catapult magazine

An article by Jean Baudrillard reprinted in the February 2002 edition of Harper’s Weekly from the Paris journal Le Mond suggests that terrorism is an antagonism of globalization within and against itself. Baudrillard calls this war against terror World War IV. Since globalization vanquished communism in World War III, it must fight itself now. Evidence that this war is not what most people say it is (East vs. West, Evil vs. Good, Terrorist vs. Non-Terrorist, Uncivilized vs. Civilized, Coward vs. Courageous, Culture vs. Culture) can be found in this letter written by Columbine High School student Eric Harris before he killed thirteen schoolmates. In his words (and spellings):

“it will be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke, and doom all mixed together, maybe we will even start a little rebelion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world. and god damnit do not blame anyone else besides me and V [Klebold] for this. don’t blame my family, they had no clue and there is nothing they could have done, they brought me up just fucking fine. don’t blame toy stores or any other stores for selling us ammo, bomb materials, or anything like that because it’s not their fault. i don’t want no fucking laws on buying fucking PVC pipes, we are kind of a select case here so don’t thing this will happen again. don’t blame the school, don’t fucking put cops all over the place. just because we went on a killing spree doesn’t mean everyone else will, and hardly ever do people bring bombs or guns to school anyway. the admin is doing a fine job as it is. i don’t know who will be left after we kill but damnit don’t change any policies just because of us. it would be stupid and if there is any way in this fucked up universe we can come back as ghosts or what the fuck ever we will haunt the life out of anyone who blames anyone besides me and V. if by some weird as shit luck me and V survive and escape we will move to some island somewhere or maybe mexico, new zelend, or some exotic place where americans can’t get us. if there isn’t such a place, then we will hijack a hell of a lot of bombs and crash a plane into NYC with us inside firing away as we go down. just something to cause more devistation.”

As Baudrillard suggests and Harris reiterates, this is a war of symbols. People are willing to die for the symbolic message this would send to a globalized culture that does not represent them. If one can’t escape America, one might turn America against itself, making it weak by turning its greatest strengths against its symbols of strength. News media becomes more than just a parasite attached to the real events of the war; it becomes the very weapon of symbolism that makes terrorism a productive means of attack etc. etc. etc. etc….

If you read this far, you’re a trooper. There’s much more to say about this way of thinking about recent events, yes?

I would guard against too much celebration regarding injury to postmodern thought. Pre-Nazi Germany was relatively postmodern in thought and the people were thrilled to have Hitler re-establish a sense of right and wrong. Authoritarian types are always quick to capitalize on a societal sense of collective vulnerability (France and Holland’s vote for the far right last month was largely due to the public’s fear of rising crime rates). Americans feel vulnerable and Bush’s administration is in the envyable position of being able to construe any and all its acts as being in the interest of public safety.

A good example of this was today’s headline “US foils plot to explode dirty bomb over America.” Read through the article and you find the plot was only in “discussion”, that no action had been taken. Certainly, someone who has a discussion of this sort is no friend of the USA, but we must all recognize this for the propaganda that it is. Some guys in Moscow were sitting around talking about exploding a radioactive bomb in the US. How many discussions like that do you think are going on right now? 100? 1000? 10000? Shall we arrest them all for talking about it? Freedom of speech? Does nobody care about that sort of thing anymore? Not when we feel unsafe. We only care about right and wrong, eh? We’re right and they’re wrong.

I much prefer postmodernism to a moral code based on nationalism.

Yup, me too.

Do you suppose though, that these two options, postmodernism or George Bush Nationalism might perhaps not be the only two viable philosophies out there?

If by postmodernism, we’re talking about relativistic thinking and by totalitarianism/nationalism we’re talking about a regime claiming to offer a more absolute truth (“If you’re not with us, you’re a terrorist”), it seems like both of these are dependent on the other. As Dan said, public opinion often swings the other way when tolerance leads to more crime or a police state’s narrow regulations lead to less freedom.

Thinking of a third way that does not rely on a kind of “ying yang” idea, however, might best be accomplished in connection with the “right to free speech” issue. Following Baudrillard’s suggestion that the act of terrorism is a form of speech, a demonstration of sorts that seeks to communicate a certain message, why is it that this act of terrorism is not covered by the right to free speech? President Bush seems to be saying that this particular speech act, terrorism, does not take precedence over the right for people to live and work in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and fly in airplanes. Bush’s preference for the ‘right to life in a free society’ over speech is evident in his justification for listening in and putting a stop to conversations that may lead to further infringements upon the rights of free citizens of the U.S. and the world. But what kind of free society does not allow certain disgruntled people to show their disapproval for “the system”?

In response to BBC’s suggestion that 9-11 makes postmodernism look bad, I think such acts really call the whole idea of democracy into question.

Yes, that too. Or at least call into question the corporate imperialist way that we in this country are doing business.

To get back to the original question, does Columbine constitute a terrorist act? Maybe we could ask whether, in light of its unclear message, it consititutes an effective terrorist act. Of course, if the point of a terrorist act is to induce terror, the more unclear the message and unpredictable the act, the more effective.

I think the article I referred to redefines terrorism as something necessary for people(s) who don’t have the means to resist a large force (this would be one way of distinguishing between terrorism and the hostile foreign policies of the U.S.; the U.S. can distinguish itself from terrorism because it has an organized military and governmental force).

When Palestinians can’t call up an armed force to counter Israel’s army, they must resort to other measures that might make Israel think twice about its actions. In a similar way, I think a case can be made that the Columbine massacre and other acts like it also arise from this kind of desperation. Since “kids” have little or no means of expressing dissenting views against the system without falling into the system, they will use the system against itself, just as the terrorists of 9-11 did.

I’ve been thinking about the power of getting one’s message across, especially with the anti-war protests going on and the anti-SUV campaign (car dealerships have to beef up security because people are vandalizing—even setting on fire—brand new SUV’s in the lots to send their message). Perhaps we shouldn’t put the Columbine kids in with the terrorists. Though they share similar methods, their motives are different, perhaps.

Though the Columbine kids didn’t have much of an agenda, the effect on the public was the same as if they had, don’t you think? If two kids from Columbine had flown the planes into the world trade center, we would be calling it terrorism, or no?

That’s a good question. We probably wouldn’t call it terrorism. In fact, a fifteen-year-old flew a plane into a building in Tampa a month or two after the Sept. 11 attacks and the media called it a suicide.

The way I’m thinking about this topic now has changed from when it started. Though much of the world (including many in the U.S.) might agree with terrorists that the U.S. is to blame for globalization, much of the world might choose different tactics to fight globalization or U.S. dominance (France and Germany’s action in the U.N., for example) than those methods used by terrorists. So, what I’m seeing is that terrorism seems less and less to be an ideology or type of person, and seems to me more a method, a method which seems in this culture (to some) to be an ideal vehicle for getting a message across.

Why are so many people choosing “terrorism” rather than non-violent protests/political or social action/starting a rock band etc.? Does it have something to do with our culture’s obsession with artistic expression, as BBC suggested? And if terrorism is in fact a method, a very effective one, how can the world counter it? If we are now talking about stopping a method of attack, rather than conquering a nation, this is indeed a new kind of war (or, then again, maybe it’s as old as those historic battles against Hannibal’s elephants, the merciless savagery of the Norsemen or the Trojan horse).

I can’t help that it is dependent, at least partially, on American sensationalism. I hate watching the news now. Even papers are getting worse with this. It seems that the only good/worthwhile story is the juicy one. Even advertisements news shows show this.
“Suspicious fire in South Korea kills hundreds! More at eleven”
People know that violence is going to get coverage in the media. When people die more people take notice than when people don’t die. I think that terrorists are looking for visibility and, although I understand that the media has an obligation, they are giving them the very attention that they desire.
I’m not trying to finger point. I obviously don’t think the media is solely responsible for what is broadcasted. Our lust for more dirty laundry makes us equally as guilty.

Yes, but couldn’t we criticize mid-East governments for sensationalizing toward their own ends, as well? The U.S. is one-dimensionalized elsewhere in the world as much as our own media often depicts things one-dimensionally.

Switching gears, momentarily, but sticking to the issue at hand. I would like to return to BBC’s thought that this is about ART just as much as it is about POLITICS (though it is about RELIGION most of all). I’ve been thinking about the nature of Islamic art and I’m wondering if we should start thinking about mid-east terrorism as a kind of iconoclasm. From what I understand, Islamic art does not deal in symbols, prohibiting especially images of Allah or even human beings (or animals?). On the other side of the spectrum, American society is a cultivator and major exporter of symbols, images etc. We are obsessed with symbolism and turn much of God’s rich creation into symbols for our own use as tools to control thought and to spread our culture.

Now, I realize that all Muslims are not terrorists. But the clash between east and west could be thought of in terms of the old iconostasis vs. iconoclasm battle, no? Thinking in these terms might help us better understand why terrorism seems to have more support in Islamist countries. Looking at the September 11 attacks, we can see some evidence of this battle of/against icons. The terrorists involved in the 9-11 attacks recognized the World Trade Center as a religious icon to be destroyed. Indeed, Bush himself viewed this attack as a strike against America’s core values. And the American news media—the experts in icon manufacturing—continue to spin out symbols to combat the threat (though it could be argued that the American media is the terrorist’s own best weapon).