|
There is an old journalism adage stating that “if it bleeds, it reads”. In other words, the more violent the story, the more attention it will get and the more money the media outlet will make. This makes stories of terrorism very profitable. The big question, however, is which act of violence can actually qualify as terrorism. On January 6, 2021, a group of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, inciting violence and chaos, seemingly fitting that definition and yet, a debate on whether that act was terrorism or insurgence arouse (Williams, 2021). This controversial definition of the event illuminates a number of issues that could be seen through the cultural analysis lens. The reports of this event, along with other research on the narrative of terrorism, shows that “terrorist” is a social construct, pushed by the government and reinforced through media. The exploration of the definitions of terrorism and the role of ideology, as well as the relationship between politics and media will show how the “terrorist threat” is constructed and proliferated. Terrorism is a socially and politically constructed term. In a general sense, what it means is an act of violence challenging the existing norms of governing society (Holbrook & Horgan, 2019). The Vox article presents the perspective that the debate about whether the events on January 6, 2021, were acts of terrorism or insurrection arouse from the issue of too many definitions and depends on which one of all those a person adopts. On one hand, terrorism could be considered a tactic (Williams, 2021). This, however, fails to account for the numerous complexities of the nature of the perpetrator, making the definition very broad and prone to misinterpretation. In order to decrease the uncertainty this term brings, people tend to turn to stereotypes as a way to explain a phenomenon. As the media portrays terrorist as predominately Arabs and Muslim, that is also an association many viewers have. It is a stereotype that is reinforced by the framing of violent acts by the aforementioned groups and Caucasians. While violence incited by Arabs and Muslims are portrayed as a cultural proclivity, violence by white people is relayed as singular acts motivated by internal problems (Kumar, 2017). Bringing this back to the Vox article, the events in Washington D.C., while fitting the textbook definition of terrorism, didn’t fit the cultural definition. The perpetrators were mostly white people, which pushed people and media to reconsider the definition of the event. Had the perpetrators been of unknown race and ethnicity or people of color, the perception would have probably been different as the example of the 1995 Oklahoma bombing shows (Kumar, 2017). The debate on whether an act is terrorism or not gets more complicated when one considers the term as politicians and pundits do: a pejorative term, applied to “the actions of individuals and groups they see as opponents and enemies” (Williams, 2021). Under this definition the people labeled as terrorists depend on the political agenda. This is easily seen throughout history – whenever a group’s (a minority) interests are perceived as contrary to the political agenda of the government, as seen through the treatment Native Americans, to African American slaves, Chinese workers, Japanese people during WWII and Arabs and Muslims after 9/11, the politicians tend to turn the members of those groups into sub-human savages, a threat to the American way of life (Kumar, 2017). One of the strategies to do this is through presenting any violent action those groups take as a manifestation of the ideologies they follow (Holbrook & Horgan, 2019). This way the actors of violence are grouped together with the rest of the members of the group they belong to, painting the whole community in the negative light of the individual action. The enemy in this case becomes the general ideology, dehumanizing the people following it, no matter if they are in fact violent or not. A fitting example for this is the way Arabs and Muslims are depicted. Even though the research shows that less than one person per a million Muslims is actually involved in terrorism, the whole community gets painted in a negative light – as violent perpetrators (Kumar, 2017). This then allows politicians to further their agenda in Asia and the Middle East, which leads to the continued narrative of the “war on terror”. It helps them pass policies, make changes within U.S. and gives them the ability to maintain the global hegemony of the country (Kumar, 2017). The depiction of Arabs and Muslims as violent perpetrators is also furthered by the connection between media, Hollywood and U.S. politics. Media helps shape society’s norms, attitudes and believes. This could be seen through a number of theories and examples, but a very fitting one could be cultivation theory (Serdouk, 2021). The theory by Signorielly and Gerbner states that the media consumed influences the perception have about the world around them. In this case, the continuous depiction of terrorist acts as actions of Arabs and Muslims, makes people perceive those communities as hostile (Serdouk, 2021). Further, the frequency of using that association creates a perception that those are common events that affect a vast number of people. In reality, however, data shows that there are much deadlier and far-reaching problems (like heart disease, diabetes, suicide) than terrorism, but those are not nearly as thoroughly addressed as the possibility of terrorism is (Kumar, 2017). This points to the incongruency of exigency and actions, showing that terrorism is a term that was constructed with a specific purpose, which isn’t centered to safety, but the furthering of political agendas. While the definitions of terrorism are not constrained to racial or ethnical groups, the content media publishes associate terrorism with Arabs and Islam (Serdouk, 2021). This practice got emphasized after the events of 9/11. In the attempt to sell the government actions in the Middle East to the public, the Bush administration met with Hollywood executives to establish the narrative of who terrorists are and what needs to be done about them (Serdouk, 2021), contributing to the “othering” and dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims (Kumar, 2017). Because of the far reach media of this sort has, they have the power to construct and amplify the negative attitudes towards what is perceived to be components of the terrorist act, and that makes them a valuable ally for the government (Serdouk, 2021). The strong relationship between Hollywood and government branches is supported through favorable depiction of the American government in media for the benefit of getting inside information about events from said agencies. This is, however, also a dangerous tendency as it reinforces harmful attitudes as seen by the response to movies like Zero Dark Thirty (Kumar, 2017). Comments by viewers of the movie illuminate the power the product has in influencing the audience. Zero Dark Thirty inspired desire to harm Arabs and Muslims (Kumar, 2017), while movies like Argo depict violence by Americans (military) against people of the aforementioned communities not only permissible, but also desirable (Serdouk, 2021). This then leads to more polarized attitudes and the dehumanization of a big community, fostering hostility and reinforcing stereotyping. This also makes it harder for people to perceive violent act as ones of terrorism if they are not perpetrated my Arabs and Muslims, blurring the lines about what terrorism is, and proving that the term is a social construct related to a particular population. The Vox article concludes with the idea that whether the storming of the Capitol was terrorism or not would depend on the definitions the viewers buy into. The perpetrators belong to the majority (Caucasians), which allows for a more diverse cultural view on the event. The stereotypical terroristic act, as constructed by media and politics, is one conducted by Arabs and Muslims, which allows for the furthering of the political agenda of the government. The fact that the perpetrators in this case do not fit the “mythical norm” of a terrorist brings a debate about definitions. If the public adopts the textbook one, then it was clearly a terroristic act, but if they go with the interpretation provided by politicians and media, it will depend on who they support. References: Holbrook, D., & Horgan, J. (2019). Terrorism and ideology: Cracking the nut. Perspectives on Terrorism, 13(6), 2-15, doi:10.2307/26853737. Kumar, D. (2017) Constructing the Terrorist Threat [Motion Picture]. United States: Media Education Foundation. Serdouk, A. (2021). Hollywood, American politics, and terrorism: When art turns into a political tool. Arab Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 26-37, doi:10.13169/arabstudquar.43.1.0026. Article Analyzed: Williams, J. (2021, January 7). Was the U.S. Capitol attack "domestic terrorism"?, Vox, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22219233/us-capitol-attack-domestic-terrorism-definition.
1 Comment
My roommate and I started watching Sex and the City this week and we just finished the first season. It is a very popular show that premiered in 1998 and concluded with two movies in 2008 and 2010. Neither of us had watched more than a couple of episodes before, so we decided it can be a fun bonding activity. The show follows the female lead – Carrie – who is a New York journalist writing about sex and relationships. A typical episode has her exploring an article idea of some kind while going to fabulous parties, talking with her girlfriends (Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha) and analyzing her encounters with her love interest – Mr. Big. 
In fact, Mr. Big (Carrie’s love interest) is the personification of that norm. He is a successful, rich businessman (who is also white, heterosexual, Christian and able-bodied). Throughout the show there is also the running idea that he is out of Carrie’s league. This further supports the dominant social hierarchy – the mythical norm is at the top and everybody who are not a representation of that are ranked based on how many of the desired characteristics they have. As Carrie is a woman and someone not as rich (as evidenced by her admitting to having some financial trouble), she places lower on the hierarchy. Further, a very noticeable aspect of the first season is the glaring lack of people of color or people with disability. As far as I noticed, there were no people who are members of those groups that had a significant enough appearance in the show (by that I mean either a speaking role or appearing for more than a couple of seconds in passing). Further, there seemed to be no representation of people who are not wealthy or good looking. Finally, the few times there were people of ethnicities other than American represented (notably, all of them also Caucasian, just with an accent), they were shown in a very stereotypical and overly sexualized way. That exclusion and underrepresentation of all groups of people not belonging to the idealized majority (white, wealthy and thin), reinforces the message about power structures based on race and socio-economic status.
  My roommates and I have a tradition - we pick a show to watch together and spend at least one evening per week enjoying it. This aligns closely with the uses and gratification theory which states that people consciously consume media for their own goals, processing its messages in ways that fit their lives. Further, the theory views media as a way to escape reality, get information and build interpersonal relationships. Those are the goals of our movie/TV show nights as well. They help us relax after a busy week, give us topics and information to analyze and discuss and provide a pleasant bonding activity. This week I will look into the latest show we started – Wanda Vision, which is currently streaming on Disney+. It is a show that is happening in the Marvel universe, as a continuation of Avengers: End Game. The general premise of the story is that Wanda and Vision are a couple with supernatural abilities that is trying to fit as a “normal” couple in their new suburban life. The different episodes are snapshots of their everyday life and the strange, yet very comical situations they have to face. It is a show that easily lends itself to a number of critical analysis lens, but today I’ll explore how reception analysis can be applied to it. Reception analysis incorporates a number of theories that maintain that the source of the meaning of a message is the audience and their interpretation of it. There is a very strong emphasis on the concept of active audience that applies their categories, social systems and experiences to the media content they consume. This is easily seen in Wanda Vision. As a part of the grander Avengers plotline, it’s a show that has an established fan base, an audience that has certain understandings and categories when it comes to the franchise. This means that the audience already has specific categories in mind when interpreting the show. Something that, in my case led to a number of times when we had to pause the show to either ask one another what is happening or to share our “Eureka” moments when we managed to figure out where the story was going. Those factors, combined with the clever agenda setting and framing of the episodes, make Wanda Vision an easily bingeable program. Because of the prior expectations the audience has when starting the show, the way the first few episodes were framed (as typical sitcoms from the 50s, the 60s and the 70s) seemed incongruent with the typical interpretation of the story line. This promoted further viewing to receive more information that could help us (the audience) fit the messages to our understandings. Then, once we got to episode four, the agenda-setting of the makers shone through – the previous episodes had very long credits in a style that was inconsistent with the content shown. While the show was old-fashioned, romantic comedy in black and white, the credits were very colorful, showing advanced technology and hinting of action. Once we got to episode four, however, we managed to figure out that the credits were a way to set up the reveal of the main storyline of the show – the creators crafted an ambiguous message through those credits, getting the audience to think about the general premise of what the Avengers are, while letting the viewers come to their own conclusions about what that message means. |
AuthorMaggie Zlatanova Archives
May 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed
Get in touch!I'd love to help you make your competition miserable. I look forward to talking to you - fill out the application or contact me directly.
|
|
Follow Me and My Work: |