September 11 in History: A Watershed Moment?

by Mary L. Dudziak (Editor)

Hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers, the idea that the September 11 attacks had “changed everything” permeated American popular and political discussion. In the period since then, the events of September 11 have been used to justify profound changes in U.S. public policy and foreign relations. Bringing together leading scholars of history, law, literature, and Islam, September 11 in History asks whether the attacks and their aftermath truly marked a transition in U.S. and world history or whether they are best understood in the context of pre-existing historical trajectories. From a variety of perspectives, the contributors to this collection scrutinize claims about September 11, in terms of both their historical validity and their consequences. Essays range from an analysis of terms like “ground zero,” “homeland,” and “the axis of evil” to an argument that the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay has become a site for acting out a repressed imperial history. Examining the effect of the attacks on Islamic self-identity, one contributor argues that Osama bin Laden enacted an interpretation of Islam on September 11 and asserts that progressive Muslims must respond to it. Other essays focus on the deployment of Orientalist tropes in categorizations of those who “look Middle Eastern,” the blurring of domestic and international law evident in a number of legal developments including the use of military tribunals to prosecute suspected terrorists, and the justifications for and consequences of American unilateralism. This collection ultimately reveals that everything did not change on September 11, 2001, but that some foundations of democratic legitimacy have been significantly eroded by claims that it did.

Contributors
Khaled Abou el Fadl
Mary L. Dudziak
Christopher L. Eisgruber
Laurence R. Helfer
Sherman A. Jackson
Amy B. Kaplan
Elaine Tyler May
Lawrence G. Sager
Ruti G. Teitel
Leti Volpp
Marilyn B. Young

Genres: History, Terrorism, Essays

254 pages, Paperback

First published October 7, 2003

Reviews

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

A useful and pretty concise volume of essays published shortly after 9/11. Most of them are pretty critical of USFP after 9/11, although I think most of the essays were written before the US invasion of IQ. The 2 strongest essays are by Khaled Abou El Fadl and Laurence Helfer. Fadl argues that Muslims in fact do have an obligation to denounce terrorism in the name of Islam, as terrorists and other extremists are making their case for what Islam is and building a pretty significant following in the process. He doesn't let Western Islamophobia off the hook but specifies that only Muslims can really discredit the vision and actions of extremists.

The other really strong essay is from Helfer, a law professor who argues that there have been 3 legal paradigms for dealing with modern terrorism: an act of war, a crime, and an atrocity or war crime. He briefly surveys the evolution of each paradigm before making the sound point that the legal paradigm doesn't really work for modern terrorism for three reasons 1. States don't agree on what terrorism is and harbor and/or use terrorism as a tool of foreign policy 2. There aren't legitimate international bodies established for terrorism 3. Extradition is extremely haphazard and flawed and may not be enough for today's WMD terrorism. He doesn't necessarily support the war paradigm Bush sort of adopted, but I think he takes the novelty of the threat seriously. He and several other writers in this essay note rightly that Bush adopted an extremely hazy and self-serving paradigm, neither law nor war. Captured terrorists, for example, were treated neither as prisoners of war nor as criminals subject to trial, instead, they were thrown into long-term legal limbo and/or military tribunals that severely reduced their rights. A lot of this over-extension of legal/executive power was rolled back in coming years, but these writers were rightfully critical here.

A lot of the weaker essays are somewhat overblown political, legal, or cultural analysts. There's an assumption in a lot of the essays that Bush stoked Islamophobia after 9/11, when I think the opposite is the case. Marilyn Young wrote the same essay she always writes in saying that 911 just continued and acted as a pretext for expanding U.S. hegemony overseas (as opposed to treating the terrorist threat as. genuine strategic challenge. A lot of these essays reinforce my suspicion that many academics don't "get" 9/11, how much it expanded people's sense of vulnerability/fear and their understanding of what evil is. Still, this is a solid and timely volume that scholars studying U.S. responses to terrorism should enjoy.