Discourse on Terrorism

In the post-9/11 climate, the discourse on terrorism has undergone a major and noticeable change, for obvious reasons. In this changing conversation, music and the media has played a powerful role in following and in many ways, emboldening the ideas in the hearts and minds of the general public. Redundancy in both of these areas has aided in the creation of subconscious assumptions about the continuing war in the Middle East as well as terrorism throughout the world. The end result is the creation of habits of thought that are powerful and slow to change.

The political discourse generated by leading politicians and repeated continually by mainstream media has developed powerful, and now unquestioned indexical clusters. For example, the term ‘War on Terror’ is now used synonymously with the ‘War in Afghanistan’ and the ‘War in Iraq.’ At this point in the conversation, ‘terror’ and ‘Afghanistan’ and ‘Iraq’ are all one in the same. After the repeated association of these words in political speeches and the like, the connection is no longer questioned. The natural interpretation to this word association is that terror must come from Afghanistan and Iraq, or more generally, terror must come from the Middle East. If terror comes from the Middle East, then the next step in this logic is that terrorists are Middle Easterners. The consequence of this is that Middle Easterners become a sign for terror, or terrorism. The interpretant for this is a desire for increased national security, which leads to support of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the acceptance of the passage of the Patriot Act. The effects of this discourse can be examined in another way. Because those who were involved in the terrorism of 9/11 were Muslim extremists, perpetrators of acts of terrorism have been classified as Muslim extremists, a term that is easily shortened to Muslim. In this case, the sign is terrorism, and the object is Muslims. The interpretant then becomes a vocalized fear of all Muslims, or a belief that all terrorist acts are committed by Muslims.

This interpretant was verified recently in the aftermath following the horrific act of terrorism that occurred this summer in Norway. Although it is now known that the man behind the shooting was a far right-wing, Islam-hating nationalist, who was attempting to prevent Norway from moving further towards a multiculturalism, the initial finger-pointing was directed at jihadist terrorist organizations. The force of these ignorant accusations and of the readiness of the people to believe them demonstrates how far we as a people have gone in accepting the interpretant that all terrorist acts are committed by Muslims, when clearly they are not. The question then becomes why and how we ended up at this point in our discourse on terrorism.

The logic that concludes with the interpretant that all terrorists are Muslims operates at a sub-logical level. Obviously, if anyone were to step back for a moment and examine this objectively, many logical fallacies would be noticed, but that exactly is the issue. This discourse on terrorism is not generated at the logical level. Prejudices are not formed rationally. Music operates the same way, and that is why is can be such an effective tool in promoting a specific ideology or discourse on an issue.

Take the song “Wanted Dead or Alive,” performed by Bon Jovi at the “Concert for New York City” in October of 2001.

The words in the song mirror almost exactly the words utilized by the president in regards to the mission of the American troops in their search for those responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. Singing along to the popular, well-known Bon Jovi song at the benefit concert reinforces the president’s message, whether the participants realize it or not. This is not to condemn the words or the sentiments behind the words, but it is important to realize the connection and correlation of the two. Both the president’s words and the song “Wanted Dead or Alive” have the same object, and that is war against Afghanistan is justified in order to hunt down bin Laden and make him pay for what he did. The performance of the song reinforces the sentiment at the iconic and indexical level.

With this viewpoint in mind, songs that were popular during the years immediately following 9/11, such as “Have You Forgotten” by Darryl Worley and “Angry America” by Toby Keith, need to be reexamined. 

Truthfully, it is difficult to form a coherent argument to the latter. There is something about an American flag printed on a guitar that pulls too strongly at my patriotic heartstrings and side steps normal logic. But in a way, that is kind of the point. Music itself and the images presented in concerts, in movies, and on television are registered emotionally and iconically before there is even an opportunity to consider the ideology being portrayed. When an idea is presented in a certain context, it can be internalized without being critically examined because entertainment  exists in a specific framework. This can be seen in the popular comedy routine by Jeff Dunham titled “Achmed the Terrorist.”

The fact that the audience laughs at all of the horribly racists jokes made throughout the performance is telling of the extent to which our discourse on terrorism has accepted the identification of Muslims and Middle Easterners as terrorists.

Dissent and opposing views have been slow in coming, just as habits of thought are slow in changing. These videos created by the hip-hop artist Lowkey are some of the few that present an alternative picture of the American military efforts around the world. 
 

For me, it is hard to watch these two videos- videos which by the way, have been banned in Great Britain- without feeling uncomfortable and uneasy. It is difficult to stomach a view that so boldly questions the righteousness of the American Dream. The ideas presented do not coincide with the mainstream opinion on the war, and as a result, a disagreeable feeling of cognitive dissonance is overwhelmingly felt, at least in my opinion. I must admit to feeling a little biased in favor of the Toby Keith version of America; but that one-sided discourse has dominated much of my childhood, and I am loathe to question the American that I love and honestly do believe in, despite its flaws. Clearly, the discourse concerning the strength of America’s goals in the Middle East has caught me.

Whatever an individual’s opinions about the ‘War on Terror’ are, there is no denying that recognizing and identifying the forces at play in these types of situations are crucial to understanding and maintaining an openness to other ideas and opinions. This is incredibly difficult, however, because we register these ideas below the rational and logical level. I think most would agree that blocking the free flow of ideas in music and in the media is a means of coercing a set of beliefs onto a people. Music does an incredible job of reinforcing and adding subconscious support to an idea, and when the music is biased or one-sided, it becomes almost impossible to have a rational, open, and all-inclusive dialogue on any issue, terrorism, war, or peace.