'Why do they hate us?', maar wie zijn 'they' en 'us'?

CITAAT

Hierna volgen een aantal citaten van het nieuwe boek van Frank Furedi: Invitation to Terror. The Expanding Empire of the Unknown. Furedi vermeldt dat hij veel heeft samengewerkt met Bill Durodie.
De volgende fragmenten gaan over terreur en terrorisme, en wie de ‘vijand’ is. Wat zijn de gevolgen hiervan zijn voor onze perceptie van onszelf, voor de eraan gekoppelde gevoelens van angst voor de toekomst, en voor onze weerbaarheid.
De eerste citaten gaan over “they”, de volgende over “us”.
Achter elk fragment heb ik tussen haakjes de blz. uit het boek vermeld.

THEY
“Western politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are still asking the same question: ‘Why do they hate us?’ British officials, stunned by disturbing evidence of home-grown terrorism, have never stopped asking themselves the same question. […] In its original inception, this book began as an attempt to engage with the question ‘Why do they hate us?’. However, after inspecting official statements and publications on the subject it became evident that it was far from clear who ‘they’ were. Even more unsettling was the realisation that from the available evidence, it was not at all obvious who ‘us’ was.” (blz. VII).

“Today, we have a global conflict that appears so confusing that we are not even certain what to call it. The failure to conceptualize the issues at stake is demonstrated by the absence of consensus around even what words to use to describe the meaning of the present conflict and the enemy. Suddenly, governments cease to speak about the War on Terrorism and talk about the Long War. The shift in terminology often betrays confusion about the issue at stake. Lack of clarity about what this war is about, who are the protagonists, its scope and duration dominates discussions on this conflict. Meaningless terms often represent an attempt to evade. In this case they express confusion and the inability to make sense of life in the twenty-first century.” (blz. VIII, mijn cursivering).

“The imprecise and incoherent manner with which the narrative of terrorism is communicated often appears as a problem of language. Questions have been raised about whether the term ‘war on terror’ has any precise meaning. Even supporters of the war on terror have reservations about using this term. A US senator, Rick Santorum, has remarked that to say ‘we are fighting a War on terror’ is ‘like saying World War II was a war on blitzkrieg’. He added that terror, like blitzkrieg, is a tactic used by our enemy, not the enemy itself”.
(blz. VIII – IX)

“Take the guidelines issued by the EU officials in April 2006 on the difficult questions of what words to use to describe the enemy. The guidelines suggested that the European governments should avoid the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ in favour of the Orwellian-soundinf phrase: ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’”. (blz. XII)

“The enemy has acquired an increasingly diffuse and abstract character. Not for nothing does a Homeland Security Council planning scenario refer to the enemy as the Universal Adversary (UA). This is another way of saying that the enemy is the enemy. The concept of universal adversary also conveys the idea that anyone could be the enemy.
[…] Uncertainty about the identity of the enemy has led to scenarios where little is left to chance and virtually anyone can be represented as a potential foe. […] …with enemies like that it is difficult to feel secure.”
(blz. XIV, misschien zou onze universiteit moeten overwegen van naam te veranderen?).



US
“It is bad enough that we are not sure about who ‘they’ are that hate us. Unfortunately there is compelling evidence that we are far from certain about who or what constitutes ‘us’. Time and again we are confronted with disturbing evidence that not everything can be taken for granted on the home front. […] So, what binds ‘us’ together? As we outline in this book, the difficulty that Western societies have in accounting for themselves constitutes the nub of the problem. Attempts to outline what constitutes ‘our way of life’ or what values ‘we are defending’ tend to have an empty rhetorical character. […] yet if we are to understand the meaning of twenty-first-century terrorism, it is essential to have a clearer grasp of who we are expected to respond to this treat. This book is more about us than them, since it is our response that determines the impact of this problem.” (blz. XV)

“This book suggests that the question of ‘why do they hate us?’ tends to deflect attention from why society feels so uncomfortable with dealing with the threats that confront it. The existence of a physical threat of terrorism can not be denied. But the idea that terrorism represents an existential threat is the product of society’s inability to give meaning to human experience. It is a symptom of a society that has lost its way and lacks the intellectual and moral resources to deal with the routine threats that it faces. […] Maybe we should be asking the question, ‘Why do we hate ourselves?’”. (blz. XVI).

REFERENTIE

Frank Furedi: Invitation to Terror. The Expanding Empire of the Unknown. Continuum, Londen, 2007.

COMMENTAAR

De hierboven vermelde citaten lijken mij correct.

De eerste citaten heb ik vermeld omdat ik meen dat de vaagheid van de ‘war on terror’ en van het nagestreefde doel inderdaad een alomtegenwoordig en diffuus gevoel van onveiligheid hebben veroorzaakt in onze samenleving. Het is een belangrijk element, want deze gevoelens hebben een invloed voor onze graad van weerbaarheid, en dus voor de wijze wij onszelf en onze samenleving evalueren.
Mijn aandacht in deze blog gaat dus meer om wat ‘wij’ zijn en wat eventuele problemen van ‘onze’ problemen zijn, dan naar wie de vijand is.
In volgende blogs zal ik terugkomen op dit boek van Furedi, maar dan specifiek met het oog op wat wij misschien niet willen zien i.v.m. onszelf en onze beschaving. In die zin is dit boek van niet allen sociologisch, maar heeft het ook een filosofische dimensie.