What do you think?
9/11 and the War on Terror
This interdisciplinary study of how 9/11 and the 'war on terror' were represented during the Bush era, shows how culture often functioned as a vital resource, for citizens attempting to make sense of momentous historical events that frequently seemed beyond their influence or control.Illustrated throughout, the book discusses representation of 9/11 and the war on terror in Hollywood film, the 9/11 novel, mass media, visual art and photography, political discourse, and revisionist historical accounts of American 'empire,' between the September 11 attacks and the Congressional midterm elections in 2006. As well as prompting an international security crisis, and a crisis in international governance and law, David Holloway suggests the culture of the time also points to a 'crisis' unfolding in the institutions and processes of republican democracy in the United States. His book offers a cultural and ideological history of the period.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published May 19, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
February 5, 2025
This monograph explores representations of 9/11 and the War on Terror in American popular imagination and culture. Holloway begins by looking at how the events of 9/11 have been conceptualised in contemporary historiography, then at how they were imagined and framed by politicians (particularly, how this was contested after the 2003 invasion of Iraq), but by far the most interesting chapters are those on the mass media and film, respectively.
Holloway looks at how the mass media appeased the Bush administration and US military, legitimising their framing of events, through over-reliance on them as sources, which narrowed the range of possible public opinion (p.59, 63). He notes how, from very early on, the 'idea of a war on terror was itself a representation of events, a rhetorical construction, a series of stories about 9/11 and about America's place in the world' (p.4). 9/11 and the War on Terror were 'so appropriated by storytelling and mythmaking that the events themselves became more or less indivisible from their representations, or simulations, in political rhetoric, mass media spectacle and the panoply of other representational forms' (p.5). In addition, the significance of the "Clash of Civilisations" narrative (as well, I would add, the reliance on conservative scholars like Bernard Lewis) in supposedly explaining the events of September 11 offered an attractive "soundbite" that 'reduced complex and opaque historical forces', instead grounding them in cliche master-narratives, marginalising more astute analysis (p.12).
The key significance of Holloway's analysis in his emphasis on how politicians and the media sought to portray the events of 9/11 as a rupture in history, some exceptional break from what had preceded it. In many ways, this narrative became self-fulfilling. Enough people subscribed to this idea that it now broadly hegemonic to speak of a "post-9/11" or "War on Terror" era. Yet, as Holloway points out (as indeed have many others), this narrative served the aims of the Bush administration, severing the events from the historical and political context of US foreign policy, as well as the long history of Islamist opposition to US-backed autocratic regimes in the Middle East (p.21). This, in turn, allowed the US and its allies to circumvent the conventional channels of international diplomacy and war by arguing such exceptional actions require an equally exceptional response. In this way, "national security" became a shorthand way of legitimising tactics like torture, or pre-emptive military action because 'circumstances had changed, and 'the captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice' (p.50).
Of course, to recognise 9/11 was not - in fact - some great rupture in history is not to legitimise or justify the jihadist programme advanced by groups like al-Qa'idah, but rather to recognise jihadist violence - and the disaffection it is able to harness and exploit for its ends - does not exist in a vacuum or arise from some mystical cloud of "evil", as the dichotomies of Bush et al might have implied.
In films and television, Holloway notes the number of Cold War remakes that deliberately evoked visual analogies with 9/11, as well as observing how TV dramas 'played an important role in the culture (and ideological) process of normalising imperial conflict' (p.76). In Hollywood film, he explores the category of "allegory-lite" films, which appealed 'simultaneously to multiple audiences, alienating as few customers as possible' (p.83) and ultimately fell short of offering substantive critique of the political topics they were about (p.84). In these chapters, Holloway also offers a critical look at even some of the independent voices who spoke out more explicitly against the Bush administration. Michael Moore, for instance, is singled out for 'fetishis[ing] the American political system' (p.104) from which the very class power his Fahrenheit 9-11 criticises actually emanates. Certainly, this observation rings true today when we recall Moore's idealistic support for the Biden administration in the face of overwhelming criticism from the left over the latter's inability to do... anything...
The chapters on literature and then visual media (ie. photography) go over much of the same ground and are less engaging than the "big picture" items of the early chapters. Nevertheless, they offer interesting looks at how the events of 9/11 and the War on Terror were immortalised and contested in both New York and beyond.
It is a strong study, but one that would have benefited from being anchored to existing scholarship. Critical Terrorism Studies scholar Richard Jackson had already noted the central role of the media in repeating official discourse 'in a relatively unmediated fashion, while at the same time silencing and marginalising alternative narratives'. And, though Holloway draws on a lot of existent literature, a more formal engagement with the work being done in Critical Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Studies would have solidified his research, as well as a careful deconstruction of the language of "terrorism" itself and how this stifled any proper analysis by deferring to such a loaded signifier.
Holloway looks at how the mass media appeased the Bush administration and US military, legitimising their framing of events, through over-reliance on them as sources, which narrowed the range of possible public opinion (p.59, 63). He notes how, from very early on, the 'idea of a war on terror was itself a representation of events, a rhetorical construction, a series of stories about 9/11 and about America's place in the world' (p.4). 9/11 and the War on Terror were 'so appropriated by storytelling and mythmaking that the events themselves became more or less indivisible from their representations, or simulations, in political rhetoric, mass media spectacle and the panoply of other representational forms' (p.5). In addition, the significance of the "Clash of Civilisations" narrative (as well, I would add, the reliance on conservative scholars like Bernard Lewis) in supposedly explaining the events of September 11 offered an attractive "soundbite" that 'reduced complex and opaque historical forces', instead grounding them in cliche master-narratives, marginalising more astute analysis (p.12).
The key significance of Holloway's analysis in his emphasis on how politicians and the media sought to portray the events of 9/11 as a rupture in history, some exceptional break from what had preceded it. In many ways, this narrative became self-fulfilling. Enough people subscribed to this idea that it now broadly hegemonic to speak of a "post-9/11" or "War on Terror" era. Yet, as Holloway points out (as indeed have many others), this narrative served the aims of the Bush administration, severing the events from the historical and political context of US foreign policy, as well as the long history of Islamist opposition to US-backed autocratic regimes in the Middle East (p.21). This, in turn, allowed the US and its allies to circumvent the conventional channels of international diplomacy and war by arguing such exceptional actions require an equally exceptional response. In this way, "national security" became a shorthand way of legitimising tactics like torture, or pre-emptive military action because 'circumstances had changed, and 'the captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice' (p.50).
Of course, to recognise 9/11 was not - in fact - some great rupture in history is not to legitimise or justify the jihadist programme advanced by groups like al-Qa'idah, but rather to recognise jihadist violence - and the disaffection it is able to harness and exploit for its ends - does not exist in a vacuum or arise from some mystical cloud of "evil", as the dichotomies of Bush et al might have implied.
In films and television, Holloway notes the number of Cold War remakes that deliberately evoked visual analogies with 9/11, as well as observing how TV dramas 'played an important role in the culture (and ideological) process of normalising imperial conflict' (p.76). In Hollywood film, he explores the category of "allegory-lite" films, which appealed 'simultaneously to multiple audiences, alienating as few customers as possible' (p.83) and ultimately fell short of offering substantive critique of the political topics they were about (p.84). In these chapters, Holloway also offers a critical look at even some of the independent voices who spoke out more explicitly against the Bush administration. Michael Moore, for instance, is singled out for 'fetishis[ing] the American political system' (p.104) from which the very class power his Fahrenheit 9-11 criticises actually emanates. Certainly, this observation rings true today when we recall Moore's idealistic support for the Biden administration in the face of overwhelming criticism from the left over the latter's inability to do... anything...
The chapters on literature and then visual media (ie. photography) go over much of the same ground and are less engaging than the "big picture" items of the early chapters. Nevertheless, they offer interesting looks at how the events of 9/11 and the War on Terror were immortalised and contested in both New York and beyond.
It is a strong study, but one that would have benefited from being anchored to existing scholarship. Critical Terrorism Studies scholar Richard Jackson had already noted the central role of the media in repeating official discourse 'in a relatively unmediated fashion, while at the same time silencing and marginalising alternative narratives'. And, though Holloway draws on a lot of existent literature, a more formal engagement with the work being done in Critical Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Studies would have solidified his research, as well as a careful deconstruction of the language of "terrorism" itself and how this stifled any proper analysis by deferring to such a loaded signifier.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review