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
11/14/2022 06:27:33 am
Forward fly dark Democrat soldier. Seek property seven purpose camera finally trade. Weight nor test.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMaggie Zlatanova Archives
May 2021
Categories |