Writing The War On Terror: Language, Politics And Counter-Terrorism by Richard Jackson
A Book Review By Gola Traub
06 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org
Writing The War On Terror: Language, Politics And Counter-Terrorism by Richard Jackson, Manchester University Press: 2005
A prominent feature of the War on Terror is the set of vivacious terms and phrases coined and deployed by the US political elites. In this book Richard Jackson uses discourse analysis to show how these expressions are used to securitize - to describe, interpret and prioritize a potential danger or provocation as an existential threat.
The author pivots his work on the veteran concept of realism and two of its challengers - postmodernism theory and constructivist theory, respectively. Unquestionably, realism speaks pessimistically of an international anarchical political landscape characterized by a never-ending “zero sum” struggle amongst states for power and security. Realists assume that all states, democratic or otherwise, would find it nearly impossible to co-exist because of the never-ending, competitive self-interest Darwinian campaign in which they must engage. Given this dangerous environment, states must concentrate on enhancing their power. Otherwise, they will not survive. There can be no compromise or negotiation. Alarming as it is, Jackson evinces that America’s political class shares similar sentiments about non-state actors (i.e., al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups).
At its heart, postmodernism posits that one’s political reality is a creation of one’s mindset. Given this premise, postmodernism calls on us to expunge our narrow-old-fashioned thinking, and create within ourselves a new way of thinking. Section after section, Jackson assumes this postmodernist stance and gingerly but shrewdly challenges all to discard old-thinking and think anew.
An abiding axiom of constructivism is that language, in all its forms, can be used by “the powers that be” to construct a subjective actuality that can ably be championed and marketed to many as an objective reality. This concept of fabricating “reality” permeates and underpins the entire book.
The author uses a constructivist theorist lens as a mode of narration to demonstrate how the views and potential actions of a relatively few Muslims are being presented as posing an existential threat to America – a peril that demands “immediate” extraordinary measures. Undoubtedly, Jackson’s well-woven plot shows the theory of securitization (the process of deliberately tagging a security label to an issue so that it constitutes a national threat) at its best.
A cardinal thesis of Jackson’s work is the charge that the lingo employed in the fight against terrorism is not a natural-everyday-language. According to him, the discourse of fear is well thought-out, designed and executed to shield the elites from criticism, shape public opinion, direct foreign policy, keep politicians from addressing tough issues, curtail dissent, grossly demonize those that are singled out as terrorists, force everyone to take sides, manufacture consent and give politicians the “legitimate” option of pursuing a pre-emptive war (pp. 2; 69; 120).
Jackson contents that the key strength of this discourse is its ability to do away with rival interpretations, make people feel dependent on government for their security, firmly construct the “other” as evil and inhuman and seek out the “enemy within” (pp. 60-61;101; 114;122). The success of the process can be measured by the degree to which different viewpoints and approaches are pushed aside without much debate or opposition and by the extent to which it is embraced and used casually by opposition politicians, journalists, civil society and social institutions. That is to say the proof of acceptance by the audience (the general public) is in how institutionalized and normalized it has become in national institutions and national culture (p. 159). Jackson argues further that the rhetoric of fear impedes rather than advances the effort to secure a political solution (p.4).
The endeavour entails the construction of the view that the war on terror is necessary and just, and that the elites are being responsible and measured in their response to the existential threats being posed by “evildoers” who hate Western democracy and the American way of life. To cement the climate of fear, the speech act (political discourse) is buttressed by symbolic acts. For instance, the US Vice President is hidden in a secure bunker whenever a “credible” threat is announced. This is calculated to signal to Americans the gravity of the problem and to make clear the determination of the authorities to insure the continuity of government should the President be killed or become incapacitated. These catalysts (language and actions) are mutually dependent, reinforcing each other, with language giving meaning to actions - working together to create and maintain American hegemony, even if this aspect is somewhat obscured or simply omitted (pp. 20; 52; 102; 113). Jackson suggests that this construction of fear has given rise to a country existing in a condition of “ontological hysteria” – awaiting the next horrific incident (pp. 102; 113; 118).
He asserts that constructing “reality” is problematic in a democracy like America, for it lends itself to sweeping assumptions that undermine and damage the exact institutions and values that the country is supposedly striving to protect (pp. 183-184; Jackson).
In our view, much of what Jackson conveys is nothing new, for there has always been some form of identity construction of the enemy and some form of securitization that enabled states to take extraordinary measures in the name of security. Indeed, a strict and pugnacious constructivist would probably insist that like the consternation between the West and the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, terrorism is a social construction, for during the Cold War construction of the “other” was prevalent just as it is today. President Regan’s highly acclaimed 1993 “Evil Empire” speech is a good example (pp.46; 68; 138; 156).
A similar construction was made during World War II when Japan was accused of being “cruel” and “treacherous” - and when Japanese Americans were branded the “enemy within”. This demonization was used to inflame American nationalist feelings and induce civilian consent and support for the war. (pp.42-43; 71; 114).
Jackson gets the historical perspectives right. Moreover, his language, style and arguments are lively and lucid, but given his withering criticism of American power and leadership, this well perused, ably written book comes across as anti-American. This, in our view, is a weakness, for it makes Jackson appear utterly biased and unrealistic.
Gola Traub is a senior high school social science teacher with a MA in Education from Boston University, a MA in International Maritime Policy from Greenwich University (London), and a recent International Relations graduate student of the University of Westminster (London). Email : [email protected]
.
Comments are moderated