|
but what consequences would follow from recognizing that al-qaeda is most a signifier, constructed, inflected, maintained, propogated like some bizarre plant by the american press, working in its usual manner, o so independent of the interests of those in Power?
that it might exist in trace form, but is mostly the correlate of the discourse of "resoluteness"?
one consequence is that the "war on terror" become incoherent.
in a sense, it collapses--you cannot seperate the category "terror" from the political situations that generate it. you are pushed back into the circular relation between american actions--real and symbolic--the material institutions to which those actions refer--real and symbolic--the consequences of these material institutions--real and symbolic--and the sense of desperation they generate in the people most impacted by them.
you also end up having to think about the consequences of communication media like this one--bin laden could easily be one guy and al qaeda the cameraman who shoots videos of him--what this guy primarily does is issue press releases that claim responsibility for various otherwise unrelated actions---and because of the way in which al qaeda is framed in the states, these claims are taken entirely seriously----there is a cache you can acquire from being understood as the Most Dangerous Man--al qaeda, whatever it is, and the bush administration=a perfected symbiosis.
but if you think about this, the entire rationale for bushpolicies implodes.
on the one hand, it is about time.
on the other hand, how to react?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|