This essay seeks to analyze these underlying structures, by focusing on the subject in two distinct and exemplary contexts: What structures surround the individual in the United States of America, in contrast to the ones in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan? How do different apparatuses and power structures influence our behavior and perspective in regard to terrorism in general, how could they reproduce the hierarchical international order and perpetuate the war against terror?
Table of Contents
1. How subjective perspectives in the United States of America and in Afghanistan and Iraq perpetuate the war on terror.
2. The subject in the context of the United States of America
3. The subject in the context of terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Iraq
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Objectives and Topics
This essay aims to analyze the underlying structures of the "War on Terror" by adopting a theoretical framework derived from Michel Foucault. Specifically, it examines how power structures, discourses, and apparatuses shape subjective perceptions of terrorism differently in the United States compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, ultimately arguing that these subjective frameworks perpetuate the global conflict and hierarchical international order.
- Foucault’s theory of "dispositifs" (apparatuses) and power/knowledge
- The construction of terrorism as a concept in Western discourses
- Subjective threat perception and the role of nationalism in the US
- Recruitment dynamics and identity crises in terrorist networks
- The reproduction of Western hegemony through "universal" liberalist ideals
Excerpt from the Book
The subject in the context of the United States of America
To understand this perpetuation, a first focal point is on the average citizen in the United States, and how their personal beliefs regarding the concept of terrorism are constituted through the apparatus which surrounds them, which will be illustrated through the corresponding discourses, mechanisms of power, institutions and laws.
The origin of the concept of “terrorism” goes way back and responds to an international necessity to define the specific kind of violence that was exceedingly common in the 1950s. New methods such as guerrilla warfare and suicide bombings proved to be effective ways of combatting oppressors, but they could not be subsumed under the traditional poststructuralist dichotomy of inside and outside the state. While the term “crime” was applicable for violence inside of the state, and “war” for that between states, terrorism concerned both categories (Bonditti, 2017, p. 156). It was a hitherto anomaly right in between, and implied a political connotation directed at states, but was clearly not a conventional war.
This caused a different understanding of this manifestation of violence, which was “no longer perceived, described, expressed, characterized, classified, and known in the same way” (Foucault, 2002, p. 235). The discontinuity that occurred, had caused a new terminology to be used instead; “terrorism” as a concept had emerged, to which the subject was now exposed (Münker & Roesler, 2012, S. 18). This had made it possible for entirely new discourses and discussions about the topic to take place.
Summary of Chapters
1. How subjective perspectives in the United States of America and in Afghanistan and Iraq perpetuate the war on terror.: This introductory chapter outlines the central problem of the "War on Terror," introduces the core thesis regarding subjective perception, and presents the Foucaultian framework used for the analysis.
2. The subject in the context of the United States of America: This chapter analyzes how US citizens' perceptions of terrorism are formed by specific institutions, discourses, and power structures, arguing that these frames create a reality that justifies military intervention.
3. The subject in the context of terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Iraq: This section investigates how residents of Iraq and Afghanistan experience entirely different apparatuses of power, shaped by colonial history, political instability, and religious narratives, which influence radicalization and resistance.
4. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings, reiterating that the lack of universal moral ground, combined with the power of localized apparatuses, leads to the inevitable perpetuation of global conflict unless these underlying structures are acknowledged and challenged.
5. Bibliography: This chapter lists all primary and secondary sources cited throughout the essay, focusing on Foucaultian theory and Middle Eastern geopolitical analysis.
Keywords
Michel Foucault, War on Terror, Power/Knowledge, Apparatuses, Subjectivity, Dispositifs, US-American Discourse, Radicalization, International Relations, Western Hegemony, Terrorism, Intersubjectivity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work?
The essay argues that the "War on Terror" is perpetuated because individuals in different parts of the world—specifically the US versus Iraq and Afghanistan—are shaped by different societal, political, and historical apparatuses that dictate how they perceive the conflict.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The work covers poststructuralist analysis of power, the history of the concept of terrorism, US-American threat perception, the recruitment strategies of fundamentalist groups, and the role of Western liberal ideals in global politics.
What is the main research question?
The question is how different power structures and apparatuses surrounding individuals influence their behavior regarding terrorism and how these perspectives contribute to the maintenance of a hierarchical international order.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author uses a poststructuralist approach, specifically employing Michel Foucault's concepts of "apparatuses" (dispositifs), "genealogy," and "pastoral power" to decode how knowledge production relates to political and military outcomes.
What is discussed in the main body?
The main body contrasts the "apparatus" surrounding the average US citizen (focused on democracy/liberalism) with the "apparatus" in Iraq and Afghanistan (shaped by colonialism, tribal dynamics, and the reactive nature of terrorist networks).
What keywords characterize the study?
Central keywords include Foucault, Apparatuses, Dispositifs, War on Terror, Power/Knowledge, and Subjectivity.
How does the concept of "The Unsaid" function in the US analysis?
The author uses "the unsaid" to describe political mechanisms like the PATRIOT Act, where the way a law is named creates a frame of possibility that restricts political dissent by making opposition seem unpatriotic.
Why does the author argue that there is no "universal" perspective on the war?
The author argues that because our morals and interpretations are products of the specific power structures around us, there can be no shared global understanding of "good" or "evil," leading to clash-like reproductions of war.
Is the conclusion optimistic about ending the war?
The conclusion is cautiously optimistic, suggesting that if we realize these power structures exist and utilize global communication tools to bridge different perspectives, it may become possible to overcome these divisions.
- Quote paper
- Marcel Minor (Author), How subjective perspectives in the United States of America and in Afghanistan and Iraq perpetuate the war on terror, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1284322
