 |
|
America has a new rhetoric. It is the language of war. It is the labeling of national policy toward terrorism as "America's New War." This rhetoric, this language, played over and over again in the news media and within our national awareness, has an energy - a vibration. It shapes our collective consciousness just as much as the actions our government takes or will take in pursuit of its military objectives. War has many facets. It involves military engagement. It involves economic support. It involves the creation of an infrastructure. And it involves the choice of a particular language which shapes public opinion. The language of war is created long before the first plane takes off, long before the first missile is fired, long before the first soldier sets foot on foreign soil. It is created by a consciousness, whether individual or collective, that chooses war as the most effective response to threat. This choice, in turn, shapes the consciousness of a nation. Language defines reality. It conditions us to believe that the way we think is the only way to think. To call something a "war" catalyzes human emotions. It creates a willingness to use force in the service of what appears to be an indisputable objective - the desire to overcome one's enemy. It creates a sense of battle - of hoped for victory for one side and hoped for defeat for the other. It conveys a sense of strength behind the willingness to use force. It rallies a country around its common identity as a people, thereby engendering patriotism and the willingness to fight and/or make sacrifice for one's country. It creates a picture of a common enemy that must be stood up to. To call something a "war" mobilizes national sentiment behind a common objective, justifies the use of military power as the means to achieve this objective, amplifies whatever existing resentment, prejudice, or hatred may exist toward the people or peoples one is waging war against, and through its call to patriotism, moves people to make personal sacrifice for the greater good. America could have not gone "to war" in response to the attacks of September 11th on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It could have not gone "to war" in response to the loss of so many lives. We could have substituted words such as 'justice before the law' or even simply 'justice' to describe a course of action that might be sought in relation to the terrorists. Words such as 'justice' or 'seeking justice' against terrorists have a much more limited scope than the word 'war'. They have a much more limited scope than the word 'crusade' which has also been used in conjunction with proposed plans for action. These words might not have mobilized our nation into the fierce kind of stance it is presently taking. It is the fierceness in the call to retaliation that might have shown a different face. However, the ante has been upped. Instead of seeking justice against the terrorists directly involved in a crime against our nation, we have chosen to make 'war' on all those suspected of committing such crimes, whether related to this one or not. It is a large leap from seeking justice for a particular event, however harmful, to pursuing 'war.' It would have been possible to use a different language if we were not determined to show the power and might of this country to the world. It would have been possible if we had been more able to sit with our shock and grief for a longer period of time - to pause and to deliberate for just a few seconds longer. But the word 'war' came to the surface almost immediately after the attack itself. It polarized us as a people in relation to the rest of the world, and it compelled an early movement toward national unity before other options had even been publicly discussed. It would have been possible to use a different language if our objective was to create peace - to eliminate the root causes of terrorism. Then, we would have sought a language in relation to Arab countries that would have invited rather than compelling them to take a position that was either "for us or against us." We could have found a language which would have sought, with their help, the causes of Islamic-fundamentalist terrorism. Dividing the world up into "a group of crazy fanatics" who are terrorists, and the rest of the world, oversimplifies the problem of Arab hatred within certain groups toward the United States. It does not answer such questions as: Why does it occur? Where does it occur? How have we contributed to it? To ask these questions is not to condone terrorism in any form. Terrorism is not condoneable. But such questions create a climate in which the cause of this attack could have been pursued and dealt with in addition to pursuing the attackers and dealing with them. It is necessary for human beings to have a means to seek justice when they have been harmed, and the dispensing of justice is one of the main functions of a viable society. But how this shall happen is a very large question. War can evoke emotions of a very strong kind. It can justify anger towards one's enemy. It can short-circuit grief. It can prevent people from dealing with their deeper feelings of loss, helplessness, and pain. It addresses wounds of every kind. We no longer have a choice about what language our government will use regarding its present efforts to address the deep wound to America that occurred in 2001. This has been established. But we do have a choice regarding the language that we as individuals shall use. Since all that we say carries an energy of one kind or another, it is up to each of us to determine what energies we wish to put into the world for others to be influenced by. It is up to us to speak a language that will not create violence, but instead will create peace. |
|
Article Section - Worldwatch |
|
|