The Everydayness of Terrorism
February 20th 2008 04:03
Terrorism is often constructed by the media as extraordinary. On the other hand, it can be argued that terrorism is anything but extraordinary, and that rather, it is characteristic of the everyday. For instance, on September 11th 2001, like a blockbuster movie, the twin towers of the World Trade Centre burnt down to the ground. This “unprecedented” event rocked the lives of many people around the world as the media portrayed the tragic events repeatedly on television screens. With responses such as “America’s New War” and “America’s War on Terrorism” (Nacos, 2002:54), the attacks resulted in a media frenzy, where the US and its media suggested that terrorism was something out of the ordinary. Still to this day, the media portrays terrorism as something that is extraordinary, but in actuality, as Lewis (2005:16) argues, terrorism is a product of the system that has been built to promote democracy, liberty and capitalism. Through television, films and other types of media, terrorism has been transformed into the everyday (Kellner, 2003:6). Debord (1994:29) elaborates this point as he suggests that terrorism, as a spectacle, is converted into a commodity. The sensationalism of the spectacle of terror becomes something which can attract audience attention and create ratings. It turns into a commodity which can be bought, sold, packaged and manufactured, something that is very much of the ordinary and the everyday.
The idea that terrorism came out of nowhere to engulf the lives of people is a narrative that has been constructed by the media to sensationalise terrorism as a spectacle. Unbeknown to many people who use the media as a reference to what goes on in real life, terrorism was something that was already actively present. In fact, Laqueur (1977:220) suggests that “terrorism is believed to appear wherever people have genuine legitimate grievances,” and goes on to say that “…one nation’s terrorism is another people’s national liberation” (1997:219), suggesting that terrorism has been a product of the system, as a resistance, rather than a foreign invader. This point is reinforced by O’Sullivan (1986:27), who suggests that terror was a concept of the French Revolution, which in this day and age, is seen as an event that caused the liberation of people.
Baudrillard (2002:9) explains that terrorism is the direct result of hegemony by a capitalist society. In other words, due to the globalisation of consumer culture, politics and the bureaucratic society, terrorism stands as a form of resistance against the dominance of one system, which in this case is capitalism. In this bureaucratic society, it is not only the Islamic fundamentalists, the IRA, and other such terrorist groups that act as resistance but it is also ordinary people, living their day to day lives. Lefebvre (2000:147) illustrates this point when he suggests that people become terrorists themselves in a society that is bound by rules and regulations; “each member is a terrorist because he wants to be in power (if only briefly)” (Lefebvre 2000:147). Culture jammers, graffiti artists, people who go against ideologies represented in the media, can in turn become “terrorists” as well, and in doing so demonstrate the everydayness of terrorism.
When examining a bureaucratic society, the concept of terrorism being something of the everyday can be seen using Lefebvre’s (2000:141) theory of the “terrorist society”. The meaning of a terrorist society is the idea that in a capitalist system, people have been forced to work under rules and regulations that have been set by people’s desires, which is mostly driven by consumer culture and its commodification (Lefebvre 2000:142). In today’s age, the terrorist society can be seen through its emphasis on the commodity, which plays a major factor in defining society, people’s identity and other characteristics of the everyday. According to Lefebvre (2000:187), society’s expectations of people to study, graduate, be employed, buy a house etc, is a latent act of terrorism. Since the alternative to this social integration is negatively represented, most people are forced to follow what is popular, which as Lefebvre (2000:187) states is a definite characteristic of a terrorist society.
So if terrorism already exists in society on a day to day basis, media assists in making the concept of terrorism extraordinary by using its spectacle as a perverse form of entertainment. As Hozic (1990:78) suggests “the only thing which could have been done, once the terrorism was already there, was to present it in such a way that it started working for and not against society.” People did not seek to watch it, but it was sought to be watched and in turn grew, replicated by the newspapers, television programs and other forms of media, to be consumed by society like any other product. “The more people are killed in bomb attacks or passengers caught in a hijacked plane, the stronger the attention of the media and the interest of the public” (Paletz and Schmid, 1992:46). Through selective filming and editing, the media has represented the reality of terrorism, like a film or a drama series, which has provoked audiences to “tune in” daily to their national news programs. Kellner (2003:1) also makes this point saying that “social and political conflicts are increasingly played out on the screens of media as sensational murder cases, terrorist bombings, celebrity and political sex scandals, and the explosive violence of everyday life.”
The reason behind terrorism’s everydayness can also be traced back to Baudrillard’s (1994:21) theory that reality itself is constructed by the media. The terrorist bombings in New York and London were real in the sense that they did happen, but unreal in the sense that they were a simulation of what had already been depicted through Hollywood productions. In relation to the September 11th bombings, Nacos (2002:35) reiterates this point: “Whether they realised it or not, and many did not, most people, even eye-witnesses at the disaster scenes were far from sure whether movies had turned into life, or whether life was now a movie”. Baudrillard (1994:89) argues further, saying that society itself is a representation that is being simulated as reality. This can be seen through society’s expectations of individuals to promote consumerism and material wealth in their lives. Using reality shows and ‘current affairs’ programs, to name a few, reality is constructed by what is shown and then successively recreated in real life to simulate the very representation first shown. This is seen through fashion, where the media relays a certain style that is deemed to be fashionable, which in turn encourages people to buy into the latest trends, constructing a reality that had already been predetermined.
Since reality is merely a representation, the spectacle that it depicts can then be commodified. As Kellner (2003:3) suggests, “the structural shift to a society of the spectacle involves a commodification of previously non-colonised sectors of social life and the extension of bureaucratic control to the realms of leisure, desire and everyday life.” An example of this can be seen through the recent events at the Beaconsfield mine.
It could be said that the importance of this event was not due to two men being trapped in a mine, but by the vast amount of media attention it received through the representation of its spectacle. The question is, did people really care about the miners, or was it the drama of the situation that people had been conditioned to, over the years of media culture that generated the concern? In relation to terrorism, the same could be said that if terrorism was not sensationalised by the media, it would not be considered as something extraordinary. A newspaper editor interviewed by Paletz and Schimd (1992:122) reinforces this point as he says “Obviously if the media do not speak of terrorism it will not have any social relevance.”
The extent of the public’s attention towards spectacles of human suffering is something that is highly disturbing. Going back to the example of the Beaconsfield miners, a few days after their rescue, they were subjected to the power of the media, where they had to assist in answering questions about their ordeal and other invasions of their privacy. These acts of voyeurism by the media can also be considered when looking at victims of terrorism. Paletz and Schmid (1992:216) suggest that the attention the victims bring, results in the “extra normality of terrorism”, which as Lefebvre (2000:159) would argue, is a characteristic of the terrorist society. The act of pursuing a story that demands the invasion of the victim’s privacy or, in the case of the miners, the expectation of an immediate interview, is itself an act of terrorism.
Using Timothy McVeigh as an example, Nacos (2002:13) critiques the post modern capitalist human condition that seeks entertainment through tragedy. He told an interviewer, “I don’t think there is any doubt the Oklahoma City blast was heard around the world.” McVeigh also revealed that he selected the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City for his attack because it had “plenty of open space around it, to allow for the best possible news photos and television footage”(Nacos, 2002:12). In this case it is not only the bombing itself which is terrifying, but the fact that it was set up to meet the demands of the media in satisfying people’s curiosities. It is not that people want to see these events unfold, but it is the way the capitalist system has been created. It satisfies the ‘need to know’, or in more liberal terms, ‘the right to know,’ by demanding media’s attention on the very essence of humanity that was once considered sacred. Unfortunately, in the capitalist culture of the everyday, the spectacle of tragedy, death and sorrow become exchangeable commodities.
The everyday violence and terror that people have become accustomed to through the media has in turn resulted in what Freedman (1983:187) describes as an immunisation of the masses. The immunisation effect manifests itself in three ways. The first derives from continuous media coverage of violence in general and terror-violence in particular; its effect is to heighten the public's level of tolerance and acceptance of violence and terror-violence as a fact of life… thus, as moral opposition is reduced, immunization to the phenomenon increases. (Freedman, 1983:187) This problem once again comments on the post modern capitalist human condition, as it means that the human psyche is not just being conditioned to desensitise itself against the violence presented, but in some cases, seeks for more. The media having invested so much time into terrorism and counter-terrorism have helped in blurring the lines between entertainment and information. Most people either demand more attention towards terrorism or are unconcerned enough to change the channel to a more entertaining program.
It is perhaps, this very complacency within a capitalist society that terrorism is trying to comment on. Other than it being a declaration of war, perhaps the act of literally ‘dropping a bomb’ on America, was an act to awaken people to the horror of real violence and destruction as opposed to the images presented through the media. As Baudrillard (2002:5) suggests, it was due to America being a superpower that this incident occurred. Among other reasons, America was targeted because they, being the superpower were the embodiment of capitalism and the instigator of cultural imperialism. In a mass mediated society, where money seems more valuable than human life, a wake up call was in order. Having said this though, what the terrorists did cannot be justified. Violence and the taking of another’s life in most forms, is immoral and unjustified. Terrorism cannot be excused, and equally nor can its counterpart, counter-terrorism. In Baudrillard’s (2002:9) words, it is “terror against terror”.
The French movie Hidden (2005) directed by Michael Haneke, attempts to comment on these very issues of the media, its spectacle and voyeurism. As Thom (2005) implies, Hidden commented on France’s shameful history at the Battle of Algiers, which Beary (2003) considers is like a model of what is happening with the American invasion of Iraq. The movie starts off with George, a French man being terrorised through surveillance footage of his life by somebody unknown to him. As the film continues, George is led to believe that Majid, a person whom he had victimised in his childhood due to his ethnicity, is the culprit behind the video tapes. Majid, who is innocent, is confronted by George, who even though was guilty of a crime far worse than what was happening to him, lashed out at Majid with unsympathetic threats. In the end, Majid who was deeply affected by George’s actions in his childhood and thereafter slices his own throat in front of George. George is initially shocked, but as the movie concludes, is unmoved in his attitude that he did nothing wrong.
On a more general perspective, the character George could be considered as the personification of the western capitalistic attitude, whilst Majid stood as the culture, or perhaps the race, that is yet repressed by capitalism’s influence. The theme of ‘being civilised’ runs throughout the movie, with George always considering himself to be civil and civilised as opposed to Majid who was barbaric enough to cut his own throat. Half-way through the movie, there is scene dedicated to a news report on America’s invasion of Iraq, where the allied nations, like Italy and Britain, were talking about working under the same set of rules. Civilised people as it would seem, worked under rules and regulations, whilst the people resisting against the system, such as terrorists, worked under more chaotic conditions, instilling fear through uncivilised acts of bombing and violence. The most disturbing thing about this ‘civility’ as Haneke tries to convey, is that being civil, also suggests an absence of emotion and concern.
It is these ideas that Freedman (1983:187) suggests when he refers to the audience being immunised. The media scene in Hidden implies that the rules and regulations set by the ‘civilised’ allied nations, disengages them from the real concept of war, which is death, suffering and destruction. It is the same with George watching the news report or when he watches a surveillance video of Majid crying after being threatened by him. His civility, or the system that has given him this attitude, has compromised him of his emotion, sensitivity and perhaps even his morality. Jenkins (2003:19) suggests that this lack of concern is due to capitalism’s ability to exploit everything, even the human condition. This means that the essence of humanity, once conditional, is now replicated through representation resulting in the loss of its meaning and effect over time. An example of this is seen when the media replayed the twin towers’ destruction repeatedly on television screens. Over time people became accustomed to the image and the emotional significance was lost to its spectacle. Moments such as grief, love, and violence are no longer fleeting, but are manufactured to serve the “capitalist order” (Marx cited in Jenkins, 2003:19)
The most common representations when two parties are at war are that one is civilised and the other is primitive. Said (cited in Jenkins 2003:19) suggests that this is due to the theory of Orientalism, which implied that Eastern cultures were unprogressive compared to Western cultures, allowing many to form the conclusion that the West were better and smarter than the East (Jenkins 2003:19). These representations have unfortunately progressed over time and still to this day, are being inadvertently or deliberately projected by the media in stories about war and terrorism. This idea is implied in Haneke’s movie, where Majid’s primitive acts of violence (slicing his own throat), are compared to George’s more civilised approach of reasoning and detachment. In the movie, the conflict between George and Majid was juxtaposed with the media representation of what was happening in Iraq to show that this concept of Orientalism is deeply embedded into the human psyche. If the media helps to sustain the ‘us vs. them’ representation, it is only due to the fact that these ideas were already there, and successive throughout history. Jenkins (2003:143) suggests that the reason behind people being misled by the media to have these views of the world, is due to people forgetting that the media is constructed of ordinary people doing their everyday jobs, which leaves room for prejudices. People forget that literally, there is more to the story than meets the eye.
If in fact, as Baudrillard (2002:5) and Lefebvre (2000:159) suggest, terrorism is there “hidden” in people’s thoughts and everyday ideas, the problem of terrorism does not lie only within the system but humanity overall. It then can be said that the continuation of terrorism is due to modernity, as it is modernity’s technology that gives people with power, the right to govern their opinion as common knowledge. Whether it is the media in Iraq or the media in the US, representations are the basis in the formation of opinions and knowledge (Jenkins 2003:150). There is truth to the saying that a picture does say a thousand words and people do believe in what they see, and because of this, Baudrillard’s (1994:2) theory of representation and Debord’s (1994:13) theory of spectacle remains supreme to that of a democratic existence. Lefebvre (2000:161) suggests that democracy is the idea that freedom of speech is open to all, but because that is not the case, terrorism is its result, which makes terrorism something that is part of the everyday. In a capitalist society, where democracy is the norm, terrorism seeks to uphold the democratic rights of people that have not been represented or perhaps even forgotten by a class saturated with consumer culture, spectacle and commodity. So therefore, like the weather, like day to day crime, like a person demonstrating their freedom of speech, terrorism is nothing extraordinary but an ordinary concept of the everyday.
Given that modernity, media, representation and spectacle give rise to terrorism, what is the viable solution? Since terrorism is something that has been constant throughout the ages (O’Sullivan 1986:26), violence against violence, as was done in the past, and that has been recently prescribed by the US, seems to be an outdated method. In the midst of globalisation, the ‘us vs. them’ mentality cannot continue because the basic issue of terrorism, of war, is that it is people against people; and people who are stripped of their ideologies, religions and races, bare naked, are all equal. Gandhi (citied in O’Sullivan 1986:183) goes one step further as he suggests that man disembodied, is equal in essence. Surely if human intelligence has evolved so far as to discover life on Mars, a solution to this earthly problem is possible.
In his book, Simulacra and Simulation (1994), Baudrillard suggests that the rise of global media will result in reality being lost to its representation, meaning nothing will be real anymore. Perhaps this is the case for most of the world saturated in technology, but for the people in places like Africa - who can barely afford food, let alone modern technology - their suffering is very real. Reality exists in the minds and emotions of people, and in saying this perhaps the solution is to look past the representations and remember the real. Lewis (2005:249) argues that overall it is a war of meanings and the inability to understand one another. If this is the case, the solution lies within the individual to question reality (as invited to in movies like Hidden), and be open minded to the fact that everyone is different. In the end it is down to the matters of discipline, thought and practice, and the balancing of these over time.
.
References
Baudrillard J (1994) Simulacra and Simulation USA: Ann Arbor The University of Michigan Press
Baudrillard, J (2002) 'The Spirit of Terrorism' The Spirit of Terrorism and Requiem for the Two Towers. London and New York: Verso. pp 1-34
Debord, G (1994) Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.
Freedman, L Zelic (1983) Perspectives on Terrorism , Wilmington, Del Scholarly
Resources, Inc.
Hozic, A (1990) 'The Inverted World of Spectacle: Social and Political Responses to Terrorism' Orr, J & Klaic, D. Terrorism and the Modern Drama. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp 64-81
Jenkins P (2003) Images of Terror: What We Can and Can't Know About Terrorism NewYork: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kellner D, (2003) Media spectacle London: Routledge – Taylor and Francis Group
Laqueur, W (1977) 'Terrorism. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Lefebvre, H (2000) 'Terrorism and Everyday Life', Everyday Life in the Modern World
London: Athlone Press, pp.143-193.
Lewis, J (2005) Language Wars: The role of the media and culture in global terror and political violence. London: Pluto Press
Nacos L B, (2002) Mass mediated Terrorism – The Central role of the media in terrorism and counterterrorism. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
O’Sullivan, N (1986) Terrorism, Ideology and Revolution Great Britain: Wheatsheaf Books, Harvester Press
Paletz L David & Schmid P. Alex, (1992) Terrorism and the Media, USA: Sage Publications
Films
Hidden (2005) Directed Michael Haneke, France
Websites
Beary K (June 30, 2003) Battle of Algiers, viewed: Saturday 20th May 2006.
Really Long Link
Thom F (2005) Plume Noire, Hidden: Review, viewed: Saturday 20th May 2006.
Really Long Link )
The idea that terrorism came out of nowhere to engulf the lives of people is a narrative that has been constructed by the media to sensationalise terrorism as a spectacle. Unbeknown to many people who use the media as a reference to what goes on in real life, terrorism was something that was already actively present. In fact, Laqueur (1977:220) suggests that “terrorism is believed to appear wherever people have genuine legitimate grievances,” and goes on to say that “…one nation’s terrorism is another people’s national liberation” (1997:219), suggesting that terrorism has been a product of the system, as a resistance, rather than a foreign invader. This point is reinforced by O’Sullivan (1986:27), who suggests that terror was a concept of the French Revolution, which in this day and age, is seen as an event that caused the liberation of people.
Baudrillard (2002:9) explains that terrorism is the direct result of hegemony by a capitalist society. In other words, due to the globalisation of consumer culture, politics and the bureaucratic society, terrorism stands as a form of resistance against the dominance of one system, which in this case is capitalism. In this bureaucratic society, it is not only the Islamic fundamentalists, the IRA, and other such terrorist groups that act as resistance but it is also ordinary people, living their day to day lives. Lefebvre (2000:147) illustrates this point when he suggests that people become terrorists themselves in a society that is bound by rules and regulations; “each member is a terrorist because he wants to be in power (if only briefly)” (Lefebvre 2000:147). Culture jammers, graffiti artists, people who go against ideologies represented in the media, can in turn become “terrorists” as well, and in doing so demonstrate the everydayness of terrorism.
When examining a bureaucratic society, the concept of terrorism being something of the everyday can be seen using Lefebvre’s (2000:141) theory of the “terrorist society”. The meaning of a terrorist society is the idea that in a capitalist system, people have been forced to work under rules and regulations that have been set by people’s desires, which is mostly driven by consumer culture and its commodification (Lefebvre 2000:142). In today’s age, the terrorist society can be seen through its emphasis on the commodity, which plays a major factor in defining society, people’s identity and other characteristics of the everyday. According to Lefebvre (2000:187), society’s expectations of people to study, graduate, be employed, buy a house etc, is a latent act of terrorism. Since the alternative to this social integration is negatively represented, most people are forced to follow what is popular, which as Lefebvre (2000:187) states is a definite characteristic of a terrorist society.
So if terrorism already exists in society on a day to day basis, media assists in making the concept of terrorism extraordinary by using its spectacle as a perverse form of entertainment. As Hozic (1990:78) suggests “the only thing which could have been done, once the terrorism was already there, was to present it in such a way that it started working for and not against society.” People did not seek to watch it, but it was sought to be watched and in turn grew, replicated by the newspapers, television programs and other forms of media, to be consumed by society like any other product. “The more people are killed in bomb attacks or passengers caught in a hijacked plane, the stronger the attention of the media and the interest of the public” (Paletz and Schmid, 1992:46). Through selective filming and editing, the media has represented the reality of terrorism, like a film or a drama series, which has provoked audiences to “tune in” daily to their national news programs. Kellner (2003:1) also makes this point saying that “social and political conflicts are increasingly played out on the screens of media as sensational murder cases, terrorist bombings, celebrity and political sex scandals, and the explosive violence of everyday life.”
The reason behind terrorism’s everydayness can also be traced back to Baudrillard’s (1994:21) theory that reality itself is constructed by the media. The terrorist bombings in New York and London were real in the sense that they did happen, but unreal in the sense that they were a simulation of what had already been depicted through Hollywood productions. In relation to the September 11th bombings, Nacos (2002:35) reiterates this point: “Whether they realised it or not, and many did not, most people, even eye-witnesses at the disaster scenes were far from sure whether movies had turned into life, or whether life was now a movie”. Baudrillard (1994:89) argues further, saying that society itself is a representation that is being simulated as reality. This can be seen through society’s expectations of individuals to promote consumerism and material wealth in their lives. Using reality shows and ‘current affairs’ programs, to name a few, reality is constructed by what is shown and then successively recreated in real life to simulate the very representation first shown. This is seen through fashion, where the media relays a certain style that is deemed to be fashionable, which in turn encourages people to buy into the latest trends, constructing a reality that had already been predetermined.
Since reality is merely a representation, the spectacle that it depicts can then be commodified. As Kellner (2003:3) suggests, “the structural shift to a society of the spectacle involves a commodification of previously non-colonised sectors of social life and the extension of bureaucratic control to the realms of leisure, desire and everyday life.” An example of this can be seen through the recent events at the Beaconsfield mine.
It could be said that the importance of this event was not due to two men being trapped in a mine, but by the vast amount of media attention it received through the representation of its spectacle. The question is, did people really care about the miners, or was it the drama of the situation that people had been conditioned to, over the years of media culture that generated the concern? In relation to terrorism, the same could be said that if terrorism was not sensationalised by the media, it would not be considered as something extraordinary. A newspaper editor interviewed by Paletz and Schimd (1992:122) reinforces this point as he says “Obviously if the media do not speak of terrorism it will not have any social relevance.”
The extent of the public’s attention towards spectacles of human suffering is something that is highly disturbing. Going back to the example of the Beaconsfield miners, a few days after their rescue, they were subjected to the power of the media, where they had to assist in answering questions about their ordeal and other invasions of their privacy. These acts of voyeurism by the media can also be considered when looking at victims of terrorism. Paletz and Schmid (1992:216) suggest that the attention the victims bring, results in the “extra normality of terrorism”, which as Lefebvre (2000:159) would argue, is a characteristic of the terrorist society. The act of pursuing a story that demands the invasion of the victim’s privacy or, in the case of the miners, the expectation of an immediate interview, is itself an act of terrorism.
Using Timothy McVeigh as an example, Nacos (2002:13) critiques the post modern capitalist human condition that seeks entertainment through tragedy. He told an interviewer, “I don’t think there is any doubt the Oklahoma City blast was heard around the world.” McVeigh also revealed that he selected the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City for his attack because it had “plenty of open space around it, to allow for the best possible news photos and television footage”(Nacos, 2002:12). In this case it is not only the bombing itself which is terrifying, but the fact that it was set up to meet the demands of the media in satisfying people’s curiosities. It is not that people want to see these events unfold, but it is the way the capitalist system has been created. It satisfies the ‘need to know’, or in more liberal terms, ‘the right to know,’ by demanding media’s attention on the very essence of humanity that was once considered sacred. Unfortunately, in the capitalist culture of the everyday, the spectacle of tragedy, death and sorrow become exchangeable commodities.
The everyday violence and terror that people have become accustomed to through the media has in turn resulted in what Freedman (1983:187) describes as an immunisation of the masses. The immunisation effect manifests itself in three ways. The first derives from continuous media coverage of violence in general and terror-violence in particular; its effect is to heighten the public's level of tolerance and acceptance of violence and terror-violence as a fact of life… thus, as moral opposition is reduced, immunization to the phenomenon increases. (Freedman, 1983:187) This problem once again comments on the post modern capitalist human condition, as it means that the human psyche is not just being conditioned to desensitise itself against the violence presented, but in some cases, seeks for more. The media having invested so much time into terrorism and counter-terrorism have helped in blurring the lines between entertainment and information. Most people either demand more attention towards terrorism or are unconcerned enough to change the channel to a more entertaining program.
It is perhaps, this very complacency within a capitalist society that terrorism is trying to comment on. Other than it being a declaration of war, perhaps the act of literally ‘dropping a bomb’ on America, was an act to awaken people to the horror of real violence and destruction as opposed to the images presented through the media. As Baudrillard (2002:5) suggests, it was due to America being a superpower that this incident occurred. Among other reasons, America was targeted because they, being the superpower were the embodiment of capitalism and the instigator of cultural imperialism. In a mass mediated society, where money seems more valuable than human life, a wake up call was in order. Having said this though, what the terrorists did cannot be justified. Violence and the taking of another’s life in most forms, is immoral and unjustified. Terrorism cannot be excused, and equally nor can its counterpart, counter-terrorism. In Baudrillard’s (2002:9) words, it is “terror against terror”.
The French movie Hidden (2005) directed by Michael Haneke, attempts to comment on these very issues of the media, its spectacle and voyeurism. As Thom (2005) implies, Hidden commented on France’s shameful history at the Battle of Algiers, which Beary (2003) considers is like a model of what is happening with the American invasion of Iraq. The movie starts off with George, a French man being terrorised through surveillance footage of his life by somebody unknown to him. As the film continues, George is led to believe that Majid, a person whom he had victimised in his childhood due to his ethnicity, is the culprit behind the video tapes. Majid, who is innocent, is confronted by George, who even though was guilty of a crime far worse than what was happening to him, lashed out at Majid with unsympathetic threats. In the end, Majid who was deeply affected by George’s actions in his childhood and thereafter slices his own throat in front of George. George is initially shocked, but as the movie concludes, is unmoved in his attitude that he did nothing wrong.
On a more general perspective, the character George could be considered as the personification of the western capitalistic attitude, whilst Majid stood as the culture, or perhaps the race, that is yet repressed by capitalism’s influence. The theme of ‘being civilised’ runs throughout the movie, with George always considering himself to be civil and civilised as opposed to Majid who was barbaric enough to cut his own throat. Half-way through the movie, there is scene dedicated to a news report on America’s invasion of Iraq, where the allied nations, like Italy and Britain, were talking about working under the same set of rules. Civilised people as it would seem, worked under rules and regulations, whilst the people resisting against the system, such as terrorists, worked under more chaotic conditions, instilling fear through uncivilised acts of bombing and violence. The most disturbing thing about this ‘civility’ as Haneke tries to convey, is that being civil, also suggests an absence of emotion and concern.
It is these ideas that Freedman (1983:187) suggests when he refers to the audience being immunised. The media scene in Hidden implies that the rules and regulations set by the ‘civilised’ allied nations, disengages them from the real concept of war, which is death, suffering and destruction. It is the same with George watching the news report or when he watches a surveillance video of Majid crying after being threatened by him. His civility, or the system that has given him this attitude, has compromised him of his emotion, sensitivity and perhaps even his morality. Jenkins (2003:19) suggests that this lack of concern is due to capitalism’s ability to exploit everything, even the human condition. This means that the essence of humanity, once conditional, is now replicated through representation resulting in the loss of its meaning and effect over time. An example of this is seen when the media replayed the twin towers’ destruction repeatedly on television screens. Over time people became accustomed to the image and the emotional significance was lost to its spectacle. Moments such as grief, love, and violence are no longer fleeting, but are manufactured to serve the “capitalist order” (Marx cited in Jenkins, 2003:19)
The most common representations when two parties are at war are that one is civilised and the other is primitive. Said (cited in Jenkins 2003:19) suggests that this is due to the theory of Orientalism, which implied that Eastern cultures were unprogressive compared to Western cultures, allowing many to form the conclusion that the West were better and smarter than the East (Jenkins 2003:19). These representations have unfortunately progressed over time and still to this day, are being inadvertently or deliberately projected by the media in stories about war and terrorism. This idea is implied in Haneke’s movie, where Majid’s primitive acts of violence (slicing his own throat), are compared to George’s more civilised approach of reasoning and detachment. In the movie, the conflict between George and Majid was juxtaposed with the media representation of what was happening in Iraq to show that this concept of Orientalism is deeply embedded into the human psyche. If the media helps to sustain the ‘us vs. them’ representation, it is only due to the fact that these ideas were already there, and successive throughout history. Jenkins (2003:143) suggests that the reason behind people being misled by the media to have these views of the world, is due to people forgetting that the media is constructed of ordinary people doing their everyday jobs, which leaves room for prejudices. People forget that literally, there is more to the story than meets the eye.
If in fact, as Baudrillard (2002:5) and Lefebvre (2000:159) suggest, terrorism is there “hidden” in people’s thoughts and everyday ideas, the problem of terrorism does not lie only within the system but humanity overall. It then can be said that the continuation of terrorism is due to modernity, as it is modernity’s technology that gives people with power, the right to govern their opinion as common knowledge. Whether it is the media in Iraq or the media in the US, representations are the basis in the formation of opinions and knowledge (Jenkins 2003:150). There is truth to the saying that a picture does say a thousand words and people do believe in what they see, and because of this, Baudrillard’s (1994:2) theory of representation and Debord’s (1994:13) theory of spectacle remains supreme to that of a democratic existence. Lefebvre (2000:161) suggests that democracy is the idea that freedom of speech is open to all, but because that is not the case, terrorism is its result, which makes terrorism something that is part of the everyday. In a capitalist society, where democracy is the norm, terrorism seeks to uphold the democratic rights of people that have not been represented or perhaps even forgotten by a class saturated with consumer culture, spectacle and commodity. So therefore, like the weather, like day to day crime, like a person demonstrating their freedom of speech, terrorism is nothing extraordinary but an ordinary concept of the everyday.
Given that modernity, media, representation and spectacle give rise to terrorism, what is the viable solution? Since terrorism is something that has been constant throughout the ages (O’Sullivan 1986:26), violence against violence, as was done in the past, and that has been recently prescribed by the US, seems to be an outdated method. In the midst of globalisation, the ‘us vs. them’ mentality cannot continue because the basic issue of terrorism, of war, is that it is people against people; and people who are stripped of their ideologies, religions and races, bare naked, are all equal. Gandhi (citied in O’Sullivan 1986:183) goes one step further as he suggests that man disembodied, is equal in essence. Surely if human intelligence has evolved so far as to discover life on Mars, a solution to this earthly problem is possible.
In his book, Simulacra and Simulation (1994), Baudrillard suggests that the rise of global media will result in reality being lost to its representation, meaning nothing will be real anymore. Perhaps this is the case for most of the world saturated in technology, but for the people in places like Africa - who can barely afford food, let alone modern technology - their suffering is very real. Reality exists in the minds and emotions of people, and in saying this perhaps the solution is to look past the representations and remember the real. Lewis (2005:249) argues that overall it is a war of meanings and the inability to understand one another. If this is the case, the solution lies within the individual to question reality (as invited to in movies like Hidden), and be open minded to the fact that everyone is different. In the end it is down to the matters of discipline, thought and practice, and the balancing of these over time.
.
References
Baudrillard J (1994) Simulacra and Simulation USA: Ann Arbor The University of Michigan Press
Baudrillard, J (2002) 'The Spirit of Terrorism' The Spirit of Terrorism and Requiem for the Two Towers. London and New York: Verso. pp 1-34
Debord, G (1994) Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.
Freedman, L Zelic (1983) Perspectives on Terrorism , Wilmington, Del Scholarly
Resources, Inc.
Hozic, A (1990) 'The Inverted World of Spectacle: Social and Political Responses to Terrorism' Orr, J & Klaic, D. Terrorism and the Modern Drama. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp 64-81
Jenkins P (2003) Images of Terror: What We Can and Can't Know About Terrorism NewYork: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kellner D, (2003) Media spectacle London: Routledge – Taylor and Francis Group
Laqueur, W (1977) 'Terrorism. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Lefebvre, H (2000) 'Terrorism and Everyday Life', Everyday Life in the Modern World
London: Athlone Press, pp.143-193.
Lewis, J (2005) Language Wars: The role of the media and culture in global terror and political violence. London: Pluto Press
Nacos L B, (2002) Mass mediated Terrorism – The Central role of the media in terrorism and counterterrorism. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
O’Sullivan, N (1986) Terrorism, Ideology and Revolution Great Britain: Wheatsheaf Books, Harvester Press
Paletz L David & Schmid P. Alex, (1992) Terrorism and the Media, USA: Sage Publications
Films
Hidden (2005) Directed Michael Haneke, France
Websites
Beary K (June 30, 2003) Battle of Algiers, viewed: Saturday 20th May 2006.
Really Long Link
Thom F (2005) Plume Noire, Hidden: Review, viewed: Saturday 20th May 2006.
Really Long Link )
| 97 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
World Art
Sydney Diary
Personals
Video Games
Brisbane Diarystar
Zoo Parent
I don't think you can equate terrorism with other forms of social protest like graffiti. A graffiti artist is protesting against a system, however they probably only want to alter it a little, not completely destroy it, and certainly would not resort to phyisical violence to achieve their ends. It's different ends of a scale and I think the vocabulary should reflect that and it's useful that it does so..