War on Terror, Term Paper Example

The ascription of the status of “Other” to various groups, individuals, etc., can be construed as a certain foundational political gesture. That is to say, the policy decisions, geopolitical world-views, ideologies, etc., that are constitutive of a nation’s domestic and foreign policies, simultaneously engenders the marginalization of those who are in some way at odds with such policies. Even a cursory glance at American history from the end of the Second World War until the present day reveals this dimension of political life. Two main variants of the “Other” of America can be discerned in this time period: the Communist Other, and in the period following the September 11^th, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Muslim or Terrorist Other. Both of these variants of the Other reflect a clear political and social origin: they are Other because of events that occur within the political arena; this Otherness then manifests itself in various other social dimensions. What is striking about this process is the very similarity in the form of Othering, its persistence despite changes in content. For example, the transition from Communist Other to Muslim or Terrorist Other may represent particular changes in content within greater world politics and International relations, however, the historical form of the Other remains a crucial part of politics:. Accordingly, this unchanged form intimates that Otherness is crucial to politics and social life in America itself. In order to demonstrate this thesis, comparing and contrasting the Communist and the Muslim/Terrorist Other in recent American history is invaluable to revealing a fundamental symmetry between the two, a symmetry which suggests how the Other is necessary to politics: the Other is essentially the negative identity of the political and the societal, that which is to be excluded from the latter, and which, in turn, affirms the positive identity of the given political system.

Following the Second World War, the notion of the Communist as Other prima facie can be viewed as a reflection of the direct geopolitical reality of the times. Insofar as the United States found itself in a contest for global hegemony with the Soviet Union, this ideological difference between the two superpowers was manifested within American internal politics and social life through the conception of the Communist as the negative Other. However, as M.J. Heale argues, the anticommunist ideology of American life should not be traced back to merely a political cause: “Economic growth, a great religious awakening, a revived white racism, and archaic electoral arrangements contributed in different ways to a red scare culture.” (Heale, 167) Heale thus contends that whereas the initial difference of the Cold War is significant to engendering the specific Other of communism, the latter is not reducible to the Cold War. Rather, it is the economic and social sectors which contributed to this “anticommunist consensus.” (Heale, 168) Acocrdingly, the red scare culture that created the Communist Other was the result of the “incessant and complex interplay between popular opinion, private interest groups, and public officials.” (Heale, 168) Hence, the greater social foundation of the country itself, i.e., political, economic, public and private dimensions were all conducive to the ascription of a Communist Other.

This is not to say that the identification of the Other was merely spontaneous. While noting the broad support for this identification, alongside the “insidious” (Heale, 169) nature of the conceived threat of communism, Heale nevertheless observes that politics did in fact play a crucial role in this process: “the political and bureaucratic classes bore a major responsibility for the magnification of the communist issue in postwar America.” (168) What Heale suggests therefore, is an ideological decision to generate an “anticommunist consensus”: a certain political gain was discerned in this process. Moreover, insofar as broad aspects of society supported the Communist Other, one can state that the need for such an Other was systematic in American social and political life. Heale notes that “the anticommunist consensus was held firmly in place by the mutual reinforcement of the executive, legislative and juridical branches of government”, (Heale, 169) thus enforcing the notion of such an extensive, systematic decision. According to this extensiveness, such a process suggests a political need to define an Other. That this Other was a Communist Other simultaneously entailed that it was possible for the societal and political foundation of America to assert exactly what it stands for, in the terms of negative identity: it stands for everything that is non-Communist, i.e., religion, free market economics, non-centralization of government, etc., In other words, the identification of a Communist Other helped define what “America” itself meant.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, history suggests a certain vacuum of Otherness, which was subsequently filled after the 9-11 attacks: the new prominent Other in American politics and society has been that of the Terrorist or  Muslim Other. One of the crucial legal documents evincing this decision is the USA PATRIOT act, which intends to monitor various aspects of American society with the intent of preventing further possible terrorist attacks. As with the Communist Other, the USA PATRIOT act, infers a systematic decision to create an Other. As Cole notes, however, the Patriot Act also suggests “substantial concerns about respect for basic human rights and civil liberties.” (Cole, 60) According to Cole, one of the key features of the document is how the definition of terrorism changes according to its application in regards to American and non-American citizens. Terrorism possesses a more acute definition vis-à-vis citizens, but becomes more obtuse vis- à -vis non-nationals: “For citizens, terrorism has a limited definition that roughly corresponds to common understandings of the phenomenon, whereas for foreign nationals, congress has labeled as “terrorist wholly nonviolent activity and ordinary crimes of violence.” (Cole, p. 58) Thus, foreign nationals living in America are judged according to an entirely different standard: they are denoted as Other according to an assumed difference from “Americans.” What is prevalent in this type of policy, for Carr, is the notion of “guilt by association”: merely by being an Other, one can potentially be guilty, “a common response in times of fear.” (Carr, 59) As Carr notes, this is exactly the same policy used in the Cold War: “For much of the twentieth century, immigration law authorized the expulsion of foreigners for their political associations.” (59) Such Othering, therefore, functions according to the consistent form of marginalization and exclusion, despite variations of political content. The policy, whether it evokes an anti-Communist or anti-Terrorist content, remains the same. Accordingly, there is a conscious or unconscious perception in all sections of the society – juridical, economic, and political, etc., – which repeats the evoking of Otherness within society. Such a clear parallel between the approach to the Communist and the Terrorist Other suggests the systematic nature of this Otherness: it reflects a societal decision to continue to ascribe Otherness to a given group. Accordingly, this historical symmetry in form infers that Otherness has become a necessary dimension of the political and the social, insofar as it is consistent across historical periods.

Hence, the similarities between the Terrorist/Muslim Other and the Communist Other indicate an Otherness that is inherent to American political and social life. While this certainly may not be construed as an endemically American phenomenon, the literature suggests that there has been a need for the Other within American society. With the absence of the Communist Other, the need to create a Terrrorist Other perhaps reflects the notion that such an antagonism is essential to the particular structure of American society itself. That is to say, the Other helps support the latter by clearly delineating boundaries between inclusion and exclusion, thus creating a space for particular political and social formations to perpetuate themselves.