit( t(eir stored images o# t(e word. 3(e Epictures in our (eads&C as Lippmann called them& mig(t =etter =e
t(oug(t o# as vivid! a=eed storage =oxes , #ied wit( picturesA imagesA and stories #rom our past encounters
+/44
wit( t(e word and la%eled youth& marriage& poverty& fairness& etc. 'he incoming information provides cues a%out which is the right container for that idea or e=perience. .nd the
efficient thinker makes the connection& a process called Cinde=ing&C and moves on. %ut anot(er wa!A (ow an issue is #ramed is a trigger to t(ese
s(ared and dura=e cutura modes t(at (ep us ma)e sense o# our word. :(en a #rame ignites a cutura
modeA or calls it into play in the interpretation& t(e w(oe mode is operative. 3(is aows peope to reason a=out an issueA to
ma)e in#erencesA to #i in t(e =an)s #or missing in#ormation =! re#erring to t(e ro=ustness o# t(e modeA not
t(e s)etc(! #rame. ,s Lippmann "'ser&e)- .We )e#ine #irst- an) then see/. 3(e cognitive cutura
modes t(at are spar)ed =! t(e #rame aow us to #orget certain in#ormation and to invent ot(er detaisA =ecause
t(e #rame is now in e##ect. For exampeA i# peope =eieve t(at )ids are in trou=eA t(e! wi =e drawn to #acts in a
news story t(at rein#orce t(is notion& and wi disregard t(ose t(at den! it. I# t(e #acts donFt #it t(e #rameA itFs t(e #acts
t(at are reGectedA not t(e #rame. /r& as one analyst of knowledge processing puts it& Eunderstanding means #inding a stor! !ou
aread! )now and sa!ingA FO( !ea(A t(at oneFC 2Schank& 5<<9& :56. 3(e #unction o# t(e #rame is to drive us toward t(e
correct identi#ication o# an od stor!H C>inding some familiar element causes us to activate the story that is la%eled %y that familiar element& and we understand the
new story as if it were an e=emplar of that old elementC 2Schank& 5<<9& 7<6. *hat(s in a frame@ .t the >rame*orks ,nstitute& we(ve developed a short list of elements typically found in news
segments that often signal meaning+ - metaphors - messengers - visuals - messages - stories -num%ers - conte=t 'ogether& these elements help people connect the new information to the
Cstructure of e=pectationC in their heads. ,f the messenger in a 'T news story is a teacher& for e=ample& the viewer is likely to assume that this is a%out education or a%out a pro%lem that should
%e solved %y schools. ,f the visuals show people sitting around doing little& the viewer may decide this is a%out laFiness& regardless of what the narrator is saying a%out unemployment statistics
among rural peasants in a certain country. .s we apply these findings from the cognitive& %ehavioral& and social sciences to the arena of social issues R children& poverty& the environment&
human rights& etc. R we see the importance of the way responsi%ility is implicitly communicated as part of these framing elements. .s !harlotte )yan has pointed out& C$very frame defines
the issue& e=plains who is responsi%le& and suggests potential solutions. .ll of these are conveyed %y images& stereotypes& or anecdotes.C 2)yan 5<<5+7<6 -ost people rely on news reports to
learn a%out pu%lic issues. 'he evening news frames issues R using these same elements listed a%ove R in order to tell a story. Shanto ,yengar has descri%ed news frames as %eing of two types+
episodic and thematic. $pisodic news frames& which comprise %y far the predominant frame on television newscasts& focus on discrete events that involve individuals located at specific places
and at specific times 2e.g.& nightly crime reports6. Dy contrast& thematic frames place pu%lic issues in a %roader conte=t %y focusing on general conditions or outcomes 2e.g.& reports on poverty
trends in the ".S.6. )esearchers have shown that the type of news frame used has a profound effect on the way in which individuals attri%ute responsi%ility. ,yengar concludes that Cepisodic
framing tends to elicit individualistic rather than societal attri%utions of responsi%ility while thematic framing has the opposite effect.C 2,yengar& 5<<56. Dut there are many traditions of
Iournalism that affect the way we process news reports& that signal to us not only what issues we should think a%out& %ut also how we should think a%out them. 'he metaphors chosen to
descri%e the issue drive pu%lic reaction and reasoning. >or e=ample& the Chorse raceC metaphor applied to political elections has %een shown to reduce attention to specific issues in favor of
character& strategy and poll results. 'he two-sides rule& in which opposite messengers are chosen to satisfy Iournalistic %alance& has %een shown to create the notion that politics are divisive and
disingenuous. 'he choice of pu%lic officials as spokespersons on foreign policy issues signals to the pu%lic that ordinary people should leave the discussion to e=perts. 'he work of the
>rame*orks ,nstitute is to translate the relevant literature on each element of the frame& helping stakeholder groups understand what ordinary .mericans are likely to take away when a social
pro%lem is descri%ed in a certain way. .nd& while our recommendations are aimed first and foremost to the medium of news& the communications research we review and e=plain is also
pertinent to pu%lic discourse in general - presentations to civic groups& written communiAues from annual reports to direct mail& and pu%lic statements of all kinds. ,n sum& we do not need to %e
su%Iected to a freeFe frame of CratsC to %e unduly influenced %y the presentation of su%liminal information. It is (appening ever! da!A a da! ongA as we see)
to process t(e news t(at is presented to us. :(ie t(ose #rames ma! not =e intentionaA t(e! are no ess e##ective
in teing us (ow to t(in) a=out t(e great issues o# our da!. 3(e e##ective advocate must incorporate t(is wa! o#
t(in)ing and seeing into (is or (er communications wit( constituencies& poic!ma)ersA and media. ,t is to this end that we have
attempted to itemiFe the elements of a frame& to e=plain the options advocates have in framing their issues for the pu%lic& and to apply these principles to a wide array of research conducted on
specific social issues. ,n this sense& the >rame*orks research is an unusual marriage of theory and practice& translating the work of scholars and demonstrating its practical application to the
Auestions that policy advocates must ask and answer.
0/44
7anguage (reates Reality
4ords impact understanding interpretation is infinite
'he second aspect of visual imagery that matters regarding photoIournalism is that& despite their potential power& images are interpreted within an
already e=isting conte=t. ,mages come with wordsH in video& the reporter(s voiceoverH in print media& a caption. 'hey come with historical
%aggage& %oth in terms of the particular event and in terms of previous events. .s !larke notes& C'he clichL that the camera cannot lie is&
thus& part of a deep %ut misplaced notion of the camera(s veracity as an agent of recording. 'he trace of the past& the mark of historical significance&
clings to such images& giving them an almost talismanic Auality and presence as evidence of what was.C 38 .mericans
would not have interpreted imagery from Kosovo without reference to the wars in !roatia and Dosnia& and would not interpret images of the
.merican military without reference to previous conflicts in Somalia& Desert Storm& Tietnam& or& in some instances& *orld *ar ,,. 31 ,t is critical
to remem%er& then& that despite the power images have to shape perceptions& images do not stand alone.
/fficial channels respond to images as well. Political and military leaders attempt to conte=tualiFe images through words& articulating
an interpretation that they would prefer the .merican people to place on given images& whatever interpretation Iournalists
may promote. 'he argument made here is that focusing on the image alone& without acknowledging the interplay of
images and words& is a mistake. So& #$nd Page 67:; too& is the presumption that any particular image can only %e read in a
single way. 'he words that accompany the images can provide the %asis and grounding for interpretationsH they do not determine
in advance which interpretation must %e read into a given image.
10/44
7anguage Influences 8ilitary 1ositions
Imagery is $ey 9omalia pro#es that e#aluating the Rhetorical 6rame is #ital in the success of withdrawal missions
*hile the images of dead .merican soldiers in -ogadishu made the ".S. pu%lic more eager to withdraw ".S. troops from Somalia& the
pu%lic has not reacted %y wanting to withdraw ".S. troops immediately. /nly a minority of .mericans want to withdraw immediately. 66
. maIority of .mericans assumes that the pu%lic as a whole is more eager to withdraw in the face of troop fatalities than they
themselves are. 'his suggests that the pu%lic is overestimating its own reactions. . . . 'he present P,P. poll suggests that the pu%lic has %egun to misinterpret
itself through this widespread image. 6:
President !linton(s rhetorical responses to the images are an odd mi=. /n the one hand& in his address to the nation& the president goes to great lengths to Iustify the mission in Somalia& %oth in
its initial and current iteration. ?e proceeds to note that a pullout is not possi%le immediately and to announce the decision to send in additional troops and eAuipment--although their mission
will apparently %e little more than to %uy time and to protect .merican personnel already in place. /n the other hand& the overall goal of the "nited States& it would seem& is to find other
nations willing to take over the Io% the .mericans had %een doing. 'he photographs themselves are %arely mentioned& the president saying only+ C'his past weekend we all reacted with anger
and horror as an armed Somali gang desecrated the %odies of our .merican soldiersC--hardly a call to arms. 69 'he emotions associated with the event are not those one would e=pect& nor does
this description match much of what was %eing said in the press. )egarding *arrant /fficer Durant& unnamed and hence presented as an a%stract figure rather than a specific individual& the
president says only that those Cholding an .merican right now should understand& a%ove all else& that we will hold them strictly responsi%le for our soldiers( well-%eing. *e e=pect them to %e
well treated& and we e=pect them to %e released.C 6< *hat is striking a%out the phrasing here is the complete lack of agency on the part of the "nited States. *hat actions are we prepared to
take@ *e are prepared to have e=pectations& no more. 'here is no call for specific rescue attempts& no threat regarding what would happen if our e=pectations should %e unmet& and indeed no
specific agent to whom the claim is addressed.
*hat the mission in Somalia makes clear is the importance of the frame placed around such an event& particularly %y political
leadership. .lternative discursive choices made %y President !linton and his advisors could have resulted in Auite a #$nd Page 669; different
outcome. ,t is not my intention to take a position on whether staying in Somalia or attempting to escalate military activity in -ogadishu proper would have %een good policy options. -y
point is that those were most certainly policy options that could have %een made availa%le had political leaders desired to keep them
on the ta%le.
Photographs in and of themselves are not enough to shape pu%lic opinion or to provide the %asis for interpretive critiAue. 'he discourse that accompanies the photographic image
provides a frame& a conte=t& a suggested reading. /%viously there must %e something in the image that makes alternative interpretations plausi%le and coherent. ,f
alternatives suggested %y political leadership cannot %e supported %y the image& they will not work. Dut as , have argued throughout& most
images are& at least to an e=tent& am%iguous& with a range of interpretive options availa%le to the rhetor called upon to respond to them.
!ertainly this has %een the case historically. :4
'he polls taken at the time imply that the audience(s initial reading of the photographic imagery from -ogadishu did& in fact& support an
alternative course of action. )hetoric focusing on the demand for retri%ution& on our unwillingness to let anyone& anywhere& get away with desecrating the %odies of .merican
martyrs--perhaps especially martyrs for peace--had initial support& as reported %y Steven Kull and !lay )amsey+
>urthermore& the same polls found maIority sentiments in support of increased involvement& at least in the short run. !NNS"S. 'oday& .D!& and ND!& respectively& found 77U& 76U& and
65U favored sending more troops. .D! found a full :7U favored going after the Somali warlord .ideed with a (maIor military attack( if the .merican prisoners 2sic6 could not %e released
through negotiations.:5
'he official response to the -ogadishu images did not account for timing. Snapshot polls are dangerous %ases for policyH initial responses are not necessarily the responses that will stick. 'his
is particularly true if an administration is given time to make its case over a period of days. 'he reluctance to allow issues and responses to CripenC is sometimes argued to %e another side effect
of the 31-hour news availa%ility that has& for all intents and purposes& killed the old Cnews cycle.C 'he pressure is to issue a response& to do something& as soon as the event is made pu%lic. Bet
in this instance waiting Iust two weeks would have permitted the administration to operate within a profoundly different pu%lic climate& for as Kull and )amsey note+
'he P,P. poll findings suggest that the sentiment in favor of immediate withdrawal is also waning. . . . #Polls taken 54-53 days later found; a 58 point drop. . . . 'hus %ased on their own
reports& 33 percent of the sample indicated that they had changed their mind--a striking num%er given that people generally resist appearing inconsistent. :3 #$nd Page 66<;
Such a sustained focus on the -ogadishu case is of particular importance. *hile we are familiar with the use of linguistic metaphors& recent work has made clear that visual images can
function as metaphors as well. :8 ?istorical evidence& though incomplete& indicates that the power of the imagery from -ogadishu continues to
haunt the way policymakers think a%out foreign military intervention today. 'he initial part of the mission& /peration )estore ?ope& and its
success are forgotten. *hen people refer to Canother SomaliaC they clearly mean Canother -ogadishu.C 'he mission e=erts far more power over
decision making than one would e=pect or could e=plain were it not for the photographs. /ver and over& when the possi%ility arises that .merican military force
might %e used in com%at& that possi%ility is Iudged in the pu%lic sphere against the likelihood of Canother Somalia&C as the following Auotations
illustrate+
,ronically& when opinion turns against such cases& this may not only divert attention and limit willingness to support C. listC interests %ut may also undermine support for action in other& more
serious humanitarian crises. /ne of the direct effects of the Somalia disaster was .merica(s failure . . . to support and reinforce the "nited Nations peacekeeping force in )wanda that could
have limited a true genocide in 5<<1. :1
.n invasion of ?aiti had& a Pentagon official said& Ctoo much of a -ogadishu possi%ility.C :7
>or .l%right& the Dalkans were not the Pentagon(s CTietmalia&C the preposterously cautious legacy of Tietnam and the .merican deaths in Somalia in 5<<8. :6
11/44
7anguage Influences 8ilitary 1ositions
Imagery is $ey it ended the war in :ietnam
#. Dau%er& 'he Shots Seen ()ound the *orld+ 'he ,mpact of the ,mages of -ogadishu on .merican -ilitary /perations& )hetoric 0 Pu%lic .ffairs .26 678-69:;
!onte=t+ Tietnam
,t is virtually impossi%le to discuss .merican military policy without discussing Tietnam& since the Tietnam e=perience affected the
".S. military so deeply and so %roadly that it lurks %ehind most of what has %een thought and done in military and security affairs since
then& even when civilian or military officials specifically disavow a connection. Tietnam is so much a part of the foundation on which present %ehavior is premised that it forms part of the
conte=t of influence as a matter of fact& even when it is not accepted in this role as a matter of consciousness. 37
,t is not Tietnam per se %ut contemporary understandings of Tietnam that are necessary to comprehend.
'here are several fine Ccultural historiesC of our relationship to the Tietnam e=perience. -any scholars have focused on the cultural shifts in our assessment of Tietnam& yet there has %een less
focus on the changes in the impact those cultural shifts have had on the way Tietnam has influenced .merican military and defense policy specifically& 36 as opposed to .merican culture more
generally. 3: 'oday& as it is discussed in the media and in many military outlets& Tietnam has come to stand for a tragic episode in .merican history from which several lessons can %e learned.
39 'hese lessons have %een codified in the *ein%ergerSPowell doctrines of the 5<94s and 5<<4s. 3< ?owever& , would like to focus on the assumptions that underlie
one of the key lessons taken from Tietnam+ the "nited States cannot successfully go to war without the full support of the .merican
people.
'his lesson stems from a series of assumptions a%out what went wrong in Tietnam that may or may not %e factually true& %ut which are generally %elieved to %e true and& , would argue& hold
the status of consensus within mainstream discussions. ,t is generally %elieved that support for the conflict in Tietnam eroded as a result of increasing casualties. 84 ,t is further %elieved that the
unprecedented freedom of the press to roam the com%at Fone at will& to pu%lish or air images with little outside interference& and the status of Tietnam as the first Cliving room warC contri%uted
to that erosion. >or the first time& it is argued& mem%ers of the .merican pu%lic saw for themselves 2to the e=tent photographic images can ever convey the realities of com%at6 what it was that
really happened when we sent young men into %attle. $ach of these su%sidiary assumptions is clearly argua%le and #$nd Page 679; has %een argued. Nonetheless& the overall
impression remains that support for Tietnam& while it eroded for a variety of reasons& would not have eroded as disastrously or as rapidly without
the casualties and& critically& without the graphic images of those casualties. 'he links %etween support& casualties& and imagery are %elieved to %e esta%lished
empirically %y the historical e=perience in Tietnam. 85
'he key features of press coverage of the war were the television images of firefights and com%at casualties. 'hat those images appeared to contradict official discourse a%out the war(s progress
heightened their impact& %ut was not solely responsi%le for their impact. Bet& the assumption remains that the .merican people were not ready to see what they had not seen %efore. 83
Ling!isti% Framing is imp"rtant in Mi$itar* 1ep$"*ment )e'ates 2 3erman* pr"&es that the
#raming )etermines the "!t%"me
4,5H 0+ %ostdoctora Feow at t(e Center #or European +tudiesA /arvard. %(.1. in %oitica +cience #rom
t(e $axwe +c(oo o# Citi@ens(ip and %u=ic 4##airs at +!racuse
I5ac(A Jonat(an %. 7.A %eace ReviewK 1ec"2A <o. 1& Issue -A p5"7A 7pL
4n under!ing assumption o# t(is issueFs t(eme is t(at not on! can anguage =e manipuated to serve poitica interestsA =ut using anguage
di##erent! opens spaces #or poitica action w(ic( can rein#orce or go =e!ond existing parameters o# t(in)ing.
O#tenA $ing!isti% strategies ena'$e p"$iti%a$ a%ti"n A #or good or iA w(ic( previous! woud (ave =een
proscri=ed. In postwar 7erman!A t(e use o# t(e miitar! a=road was a ta=oo written in t(e =ood o# t(e +econd :ord :ar.
Met in 1""5 7erman com=at troops were sent wit( overw(eming support as part o# a peace)eeping mission to
t(e #ormer MugosaviaA a ocation t(at nar! a !ear earier t(e 7erman Foreign $inister (ad sworn 7erman troops woud never again encounter.
/ow was it possi=e t(at in t(e course o# one !ear t(e 7erman government garnered pariamentar! support
and undertoo) a (istoric #irst wit( reative! itte pu=ic de=ateN 3(e usua answersA w(ic( ie in t(e pragmatics o# poitics,,t(e
exigencies o# t(e 643O aianceA #or exampeA or t(e s(eer urgenc! o# t(e situation in 5osnia,,are sedom ade;uate to expain (ow suc( a decision came
to =e. For t(is we need to oo) at t(e wor)ings o# anguage and poitics in t(e deveopment o# poic!.
3(e post,Cod,:ar0post,uni#ication era in 7erman! unsetted m!riad concepts and termsA #rom 7erman nationa identit! to t(e meaning o# war and
peace. 6ew situations (ave arisen wit( no cear guide to poitica actionA and existing poic! and identit! discourses stemming #rom t(e Cod :ar #ound
t(emseves strugging to esta=is( t(emseves anew. 4 discourse esta=is(es itse# =! controing meaning,,=! setting t(e =oundaries o# interpretation. 4
discourse is said to prevai w(en it succeeds in esta=is(ing inguistic dominance over t(e meaning o# )e! terms in a given context. Controing
meaning is a inguistic strateg! t(at sets t(e parameters o# t(e possi=eA =ot( #or understanding t(e past and #or
constructing t(e #uture. 5ecoming aware o# t(is process aids =ot( poitica and (istorica ana!sisA and t(e
searc( #or wa!s to transcend some o# t(e more con#rontative strategies and conscious! move t(e interpa! o#
discourses to a more (ermeneutic eve.
12/44
Lang!age 6n#$!en%es Mi$itar* 7"siti"ns
Rhet"ri% impa%ts mi$itar* )e%isi"ns 2 )etermines e##e%ti&eness 8 ne%essit* "# a%ti"n
Har&ar) La9 Re&ie9 6 C8:arA +c(emasA and LegitimationH 4na!@ing t(e 6ationa 1iscourse 4=out :arA9
/arvard Law ReviewA (ttpH00www.(arvardawreview.org0issues011"0ma!&.0note0warOsc(emas.pd#D
CO6CLP+IO6
+ocia ps!c(oog! demonstrates t(at a "# "!r )e%isi"ns an) a%ti"ns are in#$!en%e) '* interna$ %"gniti&e
sh"rt%!ts an) e(terna$ sit!ati"na$ press!res. 6mp"rtant p!'$i% p"$i%* %h"i%es- in%$!)ing
mi$itar* )e%isi"n-making- are n"t imm!ne t" these inherent 'iasing e##e%ts. 3(is 6ote suggests t(at "!r
#raming "# )is%!ssi"ns a'"!t 9ar is s!s%epti'$e t" err"rs that p$ag!e s%hemati% thinking
genera$$* an) ma* 'e parti%!- $ar$* &!$nera'$e t" err"rs intr")!%e) '* str"ng ingr"!p an)
"!tgr"!p #"rm!$ati"ns/ We kn"9- 9ith the 'ene#it "# hin)sight- that these err"rs %an $ea) !s
se&ere$* astra*/117 , %riti%a$ $""k at the )is%"!rse $ea)ing t" 9ar in&ites !s t" %"nsi)er 9a*s in
9hi%h these err"rs %an 'e pre&ente)/
13/44
5an:t 6gn"re Rhet"ri%
Impossi"le to ignore rhetoric part of the human condition
8edhurst 2Professor of speech and communication and coordinator of the program in the presidential rhetoric at 'e=as .0-
"niversity& is the author or editor of eight %ooks& including Dwight D: Eisenhower: Strategic Communicator, Eisenhowers War of
Words+ Rhetoric and leadership; and Beyond the Rhetorical residency! -artin G. -edhurst. 3444. J!ritical )eflections on the !old
*arK ,ntroduction page 1-76
,n the contemporary field of rhetorical studies& )o%ert L. Scott& Darry Drummett& 'homas >arrell& )ichard D. Eregg& )ichard ..
!herwitF& and Games ?ikins& among others& have articulated various perspectives on the relationship of rhetoric to human knowingR
the %ranch of philosophy known as epistemology. 7 >or Scott& rhetoric Cis away of knowingH it is epistemic.C6 .ccording to this view&
rhetoric does not simply convey or make persuasive some truth already discovered or pree=istentH instead& rhetoric is the human
activity %y which truths come into %eing through the process of argumentation and de%ate.
'he noted rhetorician David Varefsky agrees+ C'he historian cannot recount all of (what happened&W and the historians view of (what
happened( is influenced %y his or her own perspective. >acts do not speakH they must %e spoken for. ?istorical scholarship is an
interaction %etween the scholar and the historical record. Necessarily& then& it is interpretive. )egarding the selection of some historical
materials and not others& it is well to remem%er Durke s dictum that a reflection of reality is also a selection and a deflection.C< ,n
short& one cannot escape or avoid the rhetorical& %ecause rhetorical is precisely what we human %eings are. )hetoric is one of
humanity(s defining characteristics& as ,socrates taught long ago. So whether we call ourselves historians& rhetoricians& philosophers&
literary critics& or political scientists& the fact remains that we are all creatures who are made %y languageRgiving ourselves la%els and
then im%uing those la%els with meaningRand who& in turn& use language to make and remake the world around us. 'o paraphrase
Kenneth Durke& we are the language-created language creators.
14/44
7in$ 9ecurity self%fulfilling prophecy
9pea$ing security creates a self%fulfilling prophecy
-ontrLal;
<. 'he very act of stressing the need for security for an issue or a matter the securitiFing move that may lead to
securitiFation helps esta%lish and reproduce the very conditions that make security necessary. Security speech acts& such
as securitiFation& are thus discursive actions and practices of security that serve to reproduce the historical structures and
su%Iects of the state 2DuFan& *aever& de *ilde& 5<<9+ 366.
Rhetoric of security creates threats national security organi/ations pro#e
-ontrLal;
*riting the National Security State
,t is difficult to trace the e=act origins of the concept of Jnational securityK. ,t seems however that its currency in policymaking circles corresponds to the .merican
e=perience of the Second *orld *ar and of the early years of what came to %e known as the J!old *arK. ,n this light& it is fair to say that the meaning of the .merican
national security state is %ound up with the !old *ar conte=t.
,f one is engaged in deciphering the meaning of the !old *ar prism for .merican leaders& what matters is not uncovering the JrealityK of the !old *ar as such& %ut
how& it conferred meaning and led people to act upon it as JrealityK. 'he !old *ar can thus %e seen as a rhetorical construction& in which its rhetorical dimensions gave
meaning to its material manifestations& such as the national security state apparatus. 'his is not to say that the !old *ar never e=isted per se& nor does it Jmake #it; any
less real or less significant for %eing rhetoricalK 2-edhurst& 3444+ 66. .s Lynn Doyd ?inds and 'heodore /tto *indt& Gr. stress& Jpolitical rhetoric
creates political reality& structures %elief systems& and provides the fundamental %ases for decisionsK 2?inds and *indt& cited in
-edhurst& 3444+ 66. ,n this sense& the !old *ar ceases to %e a historical period which meaning can %e written permanently and
%ecomes instead a struggle that is not conte=t-specific and not geared towards one specific enemy. ,t is Jan orientation
towards difference in which those acting on %ehalf of an assumed %ut never fi=ed identity are tempted %y the lure of
otherness to interpret all dangers as fundamental threats which reAuire the mo%iliFation of a populationK 2!amp%ell& 3444+ 33:6.
,ndeed& if the meaning of the !old *ar is not conte=t-specific& the concept of national security cannot %e disconnected from what is known as the !old *ar& since its
very meaning2s6 emerged within it 2)osen%erg& 5<<8 + 3::6.55 ,f the .merican national security state is a given for realist analysts&53 it is important to ask whether we
can conceive the "nited States during the !old *ar as anything other than a national security state.58 'o %e clear& , am not suggesting that there is any such
essentialiFed entity as a Jnational security stateK.51 *hen , refer to the .merican national security state& , mean the representation of the .merican state in the early
years of the !old *ar& the spirit of which is em%odied in the National Security .ct of 5<1: 2Der Derian& 5<<3+ :66. 'he term Jnational security stateK designates %oth
an institutionaliFation of a new governmental architecture designed to prepare the "nited States politically and militarily to face any foreign threat and the ideology
the discourse that gave rise to as well as sym%oliFed it. ,n other words& to understand the idea of a national security state& one needs to grasp the discursive power of
national security in shaping the reality of the !old *ar in %oth language and institutions 2)osen%erg& 5<<8 + 3956. . national security state feeds on
threats as it channels all its efforts into meeting current and future military or security threats. 'he creation of the !,.& the
Department of Defense& the Goint !hiefs of Staff& and the National Security !ouncil at the onset of the !old *ar gave impetus to a state
mentality geared to permanent preparedness for war. 'he construction of threats is thus essential to its well-%eing& making
intelligence agencies privileged tools in accomplishing this task.
15/44
7in$ terrorism
Rhetoric of terrorism is used to create *!)ER,E99 that ;ustifies #iolence < the militari/ation of life
-ontrLal;
'he ".S. response to <S55 is encapsulated as an armed struggle against a phantom enemy who replicates the tactics used
in guerrilla wars in its capacity to strike any time& anywhere. 'he enemy is thus constructed as %eing %oth everywhere and nowhere& which
allows state leaders to enact a security discourse of an /ther against whom the ".S. must %e protected as a legitimate and necessary one at the e=pense of some civil
rights 2e.g.& colour tags for travellers and fingerprint %iometric sensors in passports6. . Jstate of warK is indeed incorporated into .merican
political life + J>or a society committed to armed struggle& there is little distinction %etween military and civilian life. Q'he
causeO %ecomes everything& Iustifying e=traordinary measures& demanding larger-than-life sacrifices. /rdinary life is recruited into the ruthless %inary that frames the
struggle #P;. 'here is no room for a loyal oppositionH to Auestion is to %etrayK 2-ilner& Krishna& and >erguson& 34456.
,n the conte=t of a glo%al war on terrorism& every citiFen may %ecome a JterroristK. .s )onnie LipschutF argues in .fter .uthority+ *ar&
Peace& and Elo%al Politics in the 35st !entury& J#a;ll individuals& whether citiFen or permanent resident& whether legal or illegal& %ecome potential threats to state
securityK 2LipschtuF& 3444+ 756. Surprisingly& not many .merican citiFens contested or protested such undemocratic limitations on civil li%erties. *hy is that so@ /ne
possi%le answer is that a great many are convinced that such measures will not %e applied to them and that their own rights and freedoms will not %e threatened. 'hey
seem to %elieve that since they are not doing anything wrong& they are protected. .ccordingly& they think that those whose privacy and rights are %eing violated have
done something wrong and that they deserve it. .s ,ris -arion Boung e=plains& this is where they err& for J#t;he move from a relatively free society to one over which
the state e=ercises authoritarian domination often occurs %y means of Iust this logic+ citiFens do not realiFe how easily they may find themselves under suspicion %y
authorities over whose decisions there is no pu%lic scrutinyK 2Boung& 3448+ 536. *hen societal and individual security is considered& the
national security discourse produces more insecurity than security.34 *e must therefore Auestion state practices that threaten
individuals& rendering the state a source of insecurity for its citiFens + J#,;nsecurity& rather than %eing e=ternal to the o%Iect
to which it presents a threat is %oth implicated in and an effect of the very process of esta%lishing and re-esta%lishing the
o%IectOs identityK 2Gutta *eldes& cited in *illey& 3443 + 3<6. National insecurity is thus revealed as the clear antonym of national
security 2)osen%erg& 5<<8 + 395 H Der Derian& 5<<3+ :76. Linguistically& Jnational insecurityK corresponds to the female and weak side
of !old *ar discourses 2'ickner& 3445+ 73 H Peterson& 5<<3+ 836. ,n effect& as $mily )osen%erg correctly o%serves& the power of national
security linguistically comes from this %inary opposition& where national security is empowered as representing a Jstrong
emotive and sym%olic powerK inscri%ed in the male national security statist discourse 2)osen%erg& 5<<8+ 3956. 'he national
security state thus functions as a protection racket. !onseAuently& whether looking inward or outward& it must %e reIected for its very
discourse necessarily entails the uneAual logic of protectorprotected 2Boung& 3448+ 51-57& 356.
16/44
Link 2 terr"rism
Rhet"ri% "# ;err"rism is #$a9e) 2 n"t app$ie) e!a$$* 2 !se) t" <!sti#* &i"$en%e
3reen9a$) 10- an 4merican aw!erA coumnistA =oggerA and aut(or C7enn 7reenwadA 8+aon RadioH
$anipuative use o# t(e word Q3errorism'9A $arc( 1- 2&1&A
(ttpH00www.saon.com0news0opinion0gennOgreenwad0radio02&1&0&301-0terrorismD
3(ereFs a great paradox in t(e 4merican poitica andscapeH t(e word t(at is used most #re;uent! to Gusti#!
ever!t(ing #rom invasions and =om=ings to tortureA inde#inite detentionA and t(e sprawing +urveiance +tate ,, 3errorism ,, is aso t(e
most i,de#ined and manipuated word. It (as no #ixed meaningA and t(us appies to virtua! an!t(ing t(e
user wis(es to demoni@eA w(ie excuding t(e userFs own =e(avior and ot(er acts one see)s to Gusti#!. 4 o# t(is
woud =e an interesting t(oug( arge! academicA semantic matter i# not #or t(e centra poitica signi#icance wit( w(ic( t(is term is vestedH =ot(
#orma! Cin our awD and in#orma! Cin our poitica de=ates and r(etoricD.
Remi 5ruinA w(o teac(es graduate and undergraduate courses at 6MPA (as spent man! !ears ,, as part o# (is %(1 dissertation at t(e +or=onne in %aris
,, examining t(e use o# t(e word 3errorism in internationa reationsA t(e awA and t(e media Cparticuar! as used =! 3(e 6ew Mor) 3imesD. 3(e (istor!
o# t(is term ,, (ow and w(! it came to =e suc( a poitica! prominent and conse;uentia a=eA t(e radica! inconsistent meaning it (as =ased on w(o is
wieding itA t(e #aiure to create a universa! or even wide! recogni@ed de#inition ,, reveas (ow ong it (as =een manipuated as a propagandistic too.
O# courseA Et(e :ar on 3errorE era (as made t(is manipuation even more =atant and destructive ,, attac)s =! $usims even w(en aimed
at pure! miitar! targets CFort /ood or even armies invading t(eir own countriesD are automatica! deemed
E3errorismAE w(ie attac)s designed =! t(e P.+.A Israe and t(eir aies wit( t(e cear purpose o# terrori@ing
civiian popuations into su=mission are not Cnor is it 3errorism w(en a non,$usim 4merican #ies (is pane into t(e side o# a
government =uiding or random! s(oots %entagon poice #or poitica endsD.
5ut t(e deceit in(erent in t(at inconsistent appication (as =een going on #or severa decades ,, #rom t(e Israei attempt in t(e 1"7&s to universai@e t(eir
oca disputes under t(e ru=ric o# t(at termA to 4mericaFs arming o# t(e 6icaraguan contrasA E +avadoran deat( s;uads and even t(e Iranian regime in
t(e 1"2&sA to t(e decades,ong and ongoing games o# w(o is Cand is notD decared a Estate sponsor o# terror.E Interesting!A w(ie man! eading +enate
1emocrats and man! esta=is(ment media outets routine! and pu=ic! accused t(e P.+. o# =eing a Estate sponsor o# terrroismE in t(e 1"2&s Cprimari!
=! virtue o# its actions in Centra 4mericaDA t(e ver! mention o# suc( a possi=iit! is now one o# t(e greatest ta=oos.
5ruin is m! guest toda! on +aon Radio to discuss t(ese mattersA and t(e 3&,minute discussion ,, w(ic( I genuine! #ound #ascinating ,, can =e (eard =!
cic)ing %L4M on t(e recorder =eow Cas awa!sA t(e podcast can =e downoaded in $%3 (ereA and I3unes (ereD. 4 transcript is (ere.
I want to ma)e one reated point a=out t(e contentious exc(ange I (ad severa wee)s ago wit( various 6ewswee) editors C=ot( pu=ic! and via emaiD
concerning t(eir interna discussion o# t(e meaning o# 3errorismA an exc(ange I was una=e to address #u! at t(e time =ecause I was traveing. 4s a
resut o# various emai exc(angesA I was persuaded t(at severa Ct(oug( not aD o# t(e 6ewswee) editors w(o cear! appeared to =e t(emseves
endorsing (ig(! =iased de#initions o# t(e term wereA in #actA intending to descri=e ironica! (ow t(e term is t!pica! used =! ot(ers Ct(at incudes
$anaging Editor Rat(! JonesA w(o de#ended (erse# (ereD. I expicit! noted t(at possi=iit! in w(at I #irst wroteA and now re,a##irm t(e point I made
a=out itH arge media outets suc( as 6ewswee) pa! a signi#icant roe in (ow t(e term 3errorism is used and understood Ct(e! are not innocent
=!standersA or mere EmessengersAE as t(e! tried to caimD. :(at was most stri)ing a=out 6ewswee)Fs t(ree,da! discussion o# w(at is and is not
3errorism was t(at virtua! no=od! attempted to de#ine w(at t(e term meant.
It is t(at ac) o# de#inition t(at is t(e source o# most o# t(e misc(ie#. 3(e reason no cear de#inition o#
3errorism is ever setted upon is =ecause itFs virtua! impossi=e to em=race a de#inition wit(out eit(er CaD excuding
=e(avior one wis(es to demoni@e and t(us incude and0or C=D incuding =e(avior Cincuding oneFs own and t(ose o# oneFs #riendsD w(ic( one desperate!
wants to excude. 4s 5ruin expainsA t(is diemma is o#ten EresovedE =! countries tr!ing to create de#initions t(at simp! =ar t(e possi=iit! t(at t(e!
t(emseves coud ever engage in 3errorism Cas exempi#ied =! t(e ong,standing e##orts o# t(e P.+. to insist t(at 3errorism isA =! de#initionA somet(ing
t(at on! non,state actors can engage inA even as it a=es ot(er governments Estate sponsors o# terrorismED. 5ut media outets suc( as 6ewswee)
s(oudnFt =e parties to t(ose propagandistic e##ortsK i# t(e!Fre going to use t(e term ,, and t(e! doA promiscuous! ,, t(e! oug(t #irst to decide w(at it
means and t(en app! it consistent! orA i# t(at canFt =e doneA re#rain #rom using it Cas ReutersA rare among :estern media outetsA (as commenda=!
attempted to doD.
17/44
7in$ )egemony=7eadership
Rhetoric of hegemony is flawed used to ;ustify the national security state.
-ontrLal;
'o understand .merican hegemonic power then is to understand how the theoretical foundations of ".S. hegemony
influence the way ".S. leaders think a%out international politics generally and ".S. foreign policy in particular. .s
-arysia Valewski points out& J#...; events in the world& issues in international politics& are not ontologically prior to our
theories a%out them. 'his does not mean that people read a%out& say realism& and act accordingly& %ut that our 2and %y
QourO , mean theoriserS glo%al actors6 dominant ways of thinking and acting in the world will %e 2re6produced as QrealityOK
2Valewski& 5<<6+ 874-756. 'he <S55 attacks and the presence of a diffuse and transnational terrorist threat has convinced
.merican state leaders that threats may come from within as well as from a%road. ,n a !old *ar-like national security
mindset& separating domestic from international politics was J%usiness as usualK+ it reAuired paying attention to foreign
and e=ternal threats. *ith a homeland security focus& the J%oundariesK of the national security state are e=ploding
inwardly. 'he JenemyK is not a foreign /ther anymoreH he may %e .merican or he may strike on .merican soil. .s
Donald Pease puts it& J/verall& <S55 %rought to the light of day the /ther to the normative representation of the "nited
States. ,t positioned unheimlich dislocatees within the ?omeland in place of the citiFens who e=ercised rights and li%erties
on the %asis of these normaliFations. *hen the signifier of the ?omeland su%stituted for the Tirgin Land& the national
security state was supplanted %y the glo%al state of emergencyK 2Pease& 3448+ 5:6. 'he /ther has %ecome an undefined
terrorist& with no specific territorial %ase. Gust as Soviet communists were represented as %ar%aric& amoral& and inhuman&
so is todayOs terrorist.
1+/44
Link 2 1em"%ra%*
Rhetoric of Democracy used to moti#ate #iolence against other populations
8edhurst 2Professor of speech and communication and coordinator of the program in the presidential rhetoric at 'e=as .0-
"niversity& is the author or editor of eight %ooks& including Dwight D: Eisenhower: Strategic Communicator, Eisenhowers War of
Words+ Rhetoric and leadership; and Beyond the Rhetorical residency! -artin G. -edhurst. 3444. J!ritical )eflections on the !old
*arK ,ntroduction page 56-5:6
)o%ert L. ,vie also urges us to reconsider part of this ongoing narrative. ,n chapter 54& ,vie e=amines what .merica(s leaders seem to
signify %y their application of the term democracy to the post-!old *ar world. >ocusing primarily on Dill !linton(s foreign policy
rhetoric& ,vie argues that Cthe rhetoric of democracy . . . is a powerful vehicle for carrying the legacy of .merica(s glo%al struggle and
enlarged fear of hostile aliens into present representations of post-!old *ar provocations& opportunities& and responsi%ilities.C ,vie
holds that our traditional representations of democracy are inadeAuate to the glo%al political life of the twenty-first century.
'he pro%lem& as ,vie sees it& is that our political imagination has %een restricted %y our uncritical acceptance of our own rhetorical
construction of democracy& a construction that privileges free-enterprise capitalism and repu%licanism. Such a construction R
limiting& as it does& our a%ility to understand %oth ourselves and othersRneeds to %e rhetorically reconstructed to serve the needs of
glo%alism as different nations struggle toward their own definitions& policies& and practices. 'he first step in such a rhetorical
reconstruction is to %ecome aware of our own language choices and the narratives and assumptions em%edded in those choices.
,vie(s e=amination of !linton(s foreign policy rhetoric reveals a consistent message that Cconveys the sense of tenuous times& fragility&
insta%ility& uncertainty& the compensatory need for control& and thus the fear of democracy itself.C 'he president(s words& ,vie holds&
Care a national repository of democratic an=iety.C >urthermore& !linton(s use of the term democracy Cis sufficiently o%tuse to disguise
the fact that (democracy( is a contested term.C Dy reha%ilitating democracy& ,vie points to a new kind of rhetorical repu%lic& one %ased
on Caddressing audiences& developing strategies of identification& and transacting agreements through pu%lic persuasion.C ,n such a
repu%lic& rhetoric Ce=ercises democracy and strengthens it %y courting and %efriending the otherwise threatening /ther wherever and
whenever possi%le.C "nder such a conceptualiFation& rhetoric %ecomes more than Iust the means of conducting democracyH it is
constituti"e of democracy .59
10/44
Link 2 5hina ;hreat
;he a##:s p"rtra*a$ "# 5hina as a kn"9a'$e "'<e%t an) a threat t" the =nite) States $egitimates
"theriri>ing p"9er p"$iti%s 9hi%h trans#"rms "!r %"n%epti"ns "# 5hina int" a s"%ia$ rea$it*
7an- 2004 Lecturer in Internationa ReationsA +c(oo o# Internationa and %oitica +tudies at 1ea)in
Pniversit!
CC(engxinA 83(e EC(ina 3(reatE in 4merican +e#,Imagination9A 4ternatives 2" C2&&-DA 3&5,331D
C(ina and its reations(ip wit( t(e Pnited +tates (as ong =een a #ascinating su=Gect of study in t(e mainstream P.+.
internationa reations communit!. 3(is is re#ectedA for exampleA in t(e current heated de=ates over w(et(er C(ina is
primarily a strategic t(reat to or a market bonanza for t(e Pnited +tates and whether containment or
engagement is the best way to deal with it.* :(ie P.+. C(ina sc(oars argue #ierce! over Ew(at C(ina precise!
isAE t(eir de=ates (ave =een underpinned by some common ground, especially in terms o# a positivist
epistemoog!. First!A t(e! =eieve t(at C(ina is utimate! a )nowa=e o=GectA w(ose reait! can =eA and oug(t to =eA
empirica! reveaed =! scienti#ic means. For example, after expressing his dissatisfaction with often conflicting Western perceptions of China, Daid !.
"ampton, former president of the #ational Committee on $.%.&China 'elations, suggests that (it is time to step back and look at where China is today, where it might be going, and
what conse)uences that direction will hold for the rest of the world.(* Li)e man! ot(er C(ina sc(oarsA Lampton views (is o=Gect o# stud! as
essentia! Esomet(ing we can stand =ac) #rom and o=serve wit( cinica detac(ment.ES +econd!A associated with the
first assumption, it is common! =eieved t(at C(ina sc(oars mere! serve as Edisinterested o=serversE and t(at t(eir
studies o# C(ina are neutraA passive descriptions o# reait!. +nd thirdlyA in pondering w(et(er C(ina poses a t(reat or
offers an opportunity to the $nited %tates, t(e! rare! raise t(e ;uestion o# Ew(at t(e Pnited +tates is.E ,hat
is, the meaning of the $nited %tates is belieed to be certain and beyond doubt. I do not dismiss
atoget(er t(e conventiona wa!s o# de=ating C(ina. It is not t(e purpose of this article to venture m! own Eo=servationE
o# Ew(ere C(ina is toda!AE nor to -oin the (containment( ersus (engagement( debate per se. Rat(erA I
want to contribute to a noel dimension of the China debate =! ;uestioning t(e seeming! unpro=ematic
assumptions s(ared =! most C(ina sc(oars in t(e mainstream IR communit! in t(e Pnited +tates. ,o perform this
task, . will focus attention on a particularly significant component of the China debate/ namely,
the (China threat( literature. !ore specifically, . want to argue that P.+. conceptions o# C(ina as a
t(reatening ot(er are awa!s intrinsica! in)ed to (ow P.+. poic!ma)ers0mainstream C(ina speciaists see t(emseves
Cas representatives o# t(e indispensa=eA securit!,conscious nationA #or exampeD. +s such, t(e! are not vaue,#reeA
o=Gective descriptions o# an independent, preexisting C(inese reait! out thereA =ut are =etter understood as a )ind o# normativeA
meaning&giing practice t(at often $egitimates p"9er p"$iti%s in =/S/-5hina re$ati"ns an) he$ps
trans#"rm the .5hina threat. int" s"%ia$ rea$it*/ .n other wordsA it is se#,#u#iing in practiceA and is awa!s
part o# t(e EC(ina t(reatE pro=em it purports mere! to descri=e. .n doing so, I see) to =ring to t(e #ore two
interconnected t(emes o# se#0ot(er constructions and o# t(eor! as practice in(erent in t(e EC(ina t(reatE iteratureB
t(emes t(at (ave =een overridden and rendered largely inisible =! t(ose common positivist assumptions. ,hese
themes are of course nothing new nor peculiar to the (China threat( literature. ,hey hae been
identified elsewhere by critics of some conentional fields of study such as ethnography,
anthropology, oriental studies, political science, and international relations.* 0etA so #arA t(e C(ina
#ied in t(e :est in genera and t(e P.+. EC(ina t(reatE iterature in particuar (ave s(own remar)a=e resistance to
s!stematic critica re#iection on =ot( t(eir normative status as discursive practice and t(eir enormous practica
impications #or internationa poitics.1 .t is in this context that this article seeks to make a contribution.
;he a##irmati&e:s )is%!rsi&e %"nstr!%ti"n "# 5hina as a ?threatening "ther@ makes arms ra%es
an) arme) %"n#$i%t 'et9een the =S an) 5hina ine&ita'$e 2 mere$* tinkering 9ith %!rrent 9a*s
"# &ie9ing 5hina is ina)e!ate
7an 04 Lecturer in Internationa ReationsA +c(oo o# Internationa and %oitica +tudies at 1ea)in
Pniversit!
20/44
. hae argued aboe that t(e EC(ina t(reatE argument in mainstream P.+. IR iterature is derivedA primari!A #rom a discursive
construction o# ot(erness. 3(is construction is predicated on a particuar narcissistic understanding o# t(e P.+. se# and
on a positiist& based realismA concerned wit( a=soute certaint! and securit!A a concern central to the
dominant $.%. self&imaginary. :it(in t(ese #ramewor)sA it seems imperative t(at C(ina =e treated as a
t(reateningA a=soute ot(er since it is una=e to #it neat! into t(e P.+.,ed evoutionar! sc(eme or guarantee a=soute
securit! #or t(e Pnited +tatesA so that $.%. power preponderance in the post&Cold War world can still be
legitimated. 6ot on! does t(is reductionist representation come at t(e expense o# understanding C(ina as a d!namicA
muti#aceted countr! =ut it eads inevita=! to a poic! o# containment t(atA in turnA tends to en(ance t(e in#uence o#
reapoiti) t(in)ingA nationaist extremismA and (ard,ine stance in toda!Fs C(ina. Even a sma dose o# the containment
strategy is i)e! to (ave a (ig(! dramatic impact on P.+.,C(ina reationsA as the 2334&2335 missile crisis and
the *662 spy&plane incident hae iidly attested. .n this respect, Chalmers 7ohnson is right when
he suggests that (a policy of containment toward China implies the possibility of war, -ust as it
did during the Cold War is&a&is the former %oiet $nion. ,he balance of terror preented war
between the $nited %tates and the %oiet $nion, but this may not work in the case of China.(11
For instanceA as t(e Pnited +tates presses a(ead wit( a missie de#ence shield to (guarantee( its inulnerability
from rather unlikely sources of missile attacks, it woud =e amost certain to intensi#! C(inaFs sense o#
vunera=iit! and compe it to expand its current sma nucear arsena so as to maintain the efficiency of its limited deterrence. In
conse;uenceA it is not impossi=e t(at t(e two countriesA and possi=! t(e w(oe regionA mig(t =e dragged into an
escaating arms race t(at woud eventua! ma)e war more i)e!. #either the $nited %tates nor China is likely to be keen on fighting the other. 8ut as
has been demonstrated, the EC(ina t(reatE argumentA #or a its aeged desire #or peace and securit!A tends to ma)e war
preparedness t(e most EreaisticE option #or =ot( sides. +t this -uncture, worthy of note is an interesting
comment made by Charlie #euhauser, a leading C.+ China specialist, on the 9ietnam War, a
war fought by the $nited %tates to contain the then&Communist (other.( #euhauser says,
(#obody wants it. We don:t want it, ;o Chi !inh doesn:t want it/ it:s simply a )uestion of
annoying the other side.(3< +nd, as we know, in an unwanted war some fifty&eight thousand
young people from the $nited %tates and an estimated two million 9ietnamese men, women, and
children lost their lies. 3(ere#oreA to ca #or a (at to t(e vicious circe o# t(eor! as practice associated wit( t(e
EC(ina t(reatE iteratureA tin)ering wit( t(e current positivist,dominated P.+. IR sc(oars(ip on C(ina is no onger
ade;uate. Rat(erA w(at is needed is to ;uestion t(is un,se#,re#ective sc(oars(ip itse#A particuar! its connections wit(
t(e dominant wa! in w(ic( t(e Pnited +tates and the West in general represent t(emseves and ot(ers via t(eir
positivist epistemoog!A so t(at aternativeA more nuancedA and ess dangerous wa!s o# interpreting and de=ating C(ina
mig(t =ecome possi=e.
21/44
,2 2 4!t "!r 5hina ,)&antage is Rea$
3(ere is no suc( t(ing as 8C(inese reait!9 * t(e 8t(reat9 is a socia meaning imposed on C(ina =! o=servers
i)e t(e ones in t(e a##irmative
7an 04 Lecturer in Internationa ReationsA +c(oo o# Internationa and %oitica +tudies at 1ea)in
Pniversit!
4t #irst ganceA as t(e EC(ina t(reatE iterature (as tod usA C(ina seems to #a per#ect! into t(e Et(reatE categor!A
particuar! given its growing power. /oweverA C(inaFs power as suc( does not spea) #or itse# in terms o# an emerging
t(reat. 5! an! reasona=e measureA C(ina remains a arge! poor countr! edged with only a slier of affiuence
along its coastal areas. 6or is C(inaFs s(eer si@e a se#,evident con#irmation o# t(e EC(ina t(reatE t(esisA as other
countries like .ndia, 8razil, and +ustralia are almost as big as China. InsteadA C(ina as a Et(reatE (as
muc( to do wit( t(e particuar mode o# P.+. se#,imagination. +s %tee Chan notes= China is an ob-ect of attention not only because of its huge size,
ancient legacy, or current or pro-ected relatie national power. . . . ,he importance of China has to do with perceptions, especially those regarding the potential that 8ei-ing will
become an example, source, or model that contradicts Western liberalism as the reigning paradigm. .n an era of supposed uniersalizing cosmopolitanism, China demonstrates the
potency and persistence of nationalism, and embodies an alternatie to Western and especially $.%. conceptions of democracy and capitalism. China is a reminder that history is not
close to an end. Certainly, . do not deny China:s potential for strategic misbehaior in the global context, nor do . claim the (essential peacefulness( of Chinese culture.( ;aing
said that, my main point here is that t(ere is no suc( t(ing as EC(inese reait!E t(at can automatica! spea) #or itse#A #or exampeA as a
Et(reat.E Rat(erA t(e EC(ina t(reatE is essentia! a speci#ica! socia meaning given to C(ina =! its P.+. o=serversA a
meaning t(at cannot =e disconnected #rom t(e dominant P.+. se#,construction. ,hus, to fully understand the
$.%. (China threat( argument, it is essential to recognize its autobiographical nature. .ndeed, t(e
construction o# ot(er is not on! a product o# P.+. se#,imaginationA =ut o#ten a necessar! #oi to it. For example, by
taking this particular representation of China as Chinese reality per se, those sc(oars are a=e to
assert t(eir se#,identit! as EmatureAE ErationaE reaists capa=e o# )nowing t(e E(ard #actsE o# internationa poiticsA in
distinction #rom those Eideaists( whose iews are said to be grounded more in (an article of faith( than in (historical experience.(<2 >n the other hand, gien that
history is apparently not (progressiely( linear, the inocation of a certain other not only helps explain away such historical uncertainties or (anomalies( and maintain the
credibility of the allegedly uniersal path trodden by the $nited %tates, but also seres to highlight $.%. (indispensability.( +s %amuel ;untington puts it, (.f being an +merican
means being committed to the principles of liberty, democracy, indiidualism, and priate property, and if there is no eil empire out there threatening those principles, what indeed
does it mean to be an +merican, and what becomes of +merican national interests?(1* .n this way, it seems that the constructions o# t(e particuar P.+. se# and
its ot(er are awa!s intertwined and mutua! rein#orcing. %ome may suggest that there is nothing particularly wrong with this since psychologists
generally agree that (indiiduals and groups define their identity by differentiating themseles from and placing themseles in opposition to others.(1@ ,his is perhaps true. +s the
%wiss linguist Ferdinand de %aussure tells us, meaning itself depends on difference and differentiation.:i:* 0etA to understand t(e P.+. dic(otomi@ed
constructions o# se#0ot(er in t(is ig(t is to normai@e t(em and render t(em unpro=ematicA =ecause it is aso apparent
t(at not a identit!,de#ining practices necessari! perceive ot(ers in terms o# eit(er universa sameness or a=soute
ot(erness and t(at di##erence need not e;uate to t(reat.
22/44
Link 2 Aegati&e 7ea%e
;he 1a% &ie9s 9ar as s"$&a'$e 2 that is negati&e pea%e 2 9e sh"!$) #"%!s "n pea%e as a re%"gniti"n "#
str!%t!ra$ &i"$en%e
3,B 0+ %(.1. in %(iosop(! #rom 5oston CoegeA %ro#. P6C
:iiam C 7a!.A %eace ReviewA 1ec 1""2.<o.1&A Iss. -K pg. 5-5,2
$an! times t(e #irst step in reducing inguistic vioence is to simp! re#rain #rom t(e use o# o##ensive and oppressive terms. /oweverA Gust
=ecause inguistic vioence is not =eing used , a genuinely pacific discourse is not necessarily present . 6onvioent
discourseA i)e t(e condition o# peaceA can =e negative or positive. E6egative peaceE re#ers to t(e temporar! a=sence o#
actua war or t(e u =etween warsA w(ie Epositive peaceE re#ers to t(e negation o# war and t(e presence o# Gustice. 3(e
paci#ic discourse t(at is anaogous to negative peace can actua! perpetuate inGustice. 5roadcasters in oca and nationa news ma! atoget(er
avoid using terms i)e Ed!)eE or E#agE or even E(omosexuaAE =ut t(e! and t(eir audiences can remain (omop(o=ic even w(en t(e anguage o# es=ian and ga! pride is used. 4
government ma! cease re#erring to a particuar nation as Ea rogue stateAE =ut pu=ic and private attitudes ma! continue to
#oster preGudice toward t(is nation and its in(a=itants. :(en preGudices remain unspo)enA at east in pu=ic #orumsA their )ete%ti"n an)
era)i%ati"n are ma)e e&en m"re )i##i%!$t/ O# courseA we need to #ind wa!s to restrain (ate speec( in order to at east stop inguistic attac)s in t(e
pu=ic arena. Li)ewiseA we need to #ind wa!s to restrain armed con#icts and (ostie name caing directed against an adversar! o#
t(e state. /oweverA even i# avoidance o# inguistic vioence is necessar!A it is not su##icient. 3(ose w(o =ite t(eir tongues to
comp! wit( t(e demands o# poitica correctness are "#ten rea)* t" $ash "!t &itri"$i% epithets 9hen these %"nstraints are
rem"&e). 3(usA t(e practice o# inguistic nonvioence is more i)e negative peace w(en t(e a=sence o# (urt#u or (arm#u terminoog! mere! mar)s a u in reiance on
inguistic vioence or a s(i#t o# its use #rom t(e pu=ic to t(e private sp(ere. 3(e mere! pu=ic or mere! #orma repression o# anguage and =e(avior t(at
expresses t(ese attitudes '!i$)s !p press!re that %an er!pt in s!'se!ent "!t'!rsts "# $ing!isti% vioence an) ph*si%a$
&i"$en%e. %aci#ic discourse t(at is anaogous to positive peace #aciitates and re#ects t(e move #rom a u in t(e occurrence
o# vioence to its negation. 3(e esta=is(ment o# a genuine! paci#ic discourse t(at is anaogous to positive peace re;uires a
trans#ormation o# cutures oriented to vioence and war. It aso re;uires a commitment to t(e active pursuit o# domestic and go=a Gustice. C##"rts
t" esta'$ish a pra%ti%e "# $ing!isti% n"n&i"$en%e ana$"g"!s t" p"siti&e pea%e are part "# a $arger str!gg$e t"
re)!%e %!$t!ra$ &i"$en%e. 3(e! advance t(e ;uest #or societies in w(ic( (uman emancipationA dignit!A and respect are not restricted on t(e =asis o# irreevant
#actors i)e raceA genderA cassA or sexua orientation. Correative to t(e distinction =etween negative and positive peace is t(e distinction =etween coercive and nonvioent
met(ods o# advancing paci#ic discourse. Just as I advocate paci#ism as t(e proper response to t(e p(!sica vioence o# warA so I advocate paci#ic discourse as t(e proper
response to inguistic vioence. +ome peope do not t(in) war can =e eiminated. 3(e term EwarismE re#ers to ta)ing war #or grantedA and ampe evidence
exists #or c(aenging t(is assumption. Ot(ers t(in) t(at inso#ar as nationa securit! is to =e de#endedA t(e use o# miitar! #orce cannot
=e avoided. I am among t(ose w(o maintain t(at a nonvioent mode o# nationa securit! is #easi=e. Li)ewiseA some peope do not t(in)
t(at anguage as current! structured can =e c(anged. 3(is view is termed Einguistic institutionaismE or Einguistic determinismAE and ampe
evidence is aso avaia=e #or c(aenging t(is assumption. Ot(ers t(in) t(at inso#ar as t(e vioence o# anguage is to =e counteredA #orce wi (ave to =e
exercised. I am aso among t(ose w(o maintain t(at (oding #ast to inguistic nonvioence as a means is as important as aiming #or inguistic nonvioence as a goa. /ate
speec( can =e prevented t(roug( ega or p(!sica coercion. Li)ewiseA poitica! correct discourse can =e ac(ieved t(roug( ega or even p(!sica coercion. 3(e use o# ega or
p(!sica coercion to end (ate speec( or esta=is( poitica! correct discourse entais t(e a=andonment o# nonvioence. :(en peope are sienced =! t(e t(reat posed in t(e
words o# aw or =! t(e constraint imposed t(roug( t(e deeds o# aut(oritiesA ver=a! or p(!sica! vioent means (ave =een empo!ed. 5! contrastA individuas can
intentiona! c(oose to esc(ew (ate speec( and to use poitica! correct discourse. 3(e! aso can use inguistica!
nonvioent tactics to persuade ot(ers to do so as we. From a paci#ist perspective orA even more genera!A #rom a nonvioent perspectiveA muc(
discourse t(at cas #or an end to vioence and war or t(at cas #or t(e esta=is(ment o# peace and socia Gustice actua!
paces a primac! on ends over means. :(en t(e end is primar!A nonvioence ma! =e practiced on! so ong as it is
e##ective. For t(e paci#ist and t(e practitioner o# nonvioenceA t(e primar! commitment is to t(e means. 3(e commitment to
nonvioence re;uires t(at t(e ac(ievement o# poitica goas is secondar!. %oitica goas must =e #oregone or at east postponed w(en t(e! cannot
=e ac(ieved nonvioent!. <arious activities promote t(e pursuit o# t(e respectA cooperation and understanding needed #or positive peace and socia Gustice and #or
t(e genuine! paci#ic discourse t(at is an integra part o# t(em. Linguistica!A t(ese activities go =e!ond t(e mere remova #rom discourse o# terms t(at conve! =iases =ased on
raceA genderA cassA and sexua orientation. Open diaogueA especia! #ace,to,#ace conversationA is one o# t(e most e##ective wa!s o# experiencing t(at t(e ot(er is not so aien or
aienating. 5e!ond (aving poitica eaders o# various nations meetA we need cutura and educationa exc(angesA as we as trade agreements among =usinesses and #oreign
trave =! citi@ens. :e can come to regard cutura diversit! in t(e expression o# raceA genderA cassA and sexua orientation as ma)ing up t(e (armonies and meodies t(at
toget(er create t(e song o# (umanit!. Just as creative and appreciated coo)s use a wide variet! o# (er=s and spices to )eep t(eir dis(es #rom =eing =andA so too can we move
#rom an image o# a cuture wit( diverse components as in a meting pot to one o# a stew t(at is we seasoned wit( a variet! o# (er=s and spices. 4 paci#ic discourse t(at
expresses suc( an a##irmation o# diversit! needs to =e an understood anguage o# incusion. :(ie inguistic vioence o#ten reies on aut(oritarianA monoogicaA aggressive
and cacuative met(odsA a positive! nonvioent discourse is democraticA diaogicaA receptiveA and mediative. 4 positive! nonvioent discourse is not
passive in t(e sense o# avoiding engagementK it is paci#ic in t(e sense o# see)ing to active! =uidA #rom domestic to
internationa evesA asting peace and Gustice. 4 positive! nonvioent discourse provides a wa! o# perceiving and communicating t(at #rees us to t(e
diversit! and open,endedness o# i#e rat(er t(an t(e sameness and senseessness o# vioence. 4 positive! nonvioent discourse can provide t(e communicative means to
overcome inguistic vioence t(at does not contradict or compromise its goa at an! point during its pursuit. 3(e #irst step is =rea)ing our sience concerning t(e man! #orms
o# vioence. We nee) t" re%"gni>e that "#ten si$en%e is &i"$en%eK #re;uent!A !n$ess 9e 'reak the si$en%e- 9e are
'eing %"mp$i%it"!s t" the &i"$en%e "# the sit!ati"n. /oweverA in =rea)ing t(e sienceA our aim s(oud =e to avoid counter,vioenceA in its
p(!sica #orms and in its ver=a #orms. E##orts to advance peace and Gustice s(oud occup! t(e space =etween sience and vioence. Linguistic vioence can =e overcomeA =ut t(e
care and vigiance o# t(e positive practice o# p(!sica and inguistic nonvioence is needed i# t(e gains are to =e su=stantiveA rat(er t(an mere! #ormaA and i# t(e goas o#
nonvioence are to =e e;ua! operative in t(e means w(ere=! we overcome inguistic vioence and socia inGustice.
23/44
Link 2 Aegati&e 7ea%e
F"%!s "n 9ar as an is"$ate) e&ent pr")!%es a p"$iti%s "# %rises %"ntr"$ that attempts t" manage "!t'reaks
"# &i"$en%e #r"m #$ashp"int t" #$ashp"int/ ;his m")e "# 'eing repr")!%es mi$itarism an) perpet!ates the
str!%t!ra$ &i"$en%e "# ?pea%etime mi$itarism@
5=DMD 02 Pniversit! o# :isconsin,$adison 1epartment o# %(iosop(! Pniversit! o# Cincinnati
C(ris Cuomo. %(.1.A 1""2A /!patia Fa 1""..<o.11A Iss. -K pg. 3&
In E7ender and T%ostmodernF :arAE Ro=in +c(ott introduces some o# t(e wa!s in w(ic( war is current! =est seen not as an event =ut as a
presence C+c(ott 1""5D. +c(ott argues t(at postmodern understandings o# personsA statesA and poiticsA as we as t(e (ig(,tec( nature o# muc( contemporar! war#are and t(e preponderance o# civi
and nationaist warsA render an event=ased conception o# war inade;uateA especia! inso#ar as gender is ta)en into account. In t(is essa!A I wi expand upon (er argument =! s(owing t(at accounts o# war
t(at on! #ocus on events are impoveris(ed in a num=er o# wa!sA and t(ere#ore #eminist consideration o# t(e poiticaA et(icaA and ontoogica dimensions o# war and t(e possi=iities #or resistance demand
a muc( more compicated approac(. I ta)e +c(ottFs c(aracteri@ation o# war as presence as a point o# departureA t(oug( I am not committed to t(e idea t(at t(e constanc! o# miitarismA t(e #act o# its
omnipresence in (uman experienceA and t(e paucit! o# an event,=ased account o# war are excusive to contemporar! postmodern or postcoonia circumstances.C1D 3(eor! t(at does not
investigate or even notice t(e omnipresence of militarism cannot represent or address the depth and specificity of the
everyday effects of militarism on women, on people living in occupied territories, on members of military institutions, and on
the environment. 3(ese e##ects are reevant to #eminists in a num=er o# wa!s =ecause miitar! practices and institutions (ep construct
gendered and nationa identit!A and =ecause t(e! Gusti#! t(e destruction o# natura non(uman entities and
communities during peacetime. Lac) o# attention to t(ese aspects o# t(e =usiness o# ma)ing or preventing
miitar! vioence in an extreme! tec(noogi@ed word results in theory that cannot accommodate the
connections among the constant presence of militarism, declared wars, and other closely related social phenomena, such
as nationalistic glorifications of motherhood, media violence, and current ideological gravitations to military solutions for
social problems. Et(ica approac(es t(at do not attend to t(e wa!s in w(ic( war#are and miitar! practices are
woven into t(e ver! #a=ric o# i#e in twent!,#irst centur! tec(noogica states lead to crisis-based politics and
analyses. For an! #eminism t(at aims to resist oppression and create aternative socia and poitica optionsA crisis,=ased et(ics and
poitics are pro=ematic =ecause t(e! distract attention from the need for sustained resistance to the enmeshed,
omnipresent systems of domination and oppression that so often function as givens in most people's lives. 6egecting t(e
omnipresence o# miitarism aows t(e false belief that the absence of declared armed conflicts is peace , the polar
opposite of war. It is particuar! eas! #or t(ose w(ose ives are s(aped =! t(e sa#et! o# priviegeA and w(o do not reguar! encounter t(e reaities o#
miitarismA to maintain t(is #ase =eie#. 3(e =eie# t(at miitarism is an et(icaA poitica concern on! regarding armed
con#ictA creates forms of resistance to militarism that are merely e xercises in crisis control. Antiwar resistance is then
mobilized when the "real" violence finally occurs, or when the stability of privilege is directly threatened, and at that point it is
difficult not to respond in ways that make resisters drop all other political priorities. Crisis-driven attention to declarations of
war might actually keep resisters complacent about and complicitous in the general presence of global militarism .
eeing war as necessarily embedded in constant military presence draws attention to the fact that horrific, state-sponsored
violence is happening nearly all over, all of the time, and that it is perpetrated by military institutions and other militaristic
agents of the state. M"&ing a9a* #r"m %risis-)ri&en p"$iti%s an) "nt"$"gies concerning war and military
violence also enables consideration of relationships among seemingly disparate phenomena, and therefore can shape
more nuanced theoretical and practical forms of resistance. For exampeA investigating t(e wa!s in w(ic( war is part o# a
presence aows consideration o# t(e reations(ips among t(e events o# war and t(e #oowingH (ow miitarism
is a #oundationa trope in t(e socia and poitica imaginationK (ow t(e pervasive presence and s!m=oism o#
sodiers0warriors0patriots s(ape meanings o# genderK t(e wa!s in w(ic( t(reats o# state,sponsored vioence are
a sometimes invisi=e0sometimes =od agent o# racismA nationaismA and corporate interestsK t(e #act t(at vast
num=ers o# communitiesA citiesA and nations are current! in t(e midst o# excruciating! vioent circumstances.
It aso provides a ens #or considering t(e reations(ips among t(e various )inds o# vioence t(at get a=eed
Ewar.E 7iven current 4merican o=sessions wit( nationaismA gunsA and miitiasA and growing (unger #or t(e deat( penat!A prisonsA and a more power#u poice stateA one cannot underestimate t(e
need #or p(iosop(ica and poitica attention to connections among p(enomena i)e t(e Ewar on drugsAE t(e Ewar on crimeAE and ot(er state,#unded miitaristic campaigns. I propose t(at t(e constanc! o#
miitarism and its e##ects on socia reait! =e reintroduced as a crucia ocus o# contemporar! #eminist attentionsA and t(at #eminists emp(asi@e (ow wars are eruptions and mani#estations o# omnipresent
miitarism t(at is a product and too o# mutip! oppressiveA corporateA tec(nocratic states.C2D Feminists s(oud =e particuar! interested in ma)ing t(is s(i#t =ecause it =etter aows consideration o# t(e
e##ects o# war and miitarism on womenA su=Gugated peopesA and environments. :(ie giving attention to t(e constanc! o# miitarism in contemporar! i#e we need not negect t(e importance o# addressing
t(e speci#ic ;uaities o# directA arge,scaeA decared miitar! con#icts. 5ut t(e dramatic nature o# decaredA arge,scae con#icts s(oud not
o=#uscate t(e wa!s in w(ic( miitar! vioence pervades most societies in increasing! tec(noogica!
sop(isticated wa!s and t(e signi#icance o# miitar! institutions and ever!da! practices in shaping reality.
%(iosop(ica discussions t(at #ocus on! on t(e et(ics o# decaring and #ig(ting wars miss t(ese connectionsA
and aso miss t(e wa!s in w(ic( even decared miitar! con#icts are o#ten experienced as omnipresent (orrors.
3(ese approac(es aso eave un;uestioned tendencies to suspend or distort moral judgement in the face of what
appears to be the inevitability of war and militarism.
24/44
25/44
Link 2 3"") &s C&i$ Rhet"ri%
Rhet"ri% "# 3DD1 8 CE6L %reates 'inaries 2 th"se are e(p$"ite) t" ins!re %"ntin!e) &i"$en%e 8
%"n#$i%t
Ke$$ner 07 %ro#essorA %(.1.A %(iosop(!A Coum=ia Pniversit! C1ougas RenerA 85us(spea) and t(e %oitics
o# L!ingH %residentia R(etoric in t(e Q:ar on 3error'9 %residentia +tudies Uuarter!A .2.D
In (is +eptem=er 2& ta) to CongressA 5us( drew a ine =etween t(ose w(o supported terrorism and t(ose w(o were read!
to #ig(t it. +tating 8Mou're eit(er wit( usA or against usA9 5us( decared war on an! states supporting terrorism and aid
down a series o# nonnegotia=e demands to t(e 3ai=an w(o rued 4#g(anistanA w(ie Congress wid! appauded. 5us('s
popuarit! soared wit( a countr! craving =ood,revenge and t(e (ead o# Osama =in Laden. $oreoverA 5us( aso asserted t(at (is administration (ed
accounta=e t(ose nations t(at supported terrorismBa position t(at coud nurture and egitimate miitar! interventions #or !ears to come.
5us( administration discoursesA i)e t(ose o# =in Laden and radica IsamistsA are #undamenta! $anic(eanA
positing a =inar! opposition =etween 7ood and EviA Ps and 3(emA civii@ation and =ar=arism. 5us('s
$anic(ean duaism repicates as we t(e Friend0Enem! opposition o# Car +c(midt upon w(ic( 6a@i poitics
were =ased. Osama =in LadenA 4 UaedaA and 8t(e 3errorist9 provided t(e #ace o# an enem! to repace t(e 8evi
Empire9 o# +oviet communismA w(ic( was t(e #ace o# t(e Ot(er in t(e Cod :ar.17 3(e terrorist Ot(erA (oweverA does not reside in a speci#ic
countr! wit( particuar miitar! targets and #orcesA =ut is part o# an invisi=e networ) supported =! a mutipicit! o# groups and states. 3(is amorp(ous
terrorist enem!A t(enA aows t(e crusader #or good to attac) an! countr! or group t(at is supporting terrorismA t(us promoting a #oundation #or t(e 5us(
1octrine o# preemptive and perennia war.
3(e discourse o# good and evi can =e appropriated =! disparate and opposing groups and generates a (ig(!
dic(otomous oppositionA undermining democratic communication and consensus and provo)ing vioent miitaristic responses.
It is assumed =! =ot( sides t(at 8we9 are t(e goodA and t(e 8Ot(er9 is wic)edA an assertion t(at 5us( made in (is incessant assurance t(at t(e 8evi,doers9
o# t(e 8evi deeds9 wi =e punis(ed. %roGecting evi onto t(e Ot(er constructs t(e opponent o# evi as 8good9 and eevates
t(e strugge to a cosmic =atte =etween good and evi. 4 traits o# aggression and wic)edness are t(us proGected
onto t(e Ot(er w(ie constituting onese# as good and pure.
+uc( (!per=oic r(etoric is a saient exampe o# 5us(spea) t(at communicates t(roug( codes to speci#ic
audiencesA in t(is case domestic C(ristian rig(t,wing groups t(at are 5us('s pre#erred recipients o# (is
discourse.12 5ut demoni@ing terms #or =in Laden =ot( eevate (is status in t(e 4ra= word as a m!t(ica
super(ero w(o stands up to t(e :est and (ep mars(a support among t(ose w(o #ee anger toward t(e :est
and intense (atred o# t(e :est. 5us( and t(e go=a media (eped produce a m!t(oog! o# =in LadenA eevating
(im to amost super(uman statusA w(ie generating #ear and (!steria t(at egitimated 5us( administration
miitarism geared toward t(e 8Evi OneA9 as 5us( (as caed =in LadenA e;uating (im wit( +atan.
3(e discourse o# 8evi9 is totai@ing and a=soutisticA aowing no am=iguities or contradictions. It assumes a =inar! ogic w(ere 8we9 are t(e #orces o#
goodness and 8t(e!9 are t(e #orces o# dar)ness. +uc( discourse egitimates an! action underta)en in t(e name o# goodA no
matter (ow destructiveA on t(e grounds t(at it is attac)ing 8evi.9 3(e discourse o# evi is cosmoogica and
apoca!pticA evo)ing a catac!smic war wit( m!t(i, ca sta)es. In t(is perspectiveA evi cannot =e Gust attac)ed one piece at a timeA
t(roug( incrementa stepsA =ut must =e tota! de#eatedA eradicated #rom t(e eart( i# good is to reign. 3(is discourse o# evi raises t(e
sta)es and vioence o# con#ict and nurtures more apoca!ptic and catastrop(ic poiticsA #ueing #uture c!ces o#
(atredA vioenceA retri=u, tionA and wars.
26/44
Link 2 Rhet"ri% "# ?Dthers@
Rhet"ri% "# the Dther %reates )i%h"t"mies !se) t" <!sti#* 9ar 8 &i"$en%e
Har&ar) La9 Re&ie9 6 C8:arA +c(emasA and LegitimationH 4na!@ing t(e 6ationa 1iscourse 4=out :arA9 /arvard
Law ReviewA (ttpH00www.(arvardawreview.org0issues011"0ma!&.0note0warOsc(emas.pd#D
3(e eements o# t(e Gust war sc(ema outined in %art II #rame pu=ic 4merican discourse a=out war. 3(is %art argues t(at t(e Gust 9ar sc(ema depends uponA and arge!
mimi%sA t*pi%a$ ingr"!p an) "!t- gr"!p 'a$an%e) s%hemas in 9hi%h .9e. are essentia$$* .g""). an) the
."ther. is .'a)/. ,s a res!$t- "!r &ie9s "n 9ar ma* n"t "n$* 'e s!s%epti'$e t"- '!t a$s" re$* !p"n- the
same err"r-pr")!%ing he!risti%s t*pi%a$ "# ingr"!p an) "!tgr"!p str!%t!res- parti%!$ar$* the
#!n)amenta$ attri'!ti"n err"r/
:ar and nationa identit! are intricate! in)ed concepts. 4t t(e core o# nationa identit!A and direct! a##ecting severa eements o# t(e Gust 9ar sc(emaA are concepts o# se#
and ot(ers. :ar )eman)s %$ear %ateg"ries "# .!s. an) .them. F 9ith the gr"!p .!s. representing s"me &ersi"n
"# right- an) the gr"!p .them. s*m'"$i>ing .9r"ng. "r .e&i$/. ,n*thing $ess 9"!$) n"t <!sti#* the !se "#
)ea)$* #"r%e against the "ther/ ;he )ist!r'ing trans#"rmati&e p"9er "# gr"!p h"m"geni>ati"n is
re#$e%te) thr"!gh"!t the hist"r* "# 9ar. Journaist C(ris /edges writes o# +er=iaH E7ett* gangsters- re&i$e) in pre-9ar
Sara<e&"- 9ere trans#"rme) "&ernight at the start "# the %"n#$i%t int" 9ar her"es/ What the* )i) 9as n"
)i##erent/ ;he* sti$$ pi$$age)- $""te)- t"rt!re)- rape)- an) ki$$e)G "n$* then the* )i) it t" Ser's- an) 9ith
an i)e"$"gi-%a$ &eneer/.
6o group i)es to =eieve t(at it is suscepti=e to simiar (!pocris!K (oweverA o=serving (ow ot(ers (ave conceived o# se# and enem! in war can suggest wa!s in w(ic( we ma! =e suscepti=e to simiar er, rors. 3(is %art assesses t(e se# and person
sc(emas at wor) in war discourseK it t(en oo)s at evidence o# t(e #undamenta attri=ution er, ror wit(in t(em. Fina!A t(is %art examines t(e interpa! =etween t(ese sc(emas and t(e Gust war sc(ema.
4. +e# +c(ema
On a genera eveA t(e 4merican sense o# se# is intimate! connected to t(e 4merican #orm o# government and its coroaries. 1ur, ing t(e Cod :arA 4mericans strong! identi#ied wit( democrac!A w(ic( t(e! viewed as (ig(! positiveA7" and
perceived its antit(esisA communismA as arge! negative.2& IndeedA 4merican patriotismA measured =! positive views o# =eing EproudE to =e 4mericanA E(as proved to =e strong and sta=e.E21 %oitica scientist $att(ew /ir, s(=erg proposes an
E4merican patriotic sc(emaAE in w(ic( t(e con, cepts EPnited +tatesAE Edemocrac!AE E#reedomAE Ese#AE and EgoodE are a positive! correated wit( eac( ot(er.22 3(ese eements remain arge! intact toda!H t(e spread o# E#reedomE and
Edemocrac!E are cen, tra ingredients o# our current war scripts.
5. %erson +c(ema
Converse!A %ro#essor /irs(=erg posited a Cod :ar sc(ema in
w(ic( t(e E+oviet PnionAE EcommunismAE and EoppressionE were eac( positive! correated wit( one anot(er +imiar!A attri=utions o# t(e outgroup B =e t(e! EterroristsAE t(e Eaxis o# eviAE or some ot(er appe, ation B dominated t(e pu=ic
discourse eading up to and during t(e invasion o# Ira;. %resident 5us( (as repeated! reied on t(e art o# dispositionaismA w(ic( is t(e attri=ution o# ot(ersF negative actions to t(eir interna nature.2- Immediate! a#ter t(e +eptem=er 11 attac)sA
(e (omogeni@ed countriesA non,state terrorist organi@ationsA and terrorist individuas under t(e EterroristE um=reaH E:e wi ma)e no distinc, tion =etween t(e terrorists w(o committed t(ese acts and t(ose w(o (ar=or t(em.E25 /e aso
esta=is(ed a Egood versus eviE divideA nam, ing 6ort( RoreaA IranA and Ira; Ean axis o# evi.E2. In attempts to maintain consensus #or t(e warA (e (as concentrated on t(e E,istE su#, #ixA a common and e##ective means to distinguis( Et(emE #rom
Eus.E 3(usA EItL(e enem! o# #reedom in Ira;E is Ea com=ination o# reGection, ists and +addamists and terrorists.E27 Ot(er enemies o# t(e war e##ort B =ot( domestic and internationa B incude EGi(adistsAE22 Epessi, mistsAE and Ede#eatists.E2"
E3erroristsE are easi! de#ined =! immuta=e and uni#orm c(aracteristicsH E3(e! want to stop t(e advance o# #ree, dom in Ira;. . . . 3(ere is no imit to t(eir =rutait!. 3(e! )i t(e in,nocent to ac(ieve t(eir aims. 3(is is an enem! wit(out
conscience.E"&
3(usA t(e sides are easi! distinguis(edA and t(ere is no gra! @oneH EEit(er !ou are wit( usA or !ou are wit( t(e terrorists.E +uc(
negative attri=utions are commonpace in war andA man! argueA necessar! to it. Creating outgroup attri=utes via anaog!
to revied protot!pes (as ong =een a mainsta! o# poitica r(etoricH %resident Jo(nson invo)ed t(e appeasement o# /iter
at $unic( w(en Gusti#!ing t(e war on <ietnamK %resident 7eorge /.:. 5us( anao,gi@ed +addam /usseinFs actions in
Ruwait to /iterFs actions in %oandK and %resident Cinton anaogi@ed $iosevic to /iter."3
C. Fundamenta 4ttri=ution Error
;he #"rmati"n "# str"ng ingr"!p an) "!tgr"!p i)entities &ia se$# an) pers"n s%hemas in the 9ar %"nte(t
s!ggests that 9e ma* 'e s!s%epti'$e t" the #!n)amenta$ attri'!ti"n err"rA a common error, producing (euristic. ;he
#!n)amenta$ attri'!ti"n err"r pre)i%ts that a .p"siti&e. a%ti"n '* the ingr"!p 9i$$ 'e %ast in p"siti&e
terms an) attri'!te) t" the gr"!pHs .g""). nat!re- 9hereas a .negati&e. a%ti"n 9i$$ 'e &ie9e) as
e(%epti"na$ an) in#$!en%e) '* e(terna$- sit!ati"na$ #a%- t"rs."- 3(usA man* ,meri%ans a!t"mati%a$$*
attri'!te) the 'r!ta$it* "# ,'! 3hrai' t" $"%a$i>e) sit!ati"na$ press!res- rather than t" the inherent
nat!re "# ,meri%an arme) #"r%es/05
%ro#essor /irs(=ergFs researc( s(ows t(at #undamenta attri=ution =ias in war is strong #or t(e ingroup and wea)er #or t(e outgroup. /e provided a #ictiona scenario in 1"22
to 1&- universit! undergraduates in w(ic( t(e Pnited +tates or t(e +oviet Pnion eit(er =om=ed a viage or dropped (umanitarian suppies. One set o# students was as)ed
a=out t(eir eve o# agreement wit( a statement attri=uting govern, ment actions to t(e Pnited +tatesFs interna natureH w(et(er =om=ing or airi#ting suppies was Ein t(e
nature o# t(e Pnited +tates.E +event!, seven percent o# respondents agreed t(at airi#ting suppies was in t(e Pnited +tatesFs natureA w(ereas 32V t(oug(t =om=ing was.".
:(en externa attri=utions were testedA on! 2V agreed t(at t(e Pnited +tates was E#orcedE to drop suppies C2"V disagreedDA w(ereas 52V agreed t(at t(e nation was E#orcedE
to =om= C31V disagreedD."7 3(usA at(oug( t(e students were ;uic) to see (umanitarian action as an in, (erent and natura response =! t(e Pnited +tatesA t(e! were muc( ess
i)e! to attri=ute t(e negative action C=om=ingD interna! and instead
were more i)e! to searc( #or externa causes o# t(e =e(avior."2
Respondents as)ed t(e same ;uestions regarding +oviet actionsA (oweverA ex(i=ited more am=ivaenceA and t(eir poitica eanings more (eavi! in#uenced t(eir responses.""
Fi#teen percent o# respon, dents agreed t(at airi#ting suppies was in +oviet nature C.5V dis, agreedDA w(ereas 35V agreed t(at =om=ing was in its nature C5&V dis,
agreedD.1&& 3(e same percentage o# respondents C35VD agreed t(at t(e +oviet Pnion was E#orcedE to airi#t suppies as agreed t(at it was #orced to drop =om=s C5-V and 52V
disagreedA respective!D.1&1 /ir, s(=erg expained t(e ac) o# anti,+oviet attri=ution =ias as t(e product o# Eincreasing! positive attitudes toward t(e +oviet Pn, ion . . .
accompanied =! a decreased tendenc! to discount (ep#u +o, viet =e(avior or use (arm#u +oviet =e(avior as a =asis #or disposi, tiona attri=utions.E1&2 3(ese resuts
demonstrate t(at at(oug( we tend to (ave strong positive attri=utions toward our own nationa mo, tivesA t(e strengt( o# our negative attri=utions toward our enemies can
#uctuate more over time in response to =roader poitica and cutura s(i#ts in perception.
1. Rami#ications #or t(e Just :ar +c(ema
Our sc(emas and reated =iases are dangerous =ecause t(e! ma)e it easier #or us to convince ourseves t(at wars are tru! GustA possi=! eading us into wars utimate! deemed
unGusti#ied. For exampeA un, compromising cassi#ications o# EusE and Et(emE eave itte room #or am=ivaence. M!%h as the .%"mm!nists. in the
1050s 9ere the !n- 9a&ering epit"me "# a$$ things e&i$ in the 9"r$)- .terr"rists. an) .<i- ha)ists. are
t")a* p!re antit(eses to t(e =nite) States and a it represents. 7r"#ess"r Hirsh'erg rep"rts that ,meri%ans .ha&e
ten)e) t" 'e$ie&e ta!t"$"gi%a$$* that the =nite) States is "n the right si)e/.103 ;h!s- .I"J'<e%ti"ns t"
inter&enti"ns / / / ten) t" 'e $imite) t" )isagree- ments "&er their %"sts an) 'ene#its- rather than
#!n)amenta$ %ha$- $enges %"n%erning 9hether the =nite) States has inter&ene) "n the %"rre%t si)e/E1&-
4t(oug( t(is 6ote does not intend to ta)e a position on t(e veracit! o# t(e c(aracteri@ations t(at dominate war discourseA it does see) to s(ow t(at t(e =ac),and,w(ite nature
o# t(ese c(aracteri@ations can ead us ver! easi! down t(e pat( to warH since we conceive o# no gra! area in w(ic( t(e two opposed sides ma! peace#u! Ct(oug( per(aps
uncom#orta=!D coexist B #or instanceA w(en we =eieve t(e enem! is =! nature mani#est! =ent on destro!ing us B we can ;uic)! concude t(at t(e decision is not one o#
w(et(er t(ere wi =e warA =ut rat(er on w(ose terms it wi ta)e pace.
27/44
IndeedA t(e ingroup,outgroup (euristic is pivota in esta=is(ing eac( eement o# t(e Gust war sc(ema. Just cause depends on se#, de#enseK i# 9e per%ei&e
terr"rists Kan) their s!pp"rtersL as h"m"gen"!s gr"!ps 'ent "n )e#eating )em"%ra%* thr"!gh &i"$ent
means- then 9e ha&e n" %h"i%e '!t t" era)i%ate them/ H"m"geni>ati"n "# the threat a$s" en)"9s it 9ith
s!'stantia$ #$e(i'i$it* as a rati"na$eM since t(e t(reat is great and uni#ormA an! constituent part o# it can Gusti#! con#rontation. /enceA an! nation t(at
EsupportsE terrorists is now part o# t(e t(reat and t(us a egitimate target o# preemptive stri)e. 5ot( t(e #undamenta attri=ution error and t(e sc(ema,protection Emeta,
motiveE counse t(at once a countr! is identi#ied as part o# a (omogenous EterroristE t(reatA we wi interpret its current and #uture actions in sc(ema,consistent wa!s and
dismiss sc(ema,inconsistent in, #ormation as externa! motivated.
Just cause aso impicates our se# sc(ema more direct!. It is eementar! t(at eac( side in a war =eieves t(at its position is Gusti#ied.1&. 3(e view t(at we are motivated
primari! =! se#,de#ense is in(erent! se#,a##irming B we are t(at w(ic( is wort( protecting. Furt(erA we are #orced to coaesce into a patriotic unitar! w(oe B Gust as Et(e!E
are (omogeni@edA so are Ewe.E Fina!A #raming a war as se#,de#ensive aows us to see ourseves as externa! #orced into war B we are not interna! a war,mongering t!pe
Ci)e Et(emEDA =ut rat(er Eare a peace, #u peope.E1&7 MetA w(en c(aenged =! externa #orcesA we can sti demonstrate t(at EweFre not a #ragie peopeA and we wi not =e in,
timidated =! t(ugs and )iers.E1&2
Rig(t intention aso impicates =ot( ingroup and outgroup identities. 5ecause we consider ourseves in(erent! EgoodAE we must act wit( t(e rig(t intention. 3(e motivation
#or t(e war under a rig(t intention ru=ric is more easi! de#ined as against EterrorismAE EGi(adistsAE or E+addamistsE t(an against Eoi,ric( countriesAE Ere=esAE or Evisionar, ies.E
+c(ema t(eor! again counses cautionH since we operate in a cognitive sc(ema in w(ic( EweE are genera! associated wit( EgoodAE w(en presented wit( con#icting rationaes
#or a war we ma! tend to accept t(ose w(ic( con#irm our se# sc(ema and dismiss ot(ers as sec, ondar! or irreevant.
%roportionait! supports positive se# identities =! suggesting t(at EweE are not rus(ing into Gust an! warsA =ut rat(er on! t(ose in w(ic( we predict t(at we wi in#ict on! as
muc( (arm to ot(ers as we wi avoid ourseves. $ore trou=esomeA (oweverA is t(e potentia de(umani@ing e##ect o# outgroup (omogeni@ation. Casuaties among Eter, roristsE
or t(e Eaxis o# eviE are i)e! weig(ed di##erent! t(an casuaties consisting o# E#at(ersAE E=rot(ersAE or Edaug(ters.E1&"
Fina!A en)"9ing the .enem*. 9ith !n*ie$)ing traits $egitimates %$aims that 9ar is the $ast res"rtH dipomac! wi
not wor) and t(e! wi never stop attac)ing usK t(usA we must attac) t(em. 5ecause t(e EterroristE categor! evo)es t(e #amiiar re#rain t(at Ewe wi not negotiate wit(
terroristsAE it operates to convince us t(at diaogue is not on! uni)e! to =e success#uA =ut aso t(at it is presumptive! impossi=e. Fina!A ast resort aso impicates our se#
sc(emas aong now #amiiar inesH 3(e decision to enter into war is not ours. InsteadA we are moved =! an externa #orce B t(e o=stinate or irrationa nature o# t(e enem! B to
engage in war.
;h!s- in a &ariet* "# 9a*s "!r s%hemas make !s m"re $ike$* t" enter 9ars 9e p"ssi'$* sh"!$) n"t/ ;he*
%a!se !s t" see th"se 9h" are simi$ar t" "!r enemies as "!r enemiesG t" in#$ate "!r "9n <!sti#i%ati"ns #"r
9ar an) n"t !esti"n "!r m"ti&ati"nsG t" )"9np$a* the harm 9e 9i$$ %a!se t" a )eh!mani>e) enem*G an)
t" see "!r enemies as irrati"na$ an) in%apa'$e "# %"mpr"mise- *ie$)ing the !$timate %"n%$!si"n that "!r
"n$* "pti"n is 9ar/ 6n this 9a*- 9e #ee$ %"mpe$$e) t" enter 9ars '* sit!ati"na$ in#$!en%es that pr"te%t "!r
se$#-attri'!ti"ns that 9e are inherent$* n"'$e- right- an) <!st.
2+/44
Link 2 W"rst 5ase S%enari" ,&"i)an%e
,%ting t" a&"i) a 9"rst-%ase s%enari" is #$a9e) 2 it )"esn:t 9"rk- is 'ase) "n #a!$t* $"gi%- an)
%reates inse%!rit*
S%heier- 2010- an ,meri%an %r*pt"grapher- %"mp!ter se%!rit* spe%ia$ist- an) 9riter C5ruce
+c(eierA 8+c(eier on +ecurit!9A $a! 13 2&1&A (ttpH00www.sc(neier.com0=og0arc(ives02&1&0&50worst,
caseOt(in.(tmD
3(ereFs a certain =indness t(at comes #rom worst,case t(in)ing. 4n extension o# t(e precautionar! principeA it
invoves imagining t(e worst possi=e outcome and t(en acting as i# it were a certaint!. It su=stitutes imagination #or
t(in)ingA specuation #or ris) ana!sisA and #ear #or reason. It #osters poweressness and vunera=iit! and magni#ies socia para!sis. 4nd it ma)es
us more vunera=e to t(e e##ects o# terrorism.
:orst,case t(in)ing means genera! =ad decision ma)ing #or severa reasons. FirstA itFs on! (a# o# t(e cost,=ene#it
e;uation. Ever! decision (as costs and =ene#itsA ris)s and rewards. 5! specuating a=out w(at can possi=! go
wrongA and t(en acting as i# t(at is i)e! to (appenA worst,case t(in)ing #ocuses on! on t(e extreme =ut
impro=a=e ris)s and does a poor Go= at assessing outcomes.
+econdA itFs =ased on #awed ogic. It =egs t(e ;uestion =! assuming t(at a proponent o# an action must prove
t(at t(e nig(tmare scenario is impossi=e.
3(irdA it can =e used to support an! position or its opposite. I# we =uid a nucear power pantA it coud met down. I# we donFt =uid
itA we wi run s(ort o# power and societ! wi coapse into anarc(!. I# we aow #ig(ts near IceandFs vocanic as(A panes wi cras( and peope wi die. I#
we donFtA organs won't arrive in time #or transpant operations and peope wi die. I# we donFt invade Ira;A +addam /ussein mig(t use t(e nucear
weapons (e mig(t (ave. I# we doA we mig(t desta=ii@e t(e $idde EastA eading to widespread vioence and deat(.
O# courseA not a #ears are e;ua. 3(ose t(at we tend to exaggerate are more easi! Gusti#ied =! worst,case t(in)ing. +o terrorism #ears trump
privac! #earsA and amost ever!t(ing eseK tec(noog! is (ard to understand and t(ere#ore scar!K nucear weapons are worse t(an conventiona weaponsK
our c(idren need to =e protected at a costsK and anni(iating t(e panet is =ad. 5asica!A an! #ear t(at woud ma)e a good movie pot is amena=e to
worst,case t(in)ing.
Fourt( and #ina!A worst,case t(in)ing vaidates ignorance. Instead o# #ocusing on w(at we )nowA it #ocuses on
w(at we donFt )now ,, and w(at we can imagine.
Remem=er 1e#ense +ecretar! Rums#edFs ;uoteN EReports t(at sa! t(at somet(ing (asnFt (appened are awa!s interesting to meA =ecause as we )nowA
t(ere are )nown )nownsK t(ere are t(ings we )now we )now. :e aso )now t(ere are )nown un)nownsK t(at is to sa! we )now t(ere are some t(ings we
do not )now. 5ut t(ere are aso un)nown un)nowns ,, t(e ones we donFt )now we donFt )now.E 4nd t(isH Et(e a=sence o# evidence is not evidence o#
a=sence.E Ignorance isnFt a cause #or dou=tK w(en !ou can #i t(at ignorance wit( imaginationA it can =e a ca to action.
Even worseA it can ead to (ast! and dangerous acts. Mou canFt wait #or a smo)ing gunA so !ou act as i# t(e gun is a=out to go o##.
Rat(er t(an ma)ing us sa#erA worst,case t(in)ing (as t(e potentia to cause dangerous escaation.
3(e new undercurrent in t(is is t(at our societ! no onger (as t(e a=iit! to cacuate pro=a=iities. Ris) assessment is devaued. %ro=a=iistic t(in)ing is
repudiated in #avor o# Epossi=iistic t(in)ingEH +ince we canFt )now w(atFs i)e! to go wrongA etFs specuate a=out w(at can possi=! go wrong.
:orst,case t(in)ing eads to =ad decisionsA =ad s!stems designA and =ad securit!. 4nd we a (ave direct
experience wit( its e##ectsH airine securit! and t(e 3+4A w(ic( we ma)e #un o# w(en weFre not appaed t(at t(e!Fre (arassing "3,
!ear,od women or )eeping #irst graders o## airpanes. Mou canFt =e too care#uW
4ctua!A !ou can. Mou can re#use to #! =ecause o# t(e possi=iit! o# pane cras(es. Mou can oc) !our c(idren in t(e (ouse =ecause o# t(e possi=iit! o#
c(id predators. Mou can esc(ew a contact wit( peope =ecause o# t(e possi=iit! o# (urt. +teven /aw)ing wants to avoid tr!ing to communicate wit(
aiens =ecause t(e! mig(t =e (ostieK does (e want to turn o## a t(e panetFs teevision =roadcasts =ecause t(e!Fre radiating into spaceN It isnFt (ard to
parod! worst,case t(in)ingA and at its extreme itFs a ps!c(oogica condition.
Fran) FurediA a socioog! pro#essor at t(e Pniversit! o# RentA writesH E:orst,case t(in)ing encourages societ! to
adopt #ear as one o# t(e dominant principes around w(ic( t(e pu=icA t(e government and institutions s(oud
organi@e t(eir i#e. It institutionai@es insecurit! and #osters a mood o# con#usion and poweressness. 3(roug(
popuari@ing t(e =eie# t(at worst cases are normaA it incites peope to #ee de#enseess and vunera=e to a wide
range o# #uture t(reats.E
Even worseA it pa!s direct! into t(e (ands o# terroristsA creating a popuation t(at is easi! terrori@ed ,, even =!
#aied terrorist attac)s i)e t(e C(ristmas 1a! underwear =om=er and t(e 3imes +;uare +P< =om=er.
:(en someone is proposing a c(angeA t(e onus s(oud =e on t(em to Gusti#! it over t(e status ;uo. 5ut worst,
case t(in)ing is a wa! o# oo)ing at t(e word t(at exaggerates t(e rare and unusua and gives t(e rare muc( more
credence t(an it deserves.
It isnFt rea! a principeK itFs a c(eap tric) to Gusti#! w(at !ou aread! =eieve. It ets a@! or =iased peope ma)e w(at
seem to =e cogent arguments wit(out understanding t(e w(oe issue. 4nd w(en peope donFt need to re#ute
counterargumentsA t(ereFs no point in istening to t(em.
20/44
Link 2 W"rst 5ase S%enari"
Rhet"ri% "# rea$ist 9"rst %ase s%enari"s %reate the inse%!rit* the* h"pe t" e$iminate 2
1er 1erian 05 1irector o# t(e 7o=a +ecurit! %rogram and Researc( %ro#essor o# Internationa +tudies at
t(e :atson Institute #or Internationa +tudies at 5rown Pniversit! CJames 1er 1erianA 84n 4ccident :aiting to
/appenA9 %redicting t(e %resentA <o 27 C3DA (ttpH00(ir.(arvard.edu0index.p(pNpageXartice?idX1-3&?pX1D
6t "#ten takes a %atastr"phe t" re&ea$ the i$$!s"r* 'e$ie#s 9e %"ntin!e t" har'"r in nati"na$ an) h"me$an)
se%!rit*. 3o )eep us sa#eA 9e p$a%e "!r #aith in nati"na$ '"r)ers an) g!ar)s- '!rea!%ra%ies an) e(perts-
te%hn"$"gies an) armies. ;hese and ot(er instruments o# nationa securit! are empowered and $egitimate) '* the ass!mpti"n
that it #a$$s !p"n the s"&ereign %"!ntr* t" pr"te%t !s #r"m the t!r'!$ent state "# nat!re an) anar%h* that
permanent$* $ies in 9ait "##sh"re an) "&er the h"ri>"n #or t(e unprepared and inade;uate! de#ended. 4!t this paroc(ia #earA
posing as a reaistic wordviewA has re%ent$* taken s"me &er* har) kn"%ks.
%rior to +eptem=er 11A 2&&1A nationa =orders were t(oug(t to =e necessar! and su##icient to )eep our enemies at =a!K upon entr! to 5ag(dadA a virtuous triump(aism and a
revoution in miitar! a##airs were touted as t(e =est means to =ring peace and democrac! to t(e $idde EastK and =e#ore /urricane RatrinaA emergenc! preparedness and an
intricate s!stem o# evees were supposed to )eep 6ew Oreans sa#e and dr!.
3(e intracta=iit! o# disasterA especia! its unexpectedA unpannedA unprecedented natureA erodes not on! t(e ver! distinction o# t(e ocaA nationaA and go=aA =utA assisted
and ampi#ied =! an un=in)ing go=a mediaA reveas t(e contingent and (ig(! interconnected c(aracter o# i#e in genera. Met w(en it comes to deaing wit( natura and
unnatura disastersA we continue to expect CandA in t(e a=sence o# a credi=e aternativeA understanda=! soD i# not certaint! and tota sa#et! at east a (ig( eve o# pro=a=iit!
and competence #rom our nationa and (omeand securit! experts
/oweverA 'et9een the mi(e) metaph"rs an) 'ehin) the metaph*si%a$ %"n%epts gi&en &"i%e '* =S H"me$an)
Se%!rit* 1ire%t"r Mi%hae$ 5hert"## ear! into t(e Ratrina crisisA t(ere ur)s an uneas! recognition t(at t(is administrationBand per(aps no nationa
governmentBis up to t(e tas) o# managing incidents t(at so rapi)$* %as%a)e int" g$"'a$ e&ents. IndeedA the* s!ggest that "!r
nati"na$ p$ans an) preparati"ns #"r the ?'ig "ne@Fa #"r%e-#i&e h!rri%ane- terr"rist atta%k- pan)emi%
)iseaseFha&e 'e%"me part "# the pr"'$em- n"t the s"$!ti"n/ His !se "# h*'er'"$i% terms $ike ?!$tra-
%atastr"phe@ an) ?#a$$-"!t@ is te$$ingM s!%h e&ents e(%ee) n"t "n$* $"%a$ an) nati"na$ %apa'i$ities- '!t the
%apa%it* "# %"n&enti"na$ $ang!age itse$#/
4n eas! de#ection woud =e to a! t(e =ame on t(e neoconservative #ait(#u o# t(e #irst term o# P+ %resident 7eorge :. 5us(A w(oA viewing t(roug( an inverted :isonian
prism t(e word as t(e! woud wis( it to =eA (ave now =een #orced =! natura and unnatura disasters to #ace t(e word as it rea! isBand not even t(e most sop(isticated
pu=ic a##airs mac(ine o# dissimuationsA distortionsA and ies can cose t(is gap.
/oweverA the )is%"!rse "# the se%"n) 4!sh term has in%reasing$* ret!rne) t" the )"minant 9"r$)&ie9 "#
nati"na$ se%!rit*- rea$ism/ ,n) i# $ang!age is- as Aiet>s%he %$aime)- a pris"nh"!se- rea$ism is its
s!perma( penitentiar*/
4ase) "n $inear n"ti"ns "# %a!sa$it*A a correspondence t(eor! o# trut(A and t(e materiait! o# powerA h"9 %an rea$ism p"ssi'$*
a%%"!ntF$et a$"ne prepare "r pr"&i)e reme)iesF#"r %"mp$e( %atastr"phes- $ike the t"pp$ing "# the
W"r$) ;ra)e 5enter an) atta%k "n the 7entag"n =! a (and#u o# Gi(adists armed wit( =ox,cutters and a #ew mont(s o# #ig(t,trainingN 4 #orce,
#ive (urricane t(at mig(t we (ave =egun wit( t(e #apping o# a =utter#!'s wingsN 4 nort(east eectrica =ac)out t(at started wit( a #aing tree im= in O(ioN 4 possi=e
pandemic triggered =! t(e mutation o# an avian virusN
/owA #or instanceA are we to measure t(e immateria power o# t(e C66,e##ect on t(e #irst 7u# :arA t(e 4,Ja@eera,e##ect on t(e Ira; :arA or t(e 6o)ia,e##ect on t(e London
terrorist =om=ingsN F"r e&ents "# s!%h %"mp$e(- n"n-$inear "rigins an) 9ith s!%h tight$*-%"!p$e)- !ant!m
e##e%ts- the nati"na$ se%!rit* )is%"!rse "# rea$ism is simp$* n"t !p t" the task/
:orseA w(at i# t(e 8#aiure o# imagination9 identi#ied =! t(e "011 Commission is =uit into our nationa and (omeand securit! s!stemsN :(at i# t(e reiance on panning #or t(e
catastrop(e t(at never came reduced our capa=iit! to #exi=! respond and improvise #or t(e 8utra,catastrop(e9 t(at didN
:(at i# worse,case scenariosA simuation trainingA and disaster exercisesBas we as =order guardsA concrete =arriers and eart(en eveesBnot on! prove inade;uate =ut mig(t
we act as #orce,mutipiersBw(at organi@ationa t(eorists identi#! as 8negative s!nerg!9 and 8cascading e##ects9 Bt(at produce t(e automated =unging Ct(in) Federa
Emergenc! $anagement 4genc!D t(at trans#orm isoated events and singuar attac)s into go=a disastersN Just as 8norma accidents9 are =uit into new tec(noogiesB#rom
t(e 3itanic sin)ing to t(e C(erno=! metdown to t(e C(aenger exposionBwe must as) w(et(er 8utra,catastrop(es9 are no onger t(e exception =ut now part and parce o#
dense! networ)ed s!stems t(at de#! nationa managementK in ot(er wordsA 8panned disasters.9
:(atA t(enA is to =e doneN , #irst step is t" m"&e 'e*"n) the 9hee$-spinning )e'ates that perennia$$* keep se%!rit*
)is%"!rse a$9a*s "ne step 'ehin) the g$"'a$ e&ent/ 6t might 9e$$ 'e !ni-- 'i-- "r m!$ti-p"$ar- '!t it is time
t" re%"gni>e that the p"9er %"n#ig!rati"n "# the states-s*stem is rapi)$* 'eing s!'s!me) '* a
heter"p"$ar matri(A in w(ic( a wide range o# di##erent actors and tec(noogica drivers are producing pro#ound go=a e##ects t(roug( interconnectivit!. <ar!ing in
identit!A interestsA and strengt(A t(ese new actors and drivers gain advantage t(roug( t(e =road =andwidt( o# in#ormation tec(noog!A #or networ)ed communication s!stems
provide t(e means to traverse poiticaA economicA reigiousA and cutura =oundariesA c(anging not on! (ow we interpret eventsA =ut ma)ing it ever more di##icut to maintain
t(e ver! distinction o# intended #rom accidenta events.
4ccording to t(e ega p(iosop(er o# 6a@i 7erman!A Car +c(mittA w(en t(e state is una=e to deiver on its traditiona promissor! notes o# sa#et!A securit!A and we,=eing
t(roug( egaA democratic meansA it wi necessari! exercise t(e sovereign 8exceptionH9 decaring a state o# emergenc!A de#ining #riend #rom #oeA andA i# necessar!A eradicating
t(e t(reat to t(e state. 5ut w(at i# t(e stateA #acing t(e go=a eventA cannot discern t(e accidenta #rom t(e intentionaN 4n externa attac) #rom an interna auto,immune
responseN 3(e natura as opposed to t(e 8panned disaster9N 3(e enem! wit(in #rom t(e enem! wit(outN
:e canA as the =nite) States has )"ne sin%e Septem'er 11- %"ntin!e t" treat %atastr"phi% threats as iss!es "#
nati"na$ rather than g$"'a$ se%!rit*- an) g" it a$"ne/ H"9e&er- "n%e )e%$are)- '!rea!%rati%a$$* insta$$e)-
an) repetiti&e$* game)- nati"na$ states "# emergen%* gr"9 re%a$%itrant an) 'e%"me pr"ne t" e&en 9"rse
)isasters. 4s %au <iriioA master t(eorist o# t(e war mac(ine and t(e integra accident once tod meH 83(e #u,scae accident is now t(e proongation o# tota war =! ot(er
means.9
30/44
Impact !a$es out their Ad#antages
Realism must "e deconstructed their ad#antages are "ased on a 2regime of truth3 that creates a self%fulfilling
nightmare. !he alternati#e is to 5uestion their call for political action is met "y the alternati#e
-ontrLal;
Like many concepts& realism is essentially contested. ,n a critical reinterpretation of realism& Games Der Derian offers a genealogy of realism that deconstructs the
uniform realism represented in ,)+ he reveals many other versions of realism that are never mentioned in ,nternational )elations te=ts 2Der Derian& 5<<7+ 86:6. , am
aware that there are many realist discourses in ,nternational )elations& %ut they all share a set of assumptions& such as Jthe state is a
rational unitary actorK& Jthe state is the main actor in international relationsK& Jstates pursue power defined as a national
interestK& and so on. , want to show that realism is one way of representing reality& not the reflection of reality. *hile my aim here is
not to rehearse Der DerianOs genealogy of realism& , do want to spell out the pro%lems with a positivist theory of realism and a correspondence philosophy of language.
Such a philosophy accepts nominalism& wherein language as neutral description corresponds to reality. 'his is precisely
the pro%lem of epistemic realism and of the realism characteristic of .merican realist theoretical discourses. .nd since for
poststructuralists language constitutes reality& a reinterpretation of realism as constructed in these discourses is called
for.54 'hese scholars cannot refer to the Jessentially contested nature of realismK and then use Jrealism as the %est language to
reflect a self-same phenomenonK 2Der Derian& 5<<7+ 8:16. Let me %e clear+ , am not suggesting that the many neorealist and neoclassical realist discourses
in ,nternational )elations are not useful. )ather& , want to argue that these technicist and scientist forms of realism serve political purposes& used as they are in many
think tanks and foreign policy %ureaucracies to inform .merican political leaders. 'his is the relevance of deconstructing the uniform realism 2as used in
,nternational )elations6+ it %rings to light its locatedness in a hermeneutic circle in which it is unwittingly trapped 2Der Derian& 5<<7+
8:56. .nd as >riedrich Kratochwil argues& J#P; the reIection of a correspondence theory of truth does not condemn us& as it is often
maintained& to mere QrelativismO andSor to endless JdeconstructionK in which anything goes %ut it leaves us with criteria that
allows us to distinguish and evaluate competing theoretical creationsK 2Kratochwil& 3444 + 736.
Eiven that political language is not a neutral medium that gives e=pression to ideas formed independently of structures of signification that sustain political action and
thought& .merican realist discourses %elonging to the neorealist or neoclassical realist traditions cannot %e taken as mere
descriptions of reality. *e are trapped in the production of discourses in which national leaders and security speech acts
emanating from realist discourses develop and reinforce a notion of national identity as synonymous with national
security. ".S. national security conduct should thus %e understood through the prism of the theoretical discourses of .merican political leaders and realist scholars
that co-constitute it. )ealist discourses depict .merican political leaders acting in defense of national security& and political leaders act in the name of national security.
,n the end& what distinguishes realist discourses is that they depict the "nited States as having %ehaved like a national security state since *orld *ar ,,& while
legitimating the idea that the "nited States should continue to do so. Political scientists and historians Jare engaged in making 2poesis6& not
merely recording or reportingK 2-edhurst& 3444+ 5:6. Precisely in this sense& rhetoric is not the description of national
security conduct> it constitutes it.
31/44
Impact !a$es out their Ad#antages
!heir harms are made up < un$nowa"le need to 5uestion rhetoric
-ontrLal;
!onclusion
,n this piece& , have sought to e=plain how 2.merican6 realist theoretical discourses are mainly representative of the .merican e=perience of the !old *ar. , have
treated these historically-%ased discourses as political practices that frame and reproduce a national security state identity for the "nited States in the post-<S55 era. ,t is
not the JrealityK of the "nited States as a state that is cast in Auestion %y poststructuralists& %ut rather the way it is written as an unchanging and essentialiFed entity& as a
national security state identity. ,ndeed& a state is always in the process of 2re6constructionH its identity is never fi=ed& nor is its legitimacy uncontested. .s !amp%ell puts
it& Jwith no ontological status apart from the many and varied practices that constitute their reality& states are 2and have to %e6 always in a process of %ecomingK
2!amp%ell& 5<<9+ 536. 'he poststructuralist approach adopted here made it possi%le to reveal the normative issues arising in such discourses. ,n sum& to understand how
.merican or .merican-%ased realist discourses facilitated the social construction of a !old *ar with the "SS) after *orld *ar ,,& one must understand the security
culture that allowed for the development of political practices that ushered in the institutionaliFation of a national security state. /n a more metatheoretical level& in
,nternational )elations& the poststructuralistS postmodernist turn has made mainstream positivist scholars fear a lapse into complete relativism. .s !hristopher Dutler
points out& JPostmodernist relativism neednOt meant that anything goes. #P; *hat it does mean is that we should %e more sceptically aware& more relativist a%out& more
attentive to& the theoretical assumptions which support the narratives produced %y all #scholars; 2in the original Auote& Dutler wrote JhistoriansK for he was addressing
historians6& whether they see themselves as empiricists or deconstructors or as postmodernist Qnew historicistsOK 2Dutler& 3443+ 876.
,t is increasingly clear that realists of all guises in ,nternational )elations are more and more reluctant to take an infle=i%le
position with respect to the ontological and epistemological assumptions underpinning the discipline. ?owever& in viewing theory
as practice& we recogniFe that our choices have a normative and political value which allows us to distinguish the important from
the incidental. .s a result& what people see as the Jreal worldK is implicitly %ound up with the epistemological&
methodological and ontological stance they take in theoretical discourse. ,f the national security discourse that made the
!old *ar possi%le in .merican realist discourses at least is 2re6applied to our own era& then a similar pattern of legitimiFing and
constituting a national security state will %e reproduced.
32/44
Impact E5ui#alent to :iolence
7inguistic :iolence should "e e#aluated as #iolence $ey to creating changes.
+*R9E:9?I 0@ doctoral candidate at the Pennsylvania State "niversity& Department of Speech !ommunicationH her
research focus is the rhetoric of nonviolence.
#$llen *. Eorsevski& 'he physical side of linguistic violence.& Peace )eview& 5414367<& Dec<9& Tol. 54& ,ssue 1;
-any forms of violence are hidden in our discursive practices and need to %e %rought to light. >or instance& there are
peIorative terms for women& such as Cold maid&C for which there are no male eAuivalents. Tiolence is %eing done to women %y a
hierarchically %ased& sym%olic construction of reality in which they are devalued. *hen women are linguistically devalued
this cultural construction translates fluidly into political and economic devaluation--which has Auite measura%le& physical&
real-world effects. *omen still earn roughly only :7 cents for every dollar that men doing the same Io%s earn.
Tiolence is also latent in seemingly innocuous slang and popular terminology. *ar and violence are silently validated
through the creeping militariFation of everyday terminology+ our movie stars are C%om%shellsHC in sporting events& we need to CcrushC or
CdestroyC the opposing teamH at happy hour& our toast is C%om%s awayHC at dinner& we CnukeC our food in the microwaveH the list is endless. 'he point is that
culturally& through the unconscious use of violent terms& violent methods and modes of acting and %ehavior are
su%stantiated as accepta%le. -etaphors& as Eeorge Lakoff and -ark Gohnson have shown& ena%le us to structure our reality and our
actions within that reality. Dy opting for violent and forceful metaphors over nonviolent and peaceful ones& we confirm
that violent %ehavior is permissi%le in the physical sense. )eading the rhetoric of violent opposition and force in the newspapers( sports pages& it
%ecomes less surprising to find highly paid athletes hitting& punching& and spitting at each other and their coaches. 'his is Iust one more e=ample of the link %etween
linguistic and physical violence.
'here are practical ways that we can use words in our everyday lives to prevent& reduce& or even eliminate violence
around us. *e all know that conflict is inevita%le in everyday life. !onflict is often functional& rather than dysfunctional& %ecause it can produce real and positive
change. ?owever& there are some things that we can do to use our words nonviolently so that conflict produces a positive& rather than a negative& effect.
*e can enhance our awareness of our communicative %ehaviors. *e need to learn to act mindfully. /ne of -ohandas K. Eandhi(s
few worldly possessions was a small paperweight depiction of three monkeys+ one monkey covers her eyes& another his ears& the third her mouth. 'he first monkey
sym%oliFes the need to see no evil& reminding us that we can avoid upsetting ourselves %y turning off a violent television program. *e can take periodic fasts from
programs such as the evening news which thrive on highly emotionally arousing images that replicate the negative physiological states we e=perience when we are
engaged in a negative conflict. *hitmer attests that C'hose e=posed to televised violent or traumatic images or events are ... psychoneurologically primed to e=perience
vicarious traumatiFation& including..& post-traumatic stress disorder ... e=treme dissociation& num%ing ... trauma transference& and reenactment.C *hitmer says that
children are particularly sensitive to this kind of trauma. 'his highlights the critical need for %eing selective in our ha%its of seeing the world and in the ways that we use
our vision.
'he second monkey& whose ears are covered& reminds us that we can eschew upsetting music lyrics& movies& and 'T programs& or limit contact with people whose
conversation is full of sarcastic criticisms& swear words& or deprecations of women& racial& ethnic& or other groups of people. Studies have also shown that people living
in noisy physical environments e=perience negative health effects. 'he physical effects of simple noise-related activities such as listening to the radio or 'T set at a
loud volume include an increased likelihood of hearing loss.
'he last monkey& whose mouth is covered& is sym%olic of the eAually important need to choose words wisely. "pon finding that the lone red sock in the laundry turned
your shirts pink& is a tirade of four-letter words really necessary@ -aintaining a lively sense of light humor 2as opposed to sarcastic& negative humor6 is one positive way
to communicate and manage conflict nonviolently. ,n conflict situations with family mem%ers& relationship partners or friends& we can try to avoid what Eottman calls
the C>our ?orsemen of the .pocalypseHC these are the negative communicative %ehaviors of criticism& contempt& defensiveness& and stonewalling. ,nstead& we can focus
on issues& acknowledge feelings& show respect& and foster understanding with others& and e=press our needs and wants without aggression.
.s , have sketched a%ove& linguistic violence& or violence that is communicated via words 2gestures& or facial e=pressions6& should not %e considered a
lesser form of violence. 'aking linguistic violence seriously %y no means trivialiFes the more o%viously overt forms of
physical violence such as spouse or partner a%use and %attery& physically violent hate crimes such as the recent and horrific murder of the .frican-.merican man
in 'e=as& or the use of guns and weapons of mass destruction in local& regional& or glo%al conflicts and wars. ,nstead& taking linguistic violence
seriously& as not %eing Iust linguistic& %ut also as %eing a very physical form of violence& will ena%le us to e=amine our modes of communication
from the interpersonal level to the international level. Simply %eing aware of violent word use and linguistic violence
around us is an important first step to cur%ing it in our lives. 'o paraphrase 'hich Nhat ?anh& choose your words carefully& for they
have the power to hurt emotionally and physically& as well as the power to make people happy and healthy.
33/44
,$t S"$&es 2 5hange the S*stem
9ilence can "e used to "rea$ down the system if it is chosen silence
DA78IAA 0@ PhD& Prof of Philosophy - "niversity of ?awaii& PhD from Drown "niversity
#Dalmiya& Trinda& Linguistic erasures& Peace )eview& 5414367<& Dec<9& Tol. 54& ,ssue 1;
*hat we have& then& are at least three types of not-sayings. 'he first is a silence %ecause of the Cchoice of a particular form of
linguistic e=pressionC 2the choice of the word CgentlemanC precludes the saying of ChumanC or CwomanHC or our language at present may preclude the
articulation of les%ian e=periences6. 'he second is a silence %ecause of the Cchoice of language per seC 2the choice of the linguistic
mode of articulation itself--rather than of a particular language--precludes the e=pression of what we have called
Csu%Iective factsC6. >inally& we have a Csilence-of-humility&C a not-saying that is the result of a recognition of and may
actually %e chosen to gesture to the world %eyond the limits of language 2the silence of the Ven master6.
'he violent erasures that occur due to the first two of these not-sayings 2let us call them Clinguistic not-sayingsC6 can %e counteracted
%y the third kind of Csilence-of-humilityC that is tantamount to a reIection of the hegemony of the language game itself.
Such silence is a positive assertion of the CpresenceC of things not captured either %y the language in use or %y any
language whatsoever.
/ften this %ecomes the only recourse of people who have %een rendered invisi%le %y the dominant conceptual structures to
e=press something a%out themselves. ,t is after all& only the cocky articulate male for whom the silence of the victim of
ver%al se=ual harassment connotes assent& whereas in fact& it is her withdrawal from the entire language game--a screaming
testimony to the power structures--that makes her powerless. ,t is only for the complacent heterose=ual that the incoherence of
Cles%ianC defines her out of e=istence whereas& in fact& this incoherence itself sends her to the closet.
>or the privileged& on the other hand& such a silence if made to frame their talk and Ctheories&C can help deconstruct an
intellectual arrogance that stymies the need for a continued dialogue. !ertainly we do not want to eschew language that
%roadly construed CisC the primary means of dialogue. Dut it is only the semantic rever%erations of a silence-of-humility
that can ensure that we do not CstopC the dialogue.
'o talk with the underprivileged and--to the e=tent that there is a core of vulnera%ility in each of us--to dialogue with Canyone&C to
constitute ourselves and them in that process& we need to %ecome sensitive to such silences. 'o listen to such silence& to
hear the presence of genuine CothersC unlike ourselves& one must of course use language %ut one must also periodically
mute the din of Da%el.
34/44
AB 9ecurity is Ine#ita"le
9ecurity isn&t ine#ita"le discourse creates it < perpetuates it analysis can end it
-ontrLal;
, disagree with this essentialist view of the state identity of the "nited States. 'he "nited States does not need to %e a national security state. ,f
it was and is still constructed as such %y many realist discourses& it is %ecause these discourses serve some political
purpose. -oreover& in keeping with my poststructuralist inclinations& , maintain that identity need not %e& and indeed never is& fi=ed. ,n a
scheme in which Jto say is to doK& that is& from a perspective that accepts the performativity of language& culture %ecomes a
relational site where identity politics happens rather than %eing a su%stantive phenomenon. ,n this sense& culture is not simply a social conte=t framing
foreign policy decision-making. !ulture is Ja signifying part of the conditions of possi%ility for social %eing& #P; the way in which
culturalist arguments themselves secure the identity of su%Iects in whose name they speakK 2!amp%ell& 5<<9+ 3356.
'he !old *ar national security culture represented in realist discourses was constitutive of the .merican national security state. 'here was certainly a conflation of
theory and policy in the !old *ar military-intellectual comple=& which Jwere o%servers of& and active participants in& defining the meaning of the !old *ar. 'hey
contri%uted to portray the enemy that %oth reflected and fueled predominant ideological strains within the .merican %ody politic. .s scholarly partners in the national
security state& they were instrumental in defining and disseminating a !old *ar cultureK 2)u%in& 3445+ 576. 'his national security culture was Ja comple= space where
various representations and representatives of the national security state compete to draw the %oundaries and dominate the murkier margins of international relationsK
2Der Derian& 5<<3+ 156. 'he same !old *ar security culture has %een maintained %y political practice 2on the part of realist analysts and political leaders6 through
realist discourses in the post-<S55 era and once again reproduces the idea of a national security state.
'his 2implicit6 state identification is neither accidental nor inconseAuential. >rom a poststructuralist vantage point& the identification process of the state and the nation
is always a negative process for it is achieved %y e=clusion& violence& and marginaliFation. 'hus& a deconstruction of practices that constitute and
consolidate state identity is necessary+ the writing of the state must %e revealed through the analysis of the discourses that
constitute it. 'he state and the discourses that 2re6constitute it thus frame its very identity and impose a fictitious Jnational
unityK on societyH it is from this fictive and ar%itrary creation of the modernist dichotomous discourses of insideSoutside
that the discourses 2re6constructing the state emerge. ,t is in the creation of a Self and an /ther in which the state uses it monopolistic power of
legitimate violence a power socially constructed& following -a= *e%erOs work on the ethic of responsi%ility to construct a threatening /ther differentiated from the
JunifiedK Self& the national society 2the nation6.56 ,t is through this very practice of normative statecraft&5: which produces threatening
/thers& that the international sphere comes into %eing. David !amp%ell adds that it is %y constantly articulating danger
through foreign policy that the stateOs very conditions of e=istence are generated59.
-uch of the !old *ar state apparatus and military infrastructure remained in place to meet the challenges and threats of the post-!old *ar era. ,f the attack on Pearl
?ar%or was the driving force of the postwar national security state apparatus 2Stuart& 3448+ 8486& the <S55 events have %een used as a motive for
resurrecting the national security discourse as a Iustification against a new QinfamyO& glo%al terrorism.5<
.lthough in this study , am calling into Auestion the political practices that legitimiFed the very idea of a national security state during the !old *ar era& , find even
more pro%lematic the reproduction of a similar logic in the post-<S55 era a rather different historical and socio-political conte=t. .s Simon Dal%y highlights&
!oupling fears of Soviet am%itions& of a repeat of Pearl ?ar%or& and of nuclear war& these institutions formed the heart of a
semipermanent military mo%iliFation to support the policies of containment militarism. ,f this conte=t is no longer applica%le& the
case that the national security state is not an appropriate mode for social organiFation in the future is in many ways
compelling. ,f security is premised on violence& as security-dilemma and national-security literatures suggest 2al%eit often
reluctantly6& perhaps the necessity of rethinking glo%al politics reAuires a%andoning the term and the conceptual strictures
that go with it 2Dal%y& 5<<:+ 356.
. recent article %y David Ga%lonsky in the ".S. .rmy *ar !ollegeOs Iournal Parameters illustrates such an un-pro%lematiFed view of a !old *ar-like attitude of
casting for new enemies and threats& such as glo%al terrorism& that can Iustify a state of permanent war 2Luke& 3443+ 546+
,n those early years of the !old *ar& .merican leaders fashioned a grand strategic vision of the "S role in the world& which while innovative in terms of changing
concept of national security& did not outrun the e=periences of the .merican people as the Soviet threat unfolded. "S leaders face a similar challenge today as they seek
to educate the pu%lic that the domestic terrorist threat to physical security should not %e allowed to skew the .merican grand strategy of glo%al engagement designed to
further that core interest as well as those of economic prosperity and value promotion. #...; 'he new threat assures the continued e=istence if not growth of the national
security state and will certainly cause increased centraliFation and intrusiveness of the "S government. Nevertheless& the !old *ar demonstrates that all this need not
cause the rise of a garrison state or the diminishment of civil li%erties 2Ga%lonsky& 3448+ 596.
*hat puFFles me is that this viewpoint reflects an unAuestioned normative statecraft practice that might %e seen not only as possi%le %ut JwiseK& since JweK all know
that& in the end& the !old *ar led to an J.merican triumphK... >rom a critical standpoint& national security discourse is constitutive of
Jsocial realityK+ it is not neutral and it often serves to outfit state actions as o%Iective responses to socio-political
pro%lems. ".S. state leaders now use this same discourse the national security discourse to wage a glo%al war on
terrorism. .s Keith Shimko aptly points out&
'imes of war are no normal times. ,n addition to %eing periods of focused effort and all-out e=penditure& QwartimeO might also %e viewed as a period when some of the
normal lu=uries of life 2e.g.& material comfort or political li%erties6 are QsacrificedO to the war effort. .s a result& framing an issue as a war could lead to calls for
restrictions on %ehavior and rights that are typically protected %ut come to %e viewed as unafforda%le lu=uries during wartime 2Shimko& 5<<7+:<6.
35/44
AB But we didn&t say that
*mission is #iolence the spea$er is responsi"le for the ,*! 9AID
DA78IAA 0@ PhD& Prof of Philosophy - "niversity of ?awaii& PhD from Drown "niversity
#Dalmiya& Trinda& Linguistic erasures& Peace )eview& 5414367<& Dec<9& Tol. 54& ,ssue 1;
-oral culpa%ility attaches %oth to our actions and to our failures to act. , may not have thrown the %a%y into the river to
drown and yet , can %e %lamed for not Iumping in to save her for fear of getting my clothes wet. ,n such instances& Cnot doingsC
can %e as violent as some doings. ,t is important& therefore& to take seriously the ontological status of a%sences& failures or
omissions and to consider 2for instance6 Cnot attempting to save the drowning childC as having a distinct moral status.
*hile not leaping to the rescue of the drowning child in our e=ample& , may look the other way or walk away fastH and surely the acts of Clooking away or walking fastC
cannot %e construed as violent. Dut even though the primary locus of moral evaluation may %e the Cnegative action&C the positive acts 2of looking away& of walking fast6
%ecome ali%is %y covering up for the omission. *e have here not Iust Cturning my head the other wayC %ut of doing it Cinstead ofC attempting a rescue--a Auite different
matter.
,n a similar fashion& Cnot sayingsC that lurk %ehind what is said or e=pressed can %e violent. ,n such conte=ts& what is said
instead& even though independently innocuous 2or e#en praiseworthy6& %ecomes party to that violence. 'o understand this claim
we need not restrict ourselves to traditional spoken or written languages& for this general thesis can encompass all kinds of sign systems and gestures 2C%ody languageC6.
$=amples of violent not-sayings a%ound& from the hackneyed to the startling. . speaker addresses a mi=ed audience as Cgentlemen.C 'hough there is nothing o%no=ious
a%out the word CgentlemenC in itself 2it is not a racial slur& for e=ample6& yet its use here covers up the failure to take cogniFance of women in the group and shares in
the sin 2if it is one6 of erasing them from the scene. 'he platitudinous form of address CgentlemenC thus takes on whatever moral tone that is ascri%ed to the act of
ignoring certain people in the audience& %ecause it is their erasure that underlies its use. ,t is for similar reasons that CheC or CmanC are no longer favored as terms of
reference for all humansH their choice may shield an unwitting misogyny. .nd of course& we are now familiar with this %ecause of feminist language activism.
Dut let us look at the presupposition in the a%ove e=ample. ,s there a CsinC in the not-mentioning cited a%ove@ ,s there any CmoralC culpa%ility attached to not e=plicitly
mentioningSreferring to women@ .re not Cmisogyny&C Chatred&C CviolenceC too strong a characteriFation for what& after all& amounts Iust to ignoring or simply not
recogniFing& referring to& or acknowledging women@ 'his might %e discourteous& %ut can CannihilationC or CharmC that are part of the positive content of a violent
encounter %e detected in such situations@
. short foray into the metaphysics of the self may help us understand the situation here. 'he !artesian hypothesis of an independent& atomistic self has now %een
replaced %y the notion of a Crelational self.C ,n this view& self-identity is constituted %y multiple interactions with others. , not only Cmake myselfC %y interacting with
others %ut some things a%out myself %ecome accessi%le to me only through these relations. 'hus& %oth the self and self-knowledge are crucially dependent on others.
. direct conseAuence of this thesis& eloAuently articulated %y !harles 'aylor& is that Cnon-recognition 2or mis-recognition6 can inflict harm&
can %e a form of oppression& imprisoning someone in a false& distorted& and reduced mode of %eing.C Since reference&
acknowledgement& and addressing are preconditions of dialogue& and dialogue is necessary for self-construction& a Creferential failureC %ecomes a kind of annihilation
and erasure of the self. . failure to acknowledge or refer precludes the possi%ility of dialogue& and to that e=tent& stymies the realiFation of a potentiality of the self.
'he politics of recognition is thus tied up with the metaphysics of identity and survival. >or our purposes here& this may %e used to
underscore the intuition that Comitting to referC to someone or to a group 2%y using an e=clusionary word6 can %e a violent annihilation and harmful to the selfhood of
the someone or group who is overlooked. .nd Cwhat is saidSthe e=clusionary term used insteadC is an ali%i to cover up the violence.
'he truism that we cannot say everything at once and that no language can e=press everything 2at least the truths a%out a particular
language have to %e e=pressed in a different meta-language6 underscores the point that every saying resonates against a %ackground of not-
sayings. .nd &given the argument a%ove& this makes any language use inherently violent. 'o insist on the primacy and legitimiFing
power of language& thus& is to discredit and dishonor that which is not said or not linguistically articulated in the very
process of articulation. Look at the e=ample given %y the feminist philosopher Linda .lcoff 2in a different conte=t6+
... at the age of three , might have no words to e=press an e=perience of rapeH , may have no conceptual categories to make sense of it or to represent it even to myselfH
yet it would permeate my lived reality nonetheless. 'here may %e similar events that no human %eing at any age can descri%e& %ut only witness. *e cannot+ allow
language to circumscri%e ontology nor can we replace ontology with language& without erasing significant parts of lived e=perience.
Similarly& les%ian writers painfully encounter the limits of language in an attempt to articulate the contours of their worlds. /f course& one may protest here that we do
have 2and can use6 the CwordC Cles%ian.C Dut Cthe use of the word Xles%ian( to name us is a Auadrifold evasion&C says -arilyn >rye+
... to name us& one goes %y way of a reference to the island Les%os& which in turn& is an indirect reference to the poet Sappho 2who used to live there& they say6& which in
turn is itself an indirect reference to what fragments of her poetry have survived a few millennia of patriarchy& and this in turn 2if we have not lost you %y now6 is a
prophylactic avoidance of direct mention of the sort of creature who would write such poems or to whom such poems would %e written assuming you know what is in
those poems written in a dialect of Ereek over two thousand five hundred years ago on some small island somewhere in the wine dark .egean Sea. 'his is truly a
remarka%le feat of silence.
Note here that CsilenceC is constituted %y not-saying& and not-saying& in turn& is supervenient on what we say instead and how.
!onseAuently& the violence of not-sayings--the circumscription of our lived realities %y language--can %e traced %ack to
our sayings.
OOO,FF6RM,;6EC
36/44
;!rn 2 8 n" Link
$ang!age is #$!i) 2 assigning it a negati&e &a$!e re-%reates the &i"$en%e 8 hierar%hies "# the
$ang!age itse$#
SH,76RD 0+ %ro#essor o# %oitica +cience at t(e Pniversit! o# /awaiFi
I$ic(ae J. +(apiroA %eace ReviewK 1ec"2A <o. 1& Issue -L
O# ateA critica and poemica commentaries aimed at poitici@ing anguage (ave =een #ocused on t(e damaging e##ects
o# w(at Judit( 5uter (as caed Eexcita=e speec(AE utterances intended to incite vioence toward persons wit( recogni@a=e socia identitiesH reigious
groupsA et(nic groupsA and ga!s and es=iansA among ot(ers. 4part #rom t(e pro=em o# negecting t(e meaning sippage
invoved in assigning an unmediated causa e##ect to speec( actsA t(e position o# t(ose w(o are arguingA #or
exampeA in #avor o# Guridica responses to censor (ate speec( con#ronts a paradox. In order to miitate against one )ind
o# inguistic vioence,t(e damaging e##ects o# utterances on persons,,t(e! (ave to commit anot(er )ind o# vioence. 5!
assigning a unitar! identit! to t(e targets o# (ate speec(A t(e protectors o# vunera=e =odies engage in a
vioence o# representation. 3(e! must attri=ute to speec(,act victims a unitar! and unam=iguous! co(erent
identit!K t(e! must dissove (!=riditiesA turning puraistic and contingent (istorica a##iiations into essentia c(aracteristics. 4s
a resutA their arg!ments in #a&"r "# pr"te%ting the &!$nera'$e rein#"r%e the i)entit* perspe%ti&es
pres!pp"se) in the )is%"!rses the* "pp"se/
3(e paradox evident in Guridica! oriented attempts to sanction (ate speec( is part o# a more pervasive
(istorica p(enomenon toward w(ic( Jac;ues 1errida (as pointed in (is warning a=out attempts at de#initive!
expunging vioence. 4s (e (as #amous! put itA a commitment to tota non,vioence ris)s t(e Eworst vioenceKE it
perpetuates t(e iusion t(at an a=soute peace is possi=e. +trategies #or attaining suc( a peace (ave varied
#rom t(e structura approac(A e.g. t(e /o==esian idea o# concentrating vioence at one point a=ove t(e socia
#ormationA to t(e conceptua approac(A e.g. t(e Rantian commitment to a universai@ing cognitive enargement
at t(e eves o# =ot( t(e individua and go=a societ!.
37/44
Lang!age 1"esn:t Shape Rea$it*
Rea$it* )etermines the 9a* 9e speak 2 the* ha&e it the 9r"ng 9a*
Fram-5"hen +5 LinguistA Freeance :riter
I$ic(ee 8Reait!A LanguageA 3ransationH :(at $a)es 3ransation %ossi=e9
C(ttpH00enig(tenment.supersaturated.com0essa!s0text0mic(ee#ramco(en00possi=iit!o#transation.(tmDL
3(e idea t(at anguage is created inside oneFs mind independent! o# outside experience eiminates t(e possi=iit! t(at t(e
externa word is t(e common source o# a anguages. 5ut a common source o# a anguages underies an! attempt to expain t(e possi=iit! o#
transation. C(oms)! suggests t(at t(e common =asis o# a anguages is universa p(onetics and semanticsA wit( t(e resut t(at Ecertain o=Gects o# (uman t(oug(ts and
mentait! are essentia! invaria=e across anguages.E C13D 3o t(e =est o# m! )nowedge C(oms)! did not deveop t(is idea in t(e direction o# expaining t(e possi=iit! o#
transation. In contrastA inguist Eugene 6ida insists t(at outside experience is t(e common =asis o# a anguages w(en (e writes t(at Eeac( anguage is di##erent #rom a ot(er
anguages in t(e wa!s in w(ic( t(e sets o# ver=a s!m=o cassi#! t(e various eements o# experience.E C1-D 6ida did not provide t(e p(iosop(ica =asis o# t(e view t(at t(e
externa word is t(e common source o# a anguages. +uc( a =asis can =e #ound in t(e p(iosop(! o# O=GectivismA originated =! 4!n Rand. O=GectivismA as its name impiesA
up(ods t(e o=Gectivit! o# reait!. 3(is means t(at reait! is independent o# consciousnessA consciousness =eing t(e means o# perceiving
reait!A not o# creating it. Rand de#ines anguage as Ea code o# visua,auditor! s!m=os t(at denote concepts.E C15D 3(ese s!m=os are
t(e written or spo)en words o# an! anguage. Concepts are de#ined as t(e Ementa integration o# two or more units possessing t(e same distinguis(ing c(aracteristicCsDA wit(
t(eir particuar measurements omitted.E C1.D 3(is means t(at concepts are a=stractions o# units perceived in reait!. +ince words denote
conceptsA words are t(e s!m=os o# suc( a=stractionsK words are t(e means o# representing concepts in a anguage. +ince
reait! provides t(e data #rom w(ic( we a=stract and #orm conceptsA reait! is t(e source o# a words,,and o# a anguages.
3(e ver! existence o# transation demonstrates t(is #act. I# t(ere was no o=Gective reait!A t(ere coud =e no simiar concepts
expressed in di##erent ver=a s!m=os. 3(ere coud =e no simiarit! =etween t(e content o# di##erent anguagesA and soA no
transation. 3ransation is t(e trans#er o# conceptua )nowedge #rom one anguage into anot(er. It is t(e trans#er o# one set o# s!m=os denoting
concepts into anot(er set o# s!m=os denoting t(e same concepts. 3(is process is possi=e =ecause concepts (ave speci#ic
re#erents in reait!. Even i# a certain word and t(e concept it designates exist in one anguage =ut not in anot(erA t(e
re#erent t(is word and concept stand #or nevert(eess exists in reait!A and can =e re#erred to in transation =! a descriptive
p(rase or neoogism. Language is a means descri=ing reait!A and as suc( can and s(oud expand to incude new! discovered or innovated o=Gects in
reait!. 3(e reviva o# t(e ancient /e=rew anguage in t(e ate 1"t( Centur! demonstrated t(e dependence o# anguage on outward
reait!. 3(ose w(o wanted to use /e=rew (ad to innovate an enormous num=er o# words in order to descri=e t(e new o=Gects t(at did not con#ront t(e ancient /e=rew
spea)ers. On t(e ot(er (andA t(ose o=Gects t(at existed 2&&& !ears ago coud =e re#erred to =! t(e same words. 4ncient /e=rew coud not =! itse# provide a
su##icient image o# modern reait! #or modern users.
3+/44
7"$i%* ,na$*sis 4e#"re Lang!age
7"$i%* ana$*sis sh"!$) pre%e)e )is%"!rse 2 "n$* 9a* t" %ha$$enge p"9er 8 )"minati"n
;,F; 2 K,=FM,A 05 +peec( pro# Y C$P
JiA +out(ern Comm. JournaA +pringA v. .&A Iss. 3A 8Ot(er :a!s9A p p;
3(e postmodern passwords o# Epo!vocait!AE EOt(ernessAE and Edi##erenceAE unsupported =! su=stantia
ana!sis o# t(e concrete contexts o# su=GectsA creates a soipsistic ;uagmire. 3(e poitica s!mpat(ies o# t(e new cutura
criticsA wit( t(eir ostensi=e concern #or t(e ac) o# power experienced =! marginai@ed peopeA aigns t(em wit( t(e poitica e#t. MetA despite t(eir
adversaria posture and ta) o# oppositionA t(eir discourses on intertextuait! and inter,re#erentiait! isoate
t(em #rom and ignore t(e conditions t(at (ave produced e#tist poitics,,con#ictA racismA povert!A and inGustice.
In s(ortA as Car)e C1""1D assertsA postmodern emp(asis on new su=Gects conceas t(e od su=GectsA t(ose w(o (ave imited access to good Go=sA #oodA
(ousingA (eat( careA and transportationA as we as to t(e media t(at depict t(em. $erod C1"27D decries t(is situation as one w(ic( eaves no
visionA wiA or commitment to activism. /e notes t(at academic ip service to t(e oppositiona is underscored =! t(e a=sence o# #ocused
coective or poitica! active inteectua communities. %rovo)ed =! t(e academic mani#estations o# t(is pro=em 1i Leonardo C1""&D ec(oes $erod and
amentsH /as t(ere ever =een a (istorica era c(aracteri@ed =! as itte radica ana!sis or activism and as muc(
radica,c(ic writing as oursN $aundering on a=out Ot(ernessH p(aocentrism or Eurocentric tropes (as
=ecome a a@! academic su=stitute #or actua engagement wit( t(e detaied (istories and contemporar! reaities
o# :estern racia minoritiesA w(ite womenA or an! 3(ird :ord popuation. Cp. 53&D Car)eFs assessment o# t(e postmodern eevation o#
anguage to t(e Esine ;ua nonE o# critica discussion is an even stronger indictment against t(e trend. Car)e
examines L!otardFs C1"2-D 3(e %ostmodern Condition in w(ic( L!otard maintains t(at virtua! a socia reations are inguisticA andA t(ere#oreA it is
t(roug( t(e coercion t(at t(reatens speec( t(at we enter t(e Eream o# terrorE and societ! #as apart. 3o t(is assertionA Car)e repiesH I can t(in) o#
#ew more stri)ing indicators o# t(e poitica and inteectua impoveris(ment o# a view o# societ! t(at can on!
recogni@e t(e discursive. I# t(e worst terror we can envisage is t(e t(reat not to =e aowed to spea)A we are
appaing! ignorant o# terror in its ea=orate contemporar! #orms. It ma! =e t(e inteectuaFs conception o#
terror Cw(at ese do we do =ut spea)NDA =ut its proGection onto t(e rest o# t(e word woud =e caamitous....Cpp. 2,27D 3(e
ream o# t(e discursive is derived #rom t(e re;uisites #or (uman i#eA w(ic( are in t(e p(!sica wordA rat(er t(an in
a word o# ideas or s!m=os.C-D 6utritionA s(eterA and protection are =asic (uman needs t(at re;uire coective activit! #or t(eir #u#iment.
7"stm")ern emphasis "n the )is%!rsi&e 9ith"!t an a%%"mpan*ing ana$*sis "# h"9 the
)is%!rsi&e emerges #r"m materia$ %ir%!mstan%es hi)es the %"mp$e( task "# en&isi"ning an)
9"rking t"9ar)s %"n%rete s"%ia$ g"a$s C$erodA 1"27D. 4t(oug( t(e materia conditions t(at create t(e situation o# marginait!
escape t(e purview o# t(e postmodernistA t(e situation and its conse;uences are not overoo)ed =! sc(oars #rom marginai@ed groups. Ro=inson C1""&D
#or exampeA argues t(at Ethe <!sti%e that 9"rking pe"p$e )eser&e is e%"n"mi%- n"t <!st te(t!a$E Cp. 571D. Lope@
C1""2D states t(at Et(e starting point #or organi@ing t(e program content o# education or poitica action must =e t(e
present existentiaA concrete situationE Cp. 2""D. :est C1"22D asserts t(at =orrowing Frenc( post,structuraist discourses a=out EOt(ernessE
=inds us to reaities o# 4merican di##erence going on in #ront o# us Cp. 17&D. Pni)e postmodern Etextua radicasE w(o Ra=inow C1"2.D ac)nowedges are
E#u@@! a=out power and t(e reaities o# socioeconomic constraintsE Cp. 255DA most writers #rom marginai@ed groups are cear a=out (ow discourse
interweaves wit( t(e concrete circumstances t(at create ived experience. %eope w(ose ives #orm t(e materia #or postmodern
counter,(egemonic discourse do not s(are t(e optimism over t(e new recognition o# t(eir discursive
su=GectivitiesA =ecause suc( an ac)nowedgment does not address su##icient! t(eir coective (istorica and
current strugges against racismA sexismA (omop(o=iaA and economic inGustice. 3(e! do not appreciate =eing
tod t(e! are iving in a word in w(ic( t(ere are no more rea su=Gects. Ideas (ave conse;uences. Emp(asi@ing
t(e discursive se# w(en a person is (ungr! and (omeess represents =ot( a cutura and (umane #aiure. ;he
nee) t" $""k 'e*"n) te(ts t" the per%epti"n an) attainment "# %"n%rete s"%ia$ g"a$s keeps
9riters #r"m margina$i>e) gr"!ps e&er-min)#!$ "# the spe%i#i%s "# h"9 p"9er 9"rks thr"!gh
p"$iti%a$ agen)as- institutionsA agenciesA and t(e =udgets t(at #ue t(em.
30/44
7"$i%* ,na$*sis First
1refer a focus on policy it&s "est for "oth education and acti#ism
4an (o#erstoneA de=ate coac(A 100CA 4n Inward 7anceA (ttpH00www.w#u.edu0+tudent,
organi@ations0de=ate0$isc+ites01R74rtices0Coverstone1""5C(ina.(tm
$itc(eFs argument underestimates t(e nature o# academic de=ate in t(ree wa!s. FirstA de=ate trains students in t(e ver! s)is
re;uired #or navigation in t(e pu=ic sp(ere o# t(e in#ormation age. In t(e pastA poitica discourse was controed =! t(ose eements w(o controed access to in#ormation. :(ie
t(is =asic reait! wi continue in t(e #utureA its essentia #eatures wi c(ange. 6o onger wi mere possession o# in#ormation determine contro o# poitica i#e. In#ormation is wide! avaia=e. For t(e #irst
time in (uman (istor! we #ace t(e prospect o# an entire! new t(reat. 3(e ris) o# an in#ormation overoad is aread! s(i#ting contro o# poitica discourse to superior in#ormation managers. It is no onger
possi=e to contro poitica discourse =! imiting access to in#ormation. InsteadA contro =eongs to t(ose w(o are capa=e o# identi#!ing and deivering =its o# in#ormation to a t(irst! pu=ic. $itc(e cas
t(is t(e Edeserti#ication o# t(e pu=ic sp(ere.E 3(e pu=ic senses a deep desire #or t(e a=iit! to manage t(e in#ormation around t(em. MetA t(e! are unsure (ow to process and ma)e sense o# it a. In t(is
environmentA sna)e c(armers and c(aratans a=ound. 3(e popuarit! o# t(e evening news wanes as more and more in#ormation =ecomes avaia=e. %eope reai@e t(at t(ese (a# (our gimpses at t(e news
do not even come cose to covering a avaia=e in#ormation. 3(e! desperate! want to seect in#ormation #or t(emseves. +o t(e! watc( C66 unti t(e! #a aseep. 7ave to gave coverage o# poitica events
assumes top spots on t(e 6iesen c(arts. 1esperate to decide #or t(emsevesA t(e pu=ic o# t(e twent!,#irst centur! drin)s deep! #rom t(e we o# in#ormation. :(en t(e! are #inis(edA t(e! #ind t(e! are no
more a=e to decide. 3(ose w(o ma)e decisions are envied and gori#ied. 1e=ate teac(es individua decision,ma)ing #or t(e in#ormation age. 6o ot(er academic activit! avaia=e toda!
teac(es peope more a=out in#ormation gat(eringA assessmentA seectionA and deiver!. $ost important!A de=ate teac(es
individuas (ow to ma)e and de#end t(eir own decisions. 1e=ate is t(e on! academic activit! t(at moves at t(e speed o# t(e in#ormation age. 3ime is
re;uired #or individuas to ac(ieve escape veocit!. 4cademic de=ate (ods tremendous vaue as a space #or training. $itc(eFs re#ections are necessari! more accurate in (is own situation. Over a
decade o# de=ate (as we positioned (im to participate active! and direct! in t(e poitica process. Met t(e s)is (e (as did not deveop overnig(t. %roper training
re;uires time. :(ie t(ere is a tremendous variation in t(e amount o# training re;uired #or e##ective navigation o# t(e pu=ic sp(ereA t(e reative isoation o# academic de=ate is
one o# its virtues. Instead o# turning students o# de=ate immediate! outwardA we s(oud =e encouraging more to enter t(e
oasis. 4 t(irst! pu=icA drun) on t(e product o# an!one w(o caims a decisionA needs to drin) #rom t(e poo o# decision,ma)ing s)is. 3eac(ing t(ese s)is is our virtue. +econdA $itc(eFs argument
underestimates t(e ris)s associated wit( an outward turn. Individuas trained in t(e art and practice o# de=ate areA indeedA we suited to t(e tas) o# entering
t(e poitica word. 4t some unspeci#ied point in oneFs trainingA t(e same motivation and #ocus t(at (as consumed $itc(e
wi aso consume most o# us. 4t t(at pointA poitica action =ecomes a proper endeavor. /oweverA a o# t(e mem=ers o# t(e academic de=ate communit! wi not reac( t(at point
toget(er. 4 poitica outward turn t(reatens to corrupt t(e oasis in two wa!s. It ma)es our oasis a targetA and it t(reatens to poitici@e t(e training process. 4s ong as de=ate appears
to =e #ocused inward!A poitica eites wi not #ee t(reatened. Met one o# $itc(eFs primar! concerns is recognition o# our oasis in t(e poitica word. In t(is word we #ace
we trained in#ormation managers. +ensing a t(reat #rom Ede=ateAE t(e! wi =egin to in#itrate our space. Read! made in#ormation wi increase and de=aters
wi eat it up. 6ot !et a=e to tru! discern t(e reative vaues o# in#ormationA !oung de=aters wi eventua! =e in#uenced dramatica! =! t(e in#itration o# poitica
eites. Retaining our present anon!mit! in poitica i#e o##ers a =etter (ope #or reinvigorating poitica discourse. 4s per(aps t(e on!
tru! non,partisan space in 4merican poitica societ!A academic de=ate (ods t(e ast rea possi=iit! #or training active poitica
participants. 6ow(ere ese are peope aowedA et aone encouragedA to test a manner o# poitica ideas. 3(is is t(e process t(roug(
w(ic( de=aters earn w(at t(e! =eieve and w(! t(e! =eieve it. In man! wa!s t(is natura evoution is made possi=e =! t(e isoation o# t(e de=ate communit!. 4n
exampe s(oud (ep iustrate t(is idea. Li)e man! !oung de=atersA I earned a great dea a=out sociaism ear! on. 3(is was not crammed down m! t(roat. Rat(erA I earned a=out t(e issue in t(e #ree
#ow o# in#ormation t(at is de=ate. 3(e intrigue o# t(isA and ot(er outmoded poitica argumentsA was in its reative un#amiiarit!. Reading sociaist iterature avid!A I was read! to ta)e on t(e word. Met I
on! (ad one side o# t(e stor!. I was an eas! mar) #or t(e present poitica powers. 6evert(eessA I decided to #ig(t Cit! /a. I (ad received a par)ing tic)et w(ic( I #et was un#air! issued. Pna=e to
convince t(e par)ing department to see it m! wa!A I went straig(t to t(e top. I wrote t(e $a!or a etter. In t(is etterA I accused t(e cit! o# expoitation o# its citi@ens #or t(e purpose o# capita accumuation.
I presented a strong $arxist criti;ue o# par)ing meters in m! town. 3(e ma!orFs rep! was simpe and straig(t#orward. /e caed me a communist. /e said I was =eing si! and s(oud pa! t(e tic)et. I was
compete! em=arrassed =! t(e entire exc(ange. I t(oug(t I was read! to start t(e revoution. In reait!A I wasnFt even read! to spea) to t(e $a!or. I did earn #rom t(e experienceA =ut I did not earn w(at
7ordon mig(t (ave (oped. I earned to stop reading useess materia and to )eep m! opinions to m!se#. 1o we rea! want to #orce students into t(at t!pe o# situationN I wrote t(e ma!or on m! own.
1e=aters wi experiment wit( poitica activism on t(eir own. 3(is is a part o# t(e natura impuse #or activism w(ic( de=ate inspires. MetA in t(e a=sence o#
suc( individua motivationA an outward turn t(reatens to s(ort circuit t(e earning process. 1e=ate s(oud capitai@e on its isoation. :e can teac( our
students to examine a sides o# an issue and reac( individua concusions =e#ore we #orce t(em into poitica exc(anges. 3o premature! turn de=aters out t(reatens
to undo t(e positive potentia o# invovement in de=ate. $! t(irdA and #ina reaction to $itc(eFs proposaA targets (is desire #or mass action. 3(e danger is t(at we wi
repace mass contro o# t(e media0government eite wit( a mass contro o# our own eite. 3(e greatest virtue o# academic de=ate is its a=iit! to teac( peope t(at t(e! can and must ma)e t(eir own
decisions. 4n outward turnA organi@ed aong t(e ines o# mass actionA t(reatens to (omogeni@e t(e individua mem=ers o# t(e de=ate communit!. +uc( an
outcome wiA at =estA poitici@e and #racture our communit!. 4t worstA it wi coerce peope to participate =e#ore ma)ing t(eir
own decisions. 1e=ate trains peope to ma)e decisions =! investigating t(e su=te nuances o# pu=ic poicies. :e are at our =est w(en we teac( students to tear apart t(e =road t(emes around
w(ic( traditiona poitica activit! is organi@ed. 4s a resutA we experience a wide arra! o# poitica views wit(in academic de=ate. Even peope w(o support t(e same proposas or candidates do so #or
di##erent and inconsistent reasons. On! in academic de=ate wi two supporters o# poitica views argue ve(ement! against eac( ot(er. 4s a groupA t(is reait! means t(at mass poitica
action is doomed to #ai. 1e=aters do not #ocus on t(e =road t(emes t(at ena=e mass unit!. 3(e on! t(eme t(at unites de=aters is t(e
reai@ation t(at we are a #ree to ma)e our own decisions. 1e=aters earn to agree or disagree wit( opponents wit( respect. Met unit! around t(is t(eme is
not easi! transated into unit! on a partisan poitica issue. +ti worseA $itc(eFs proposa undermines t(e one uni#!ing principe. $itc(e must =e oo)ing #or more. /e is oo)ing #or a communit! wide
vaue set t(at discourages inaction. 3(is means t(at an activist turn necessari! wi compe poitica action #rom man! w(o are not !et prepared. 3(e greatest danger in t(is proposa is t(e i)ei(ood t(at
t(e contro o# t(e media0government eite wi =e repaced =! contro o# our own de=ate eite. Emp(asi@ing mass action tends to discourage individua poitica action. +ome wi decide
t(at t(e! do not need to get invovedA =ut t(is is =! #ar t(e esser o# two evis. $ost wi decide t(at t(e! must =e invoved w(et(er or not t(e!
#ee strong! committed to t(e issue. $itc(e paces t(e cart =e#ore t(e (orse. Rat(er t(an etting ideas and opinions drive action as t(e! do nowA (e encourages an environment w(ere
action drives ideas #or man! peope. Moung de=aters are particuar! vunera=e. 3(e! are i)e! to Goin in poitica action out o# a
desire to E#it in.E 3(is cannot =e w(at $itc(e desires. %oitica discourse is a dessert now =ecause t(ere are more peope tr!ing to E#it inE t(at t(ere are peope tr!ing to =rea) out.
40/44
1e'ate ,'"!t Se%!rit* 3"")
1e=ate a=out potentia catastrop(es ena=es preventative action t(at can spur action on issues suc( as nucear
con#ict.
K!rasa9a- 04 %ro#essor o# +ocioog! at Mor) Pniversit! o# 3oronto
IFu!u)iA Consteations <oume 11A 6o -A 2&&-L
In t(e twent!,#irst centur!A t(e ines o# poitica ceavage are =eing drawn aong t(ose o# competing d!stopian visions. IndeedA one o# t(e nota=e #eatures o# recent pu=ic
discourse and socio,poitica strugge is t(eir negationist (ueA #or t(e! are devoted as muc( to t(e prevention o# disaster as to t(e
reai@ation o# t(e goodA ess to w(at oug(t to =e t(an w(at coud =ut must not =e. 3(e de=ates t(at preceded t(e war in Ira; provide a vivid
iustration o# t(is tendenc!A as =ot( camps r(etorica! invo)ed incommensura=e catastrop(ic scenarios to ma)e t(eir respective cases. 4nd as man! ana!sts (ave notedA t(e
mutinationa antiwar protests cuminating on Fe=ruar! 15A 2&&3 mar)ed t(e #irst time t(at a mass movement was a=e to mo=ii@e su=stantia num=ers o# peope dedicated to
averting war =e#ore it (ad actua! =ro)en out. $ore genera!A given past experiences and awareness o# w(at mig(t occur in t(e #utureA given
t(e cries o# Qnever again' Ct(e +econd :ord :arA t(e /oocaustA 5(opaA RwandaA etc.D and Qnot ever' Ce.g.A nucear or ecoogica apoca!pseA (uman coningD t(at
are emanating #rom di##erent parts o# t(e wordA t(e avoidance o# crises is seeming! on ever!one's ips * and ever!one's
conscience. From t(e Pnited 6ations and regiona mutiatera organi@ations to statesA #rom non,governmenta organi@ations to transnationa socia movementsA t(e
determination to prevent t(e actuai@ation o# potentia catac!sms (as =ecome a new imperative in word a##airs. 4owing past
disasters to reoccur and unprecedented caamities to un#od is now wide! seen as un=eara=e w(enA in t(e processA t(e su##ering o# #uture generations is
caous! toerated and our surviva is =eing irresponsi=! Geopardi@ed. /enceA we need to pa! attention to w(at a wide! circuated report =! t(e
Internationa Commission on Intervention and +tate +overeignt! identi#ies as a =urgeoning 8cuture o# preventionA93 a d!namic t(at carries maGorA a=eit sti poor!
understoodA normative and poitica impications. Rat(er t(an =emoaning t(e contemporar! preeminence o# a d!stopian imaginar!A I am caiming t(at it can
ena=e a nove #orm o# transnationa socio,poitica actionA a mani#estation o# go=ai@ation #rom =eow t(at can =e termed
preventive #oresig(t. :e s(oud not reduce t(e atter to a #orma principe reguating internationa reations or an
ensem=e o# poic! prescriptions #or o##icia pa!ers on t(e word stageA since it isA Gust as signi#icant!A a mode o# et(ico,
poitica practice enacted =! participants in t(e emerging ream o# go=a civi societ!. In ot(er wordsA w(at I want to underscore is t(e
wor) o# #arsig(tednessA t(e socia processes t(roug( w(ic( civic associations are simutaneous! constituting and putting into practice a sense o# responsi=iit! #or t(e #uture =!
attempting to prevent go=a catastrop(es. 4t(oug( t(e a=or o# preventive #oresig(t ta)es pace in var!ing poitica and socio,cutura settings * and wit( di##erent degrees o#
institutiona support and access to s!m=oic and materia resources * it is underpinned =! t(ree distinctive #eaturesH diaogismA pu=icit!A and transnationaism. In t(e #irst
instanceA preventive #oresig(t is an intersu=Gective or diaogica process o# addressA recognitionA and response =etween two
parties in go=a civi societ!H t(e QwarnersA' w(o anticipate and send out word o# possi=e perisA and t(e audiences =eing
warnedA t(ose w(o (eed t(eir interocutors' messages =! demanding t(at governments and0or internationa organi@ations
ta)e measures to steer awa! #rom disaster. +econd!A t(e wor) o# #arsig(tedness derives its e##ectiveness and egitimac! #rom
pu=ic de=ate and dei=eration. 3(is is not to sa! t(at a #u! #edged go=a pu=ic sp(ere is aread! in existenceA since
transnationa 8strong pu=ics9 wit( decisiona power in t(e #orma,institutiona ream are current! em=r!onic at =est. Rat(erA in t(is contextA
pu=icit! signi#ies t(at 8wea) pu=ics9 wit( distinct !et occasiona! overapping constituencies are coaescing around strugges to
avoid speci#ic go=a catastrop(es.- /enceA despite (aving itte direct decision,ma)ing capacit!A t(e environmenta and peace
movementsA (umanitarian 67OsA and ot(er simiar go=a!,oriented civic associations are =ecoming signi#icant actors invoved in pu=ic
opinion #ormation. 7roups i)e t(ese are active in disseminating in#ormation and aerting citi@ens a=out ooming
catastrop(esA o==!ing states and mutiatera organi@ations #rom t(e Qinside' and pressuring t(em #rom t(e QoutsideA' as
we as #ostering pu=ic participation in de=ates a=out t(e #uture. 3(is =rings us to t(e transnationa c(aracter o# preventive
#oresig(tA w(ic( is most expicit in t(e now commonpace o=servation t(at we ive in an interdependent word =ecause o# t(e
go=ai@ation o# t(e peris t(at (uman)ind #aces Cnucear anni(iationA go=a warmingA terrorismA genocideA 4I1+ and +4R+ epidemicsA and
so onDK individuas and groups #rom #ar,#ung parts o# t(e panet are =eing =roug(t toget(er into 8ris) communities9 t(at
transcend geograp(ica =orders.5 $oreoverA due to dense media and in#ormation #owsA )nowedge o# impeding catastrop(es can instantaneous! reac( t(e #our
corners o# t(e eart( * sometimes we =e#ore individuas in one pace experience t(e actua conse;uences o# a crisis originating in anot(er. $! contention is t(at civic
associations are engaging in diaogicaA pu=icA and transnationa #orms o# et(ico,poitica action t(at contri=ute to t(e
creation o# a #edging go=a civi societ! existing Q=eow' t(e o##icia and institutionai@ed arc(itecture o# internationa
reations. 3(e wor) o# preventive #oresig(t consists o# #orging ties =etween citi@ensK participating in t(e circuation o# #ows
o# caimsA imagesA and in#ormation across =ordersK promoting an et(os o# #arsig(ted cosmopoitanismK and #orming and
mo=ii@ing wea) pu=ics t(at de=ate and strugge against possi=e catastrop(es. Over t(e past #ew decadesA states and internationa
organi@ations (ave #re;uent! =een content to #oow t(e ead o# go=a!, minded civi societ! actorsA w(o (ave =een
instrumenta in pacing on t(e pu=ic agenda a (ost o# pivota issues Csuc( as nucear warA ecoogica poutionA species
extinctionA genetic engineeringA and mass (uman rig(ts vioationsD.
41/44
Ei"$ent Reps 3"")
Representations o# vioence are good * t(e!Fre a pre,re;uisite #or poitica c(ange.
Fair'anks 07 <isiting Feow at t(e /udson Institute
IC(ares /. Journa o# 1emocrac!A 12H1L :(it
3(ere is a case #or vioence. Outside t(e $usim wordA modern man is no onger attracted =! revoutionar! vioence Cor =! warD. 4s we wi
discussA suc( vioence (ods great dangers #or democratic trans#ormation. 5ut to appreciate t(e case #or cassica revoution it is essentia to examine t(e
#unction o# vioence in past democratic revoutions. <ioence (eig(tens t(e drama o# poitica c(angeA vivid! de#ining #riends
and enemies. It creates exampesBtragicA (eroicA and viainousBon t(e =asis o# w(ic( citi@ens remode t(eir c(aracters.
One s(oud picture (ere revoutionar! icons suc( as Jac;ues,Louis 1avidFs 17"3 painting 3(e 1eat( o# $arat. I# we as) (ow passive victims
o# poitics =ecome t(e owners and operators o# poiticsA t(ese images and stories o# revoutionar! vioenceA
(eroismA and sacri#ice must pa! a great roe. It is not cear w(et(er nonvioent su=stitutes #or revoutionar!
s!m=oism are as memora=e as t(ose t(at reca vioent cas(es . In an! caseA nonvioence reies #or its
s!m=oism on t(e vioence o# t(e regimes it opposesA and o##ers #ew cues to t(e c(aracter o# t(e nonvioent
word to w(ic( it aspires.
Representati"ns "# &i"$en%e are ine&ita'$e an) the "n$* 9a* t" m"ti&ate a%ti"n an) pre&ent
#"rgetting
7C;LCB 03 5urne Pniversit!
IJuianA Journa #or CrimeA Con#ict and t(e $ediaA (ttpH00www.Gc2m.co.u)0issue10%ete!.pd#L
6onet(eessA even t(oug( 5ritis( =roadcasters are (ig(! uni)e! to c(ange t(e ideoogica #ramewor)s wit(in w(ic( t(e! report wars in w(ic( 5ritain is invovedA is it too
muc( to (ope t(at t(e reporting o# deat( and inGur! in wartime mig(t =e #reed #rom t(e s(ac)es o# t(e Qtaste and decenc!' reguationsA w(ose appication to war reporting is
sure! ;uite inappropriateN It's (ard to avoid t(e concusion t(atA in t(eir attitudes to images o# deat( and inGur! in miitar! actions underta)en =! t(is countr!A =ot( t(e
reguators o# 5ritis( =roadcasting and arge sections o# t(e audience on w(ose =e(a# t(e! aeged! reguate simp! need * to put it =unt! * to grow up and get rea. :ars
invove =oods(ed and saug(terA and t(ose invoved in t(emA even indirect!A (ave a mora and poitica responsi=iit! to #ace
t(is simpe #act. 3(e! canA o# courseA c(oose not to do soA =ut t(e =roadcast media s(oud not (ep t(em to =ur! t(eir
(eads in t(e sand. Furt(ermoreA i# peope c(oose to Goin armed #orces t(en t(e! )nowing! put t(emseves in a position o# ris)A andA in t(e modern media,saturated
wordA t(e! and t(eir reatives simp! (ave to accept t(e #act t(at images w(ic( t(e! mig(t pre#er were )ept private ma! =e =eamed around t(e go=eH a#ter aA =anning
t(em #rom 5ritis( teevision (ard! =anis(es t(em #rom t(e screens o# ot(erA ess s;ueamis( and compicitA nations. 4nd as #or civiians
* t(e reactions o# t(ose in t(e scenes o# carnage #ina! s(own in 3(e 3rue Face o# :ar made it a=undant! cear t(at t(e! active!
wanted t(e in(a=itants o# t(e aggressor nations to =e made to #ace t(e (uman conse;uences o# t(eir governments' actions.
For t(ese reasonsA t(enA it's extreme! (ard to disagree wit( +usan +ontag w(en s(e argues t(atH QZno one a#ter a certain age (as t(e
rig(t to t(is )ind o# innocenceA o# super#iciait!A to t(is degree o# ignoranceA or amnesia. 3(ere now exists a vast repositor!
o# images t(at ma)e it (arder to maintain t(is )ind o# mora de#ectiveness. Let t(e atrocious images (aunt us. Even i# t(e!
are on! to)ensA and cannot possi=! encompass most o# t(e reait! to w(ic( t(e! re#erA t(e! sti per#orm a vita #unction.
3(e images sa!H 3(is is w(at (uman =eings are capa=e o# doing * ma! vounteer to doA ent(usiastica!A se#,rig(teous!.
1on't #orget.' C+ontag 2&&3H1&2D.
42/44
,$t Fai$s
3(eir aternative precudes democratic de=ate t(at eads to innovative soutions and poitica c(ange
3(ornton &7 7r"#ess"r "# 5$assi%s at Fresn" State =ni&ersit*
I5ruce 83(e :ord %oice9 $arc( 7
t(
C(ttpH00www.victor(anson.com0artices0t(ornton&3&7&7%F.(tmDL
$ost important!A (oweverA t(is o=session wit( individua #eeings is incompati=e wit( democratic #reedom. 4 poitica s!stem t(at
aows arge num=ers o# citi@ens to participate in pu=ic de=ate is necessari! raucousA insutingA and o#ten vugar. Just oo) at
ancient 4t(ensA w(ere t(e eve o# poitica invective and insut ma)es our poitica campaigns sound i)e a Jane 4usten nove. 3(at's w(! eitist sno=s i)e %ato disi)ed
democrac!. :(en !ou give average peope #ree speec(A t(e de=ate is going to =e roug( and toug(. I# !ou want to participateA
!ou (ave to =e a=e to ta)e it. 3(e on! aternative is some sort o# contro =! an eite t(at awa!s ends up sti#ing t(e
expression o# ideas and serving a narrow poitica interest B exact! w(at we see toda! in our universities and media. I earned t(is esson t(e #ew
!ears I was condemned to m! universit!'s 4cademic +enate. 4s soon as t(e de=ate on an issue started getting cose to t(e trut(A someone woud Gump up and start s;ueaing
a=out 8civiit!A9 and not(ing use#u (appened. Mou can't (ave #ree speec( and sensitivit! to #eeings at t(e same time. 3(e issues we as
citi@ens (ave to de=ate are contentiousA compexA and invove passionate! (ed and con#icting vaues and principes. 3o
impose an ar=itrar!A su=GectiveA #ine! cai=rated standard o# speec( is to impose censors(ip. 6ot a true and use#u ideas
come in nice civi pac)ages. +ome o# t(e truest poitica discourse one can (ear t(ese da!s is on t(e supreme! vugar and
poitica! incorrect +out( %ar). 4 commitment to t(e #ree exc(ange o# ideas and speec( no matter (ow rude and
insensitive is t(e sine ;ua non o# poitica #reedom. 4#ter aA peope (ave em=raced man! pernicious ideas =ecause t(e! ma)e
peope #ee good. 3(e attac) on racia superiorit! t(at rein#orced segregation (urt a ot o# peope's #eeings and c(aenged
some o# t(eir most c(eris(ed vaues. 5ut more important t(an #eeings was t(e Constitutiona principe o# e;ua
opportunit! regardess o# t(e accident o# race. 6ot(ing s(oud =e more sacred t(an t(e trut( or soundness o# ideas. For o# a t(e (urt#u trut(sA poitica
trut( is o#ten t(e most (urt#u. 3(at's t(e price we pa! #or #reedom
43/44
,$t Fai$s
1e%"nstr!%ti"n "# 'inaries a$$"9s #"r &i"$en%e an) #ai$s t" arti%!$ate a p"$i%* #"r %hange
M"rris"n 0+ <ariant sta##
CEwanA 8%oitics o# Friends(ipA9 <ariant 7A (ttpH00www.variant.randomstate.org07texts0EwanO$orrison.(tmD
/ow o#ten (as deconstructive t(eor! =een used to undermine t(e E=inar! oppositionsE o# imperiaist cutureN Since the (64s there
has =een a tacit understanding t(at at(oug( deconstruction did not (ave an overt poiticA it was o# use in t(eoretica! desta=iising oppressive (ierarc(ica structures. 3(is (as
=een t(e impied et(ic =e(ind t(e use o# deconstruction. 1econstruction woud ta)e us =e!ond t(e rigidi#ied cuture o# entrenc(ed opposition,,it woud =e a radica cutura
#orce. 5ut w(at i# t(e end o# =inar! oppositions C=ac)0 w(iteA ga!0 straig(tA e#t0 rig(tD does not spe a positive #utureA in w(ic( t(e od
oppositions endA =ut one in w(ic( c(aos ruesA and in w(ic( t(e #orm t(at insta=iit! ta)es is vioence,,vioence =e!ond
reason. 3(ere are on! vague ausions to t(ese concerns wit(in t(e =oo)A =ut it coud =e t(at 1errida (as started to =ecome anxious a=out Et(e socia reevance o#
deconstructionE. 6atura! no one (as marc(ed into =atte carr!ing a deconstruction =annerA =ut cutura! t(e in#itration o# deconstruction into
our institutions (as meant a #itering t(roug( into cuture o# some o# its in(erent attitudes. :as 1eridda wrong to give up on t(e enig(tenment proGectA t(e e#tN 3(ese
;uestions (aunt t(is textA =ut 1errida cannot as) t(em. Is t(ere an unwritten poitic =e(ind t(is =oo) wit(out concusionN 3(roug( eac( o# (is wor)s 1errida
(as repeated! tod us t(at ever! p(iosop(! is (aunted =! t(e spectre o# its opposite. :(at t(en is t(e opposite t(at
(aunts deconstructionN :(at i# not inear discourse,,t(e statement,,t(e need to adopt a su=Gect position. Coud it =e t(at 1errida is (aunted =! w(at it is (e rea!
wants to sa!N E:(o coud ever answer #or a discourse on #riends(ip wit(out ta)ing a standNE Cp.22"D In t(e %oitics o# Friends(ip
we see a 1errida trapped in (is own met(odA una=e to articuate t(e rea ;uestions t(at concern (im wit(out t(reatening
t(e credi=iit! o# deconstruction itse#.
44/44
7erm S"$&es
1econstruction com=ined wit( action prevents totaitarianism. Faiure to do so eiminates an! possi=iit! o#
poitics
(amp"ell 00 Professor of ,nternational Politics at the "niversity of Newcastle
C1avidA 83(e 1eterritoriai@ation o# Responsi=iit!A9 Moral SpacesA Eds. $ic(ae J. +(apiro ? 1avid Camp=eA
p. D
[5ut t(e concern a=out poitics in 1errida articuated =! Critc(e! is not a=out poitics per seA nor a=out t(e
possi=iities o# poitica ana!sisA =ut a=out t(e prospects #or a progressiveA radica poiticsA one t(at wi
demand B and t(us do more t(an simp! permit B t(e decision to resist )"minati"n- e(p$"itati"n-
"ppressi"n- an) a$$ "ther %"n)iti"ns that seek t" %"ntain "r e$iminate a$terit*. MetA againA I woud
argue t(at t(e a=ove discussion demonstrates t(at not on! does 1erridean deconstruc tion address t(e
;uestion o# poiticsA especia! w(en Levinasian et(ics draws out its poitica ;uaitiesA it does so in an
a##irmative antit"ta$itarian manner t(at gives its poitics a particuar ;uait! A w(ic( is w(at Critc(e! and
ot(ers i)e (im most want Cand rig(t! soA in m! viewD. :e ma! sti =e dissatis#ied wit( t(e prospect t(at
1erridaFs account cannot rule out forever perverse cacuations and unGust aws. 5ut to aspire to suc( a
guarantee woud =e to wis( #or t(e demise o# poiticsA #or it woud insta a new tec(noog!A even i# it was a
tec(noog! t(at =egan i#e wit( t(e mar)ings o# progressivism and radicaism. +uc( dissatis#actionA t(enA is not
wit( a 1erridean poiticsA =ut wit( t(e necessities o# poitics per seA necessities t(at can =e contested and
negotiatedA =ut not escaped or transcended. It is in t(is context t(at t(e imits o# t(e Levinasian suppement
proposed =! Critc(e! as necessar! #or deconstruction =ecome evident. :(ie it is t(e case t(at LevinasFs
t(oug(t is antagonistic to a totai@ ing #orms o# poiticsA recogni@ing t(e wa! t(at ontoogica totaitarian ism
gives rise to poitica totaitarianismA I argued a=ove t(at t(e imit o# its critica potentia is exposed =! t(e
;uestion o# t(e state. In t(is regardA inso#ar as 1erridean deconstruction re;uires t(e Levinasian sup pementA
t(at suppement itse# needs to =e suppementedA and suppe mented wit( recognition o# t(e manner in w(ic(
deconstructionFs a# #irmation o# aterit! deterritoriai@es responsi=iit!A and purai@es t(e possi=iities #or et(ics
and poitics over and =e!ond C!et sti incudingD t(e state.
1&7
\

Reps K 4 Week ENDI 2010

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Reps K 4 Week ENDI 2010

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Reps K - 4 Week HLMS 2010

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi