SEPTEMBER 11 IN HISTORY: A WATERSHED MOMENT?

Vol. 14 No. 2 (February 2004)

SEPTEMBER 11 IN HISTORY: A WATERSHED MOMENT? by Mary L. Dudziak (Editor). Durham: Duke University Press, 2003. 248 pp. Cloth $79.95. ISBN: 0-8223-3229-9. Paper $22.95. ISBN: 0-8223-3242-6.

Reviewed by Christine Ludowise, Department of Political Science, Georgia Southern University. Email: ludowise@georgiasouthern.edu

SEPTEMBER 11 IN HISTORY: A WATERSHED MOMENT? is a collection of nine essays, with introductory and concluding chapters penned by Mary L. Dudziak, editor of the volume. The book is part of the American Encounters/Global Interactions series, which focuses on historical research and critical inquiry. In that spirit, these essays take the events of September 11, 2001, out of the moment and attempt to place them within the broader contexts of history, politics, and culture.

A number of different approaches are implemented in the book. Each author focuses on the events of September 11 through the lens of his/her own specialty and discipline. The result is a collection of essays that brings together disparate perspectives to develop at least a partial picture of the impact of terrorism on the world in general, and American citizens, politics, and culture specifically. Furthermore, there are distinct patterns and themes that become apparent throughout the composite essays, including but certainly not limited to, the use of language, definitions of power, the framing of the dialogue of conflict and war, notions of imperialism and colonization, the role and usage of law, and the examination of "universal" truths.

The introduction by Mary L. Dudziak frames the question for the rest of the volume. In Dudziak’s words, these essays focus on "whether the assumption that September 11 ’changed everything’ holds up under closer scrutiny" (p.3). Each essay addresses the central question: Did the events of September 11, 2001, truly mark a "watershed moment" in both the U.S. and world experience? Was it such a unique event as to be clearly transformative? And, are we far enough removed from the events of that day two years ago, to make a rational judgment as to its character? Can we yet understand the impact of these events on politics, law, culture, economics, international relations, civil liberties, religion, civic values, and citizenship?

The first essay, "Ground Zero: Enduring War," by Marilyn B. Young, focuses on the relationship between continuity and change. Young asks the reader to consider what was really distinctive about September 11. She provides an historical comparison between the Cold War-war against Communism-and the current War against Terrorism. Young states that America’s loss of innocence has been reflected upon and mourned many times before. She notes that the official rhetoric and strategies that have emerged in the wake of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are reminiscent of the Cold War at its peak. Young argues that actions taken by the Bush Administration following 9/11 reflect a pattern of behavior set by 50 years of previous administrations. Therefore, September 11 is not a genuinely transformative moment. Rather, it is the reframing of familiar goals, policies, and ideology for a new millennium.

Although not explicitly mentioned, Young’s commentary fits nicely into notions of the development of an imperial presidency. Furthermore, the idea that if "you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists" presents a bully pulpit for domestic and foreign policies designed to consolidate power in one nation under God. Once again, the United States is posited as the City on the Hill - a beacon shining bright to lead the world against evildoers everywhere. Young notes that apparently nothing has been learned from the lessons and mistakes of the past. It would seem as though we are doomed to repeat them.

"Echoes of the Cold War: The Aftermath of September 11 at Home," by Elaine Tyler May, explores the impact of September 11 in terms of historical reference points. In particular, she raises questions about the propriety and the necessity of the U.S. response to the 2001 terrorist attacks. Using reference points, such as Pearl Harbor, World War II, and the Cold War, she notes that Americans have been provided a framework for acceptance and understanding. To some extent, May’s focus is on the use of language, vocabulary, and symbols that place September 11 within a comfortable historical context, allowing policy makers and citizens to react to unfamiliar situations in familiar ways.

However, May argues that these frames of acceptance may not have been appropriate. Framing the terrorist attacks as war, renewing the national focus on preparedness and security, and placing the conflict within a "good vs. evil" framework allowed for the blossoming of patriotism and the withering of citizenship. Americans followed the example of their leaders uncritically, allowing political commentary, debate and dissent to be stifled. She concludes that "As in the Cold War, Americans have again embarked on political and cultural strategies in the name of national security that offer little protection, while enacting policies that escalate conflict and create more danger" (p.52). Perhaps we will learn those lessons eventually.

Amy Kaplan’s chapter, "Homeland Insecurities: Transformation of Language and Space," directs the reader’s attention to the real-space metaphors of Ground Zero, the Homeland, and Guantanamo Bay. She frames her discussion in terms of Freud’s concept of the uncanny. The "uncanny" is defined as the return of the repressed memory - as "something at once threatening, external, and unrecognizable, yet strangely familiar and inseparable from our own pasts" (p.57). In Kaplan’s lexicon, Ground Zero is an uncanny location; the Homeland is an uncanny place (she utilizes Freud’s translation of uncanny as unheimlich, the unhomelike); and Guantanamo is an uncanny space (as a lawless arena). These words, phrases, and ideas have taken on new and perhaps unintended meanings since September 11. She reminds us that language should be used carefully. Language has power and words evoke multiple meanings and associations that may not be readily apparent at their inception.

Kaplan argues that September 11 may be a transformative moment for American nationalism and the idea of American "exceptionalism." As evidence, she draws the reader’s attention to the emerging development of unitary rather than pluralistic definitions of national identity. The idea of the United States as a nation of immigrants with divided loyalties is no longer appropriate. Perhaps more importantly, Kaplan also intimates that 9/11 may have been a transformative moment for domestic and international law. She draws the reader’s attention to Guantanamo, which she describes as a geographic area in which both national and international laws appear to be suspended, and she speculates what other uncanny spaces will be "discovered" as a result of the war on terrorism.

In his essay, "9/11 and the Muslim Transformation," Khaled Abou El Fadl admits that he is not sure that the events of September 11 will lead to a transformation in the world. However, he feels that it should serve as a warning. In the shadow of postcolonialism, cultures that are politically dominated, culturally marginalized, and economically dependent have been created. He argues that individuals within these "subaltern" cultures, who are kept from enjoying the benefits of democracy, self-determination, development, social justice, and individual rights, have no stake in the modern world and no desire to embrace western values. Abou El Fadl then provides a nice overview of the development of Osama bin Laden’s version of Islam and demonstrates why it may set a normative precedent. The solution, he suggests, is that Islam must develop alternative communities of meaning that are relevant within the overall sociopolitical context in which Muslims live.

Abou El Fadl attempts to make the case for a humanistic Islam. He argues that although activists, such as bin Laden, frame their protests in Islamic terms because they are Muslim, they actually react in response to external secular forces, such as colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism. However, religion is part of the frame of reference for all believers. Therefore, religion matters and bin Laden’s message must be rebutted on theological grounds. By presenting an alternative message that acknowledges the reality of the Muslim experience while emphasizing an ethic focused on the collective enterprise of goodness, Islam can marginalize bin Laden and other extremists. He concludes by stating it is clear that Islam does not need to be transformed. Instead, "Muslims must seek to emerge from the shadow of postcolonialism and take their own tradition and religion seriously" (p.103).

"Islam(s) East and West: Pluralism between No-Frills and Designer Fundamentalism," by Sherman A. Jackson, focuses the reader’s attention on the existence of the "false universal," which he defines as the view that one’s belief structure is reflective of a "transcendent, ’natural’ order whose validity is obvious," despite the shaping influences of cultural, historical, and ideological perspectives. He argues that American Muslims must face the problem of the false universal and stop trying to compress and transform Islam into a single-minded entity in response to the events of September 11. Instead, American Muslims need to embrace their traditional ability to accommodate multiple and contradictory interpretations of Islam.

Jackson notes that the inclination to resort to false universals develops from recognition that no system of open intellectual exchange can guarantee the emergence or suppression of any particular view (p.116). Placing this within the American Muslim context, he emphasizes the promotion and accommodation of true pluralism and tolerance. He believes that this cannot be done as long as American Muslims refuse to face facts. Jackson employs an historical discussion which focuses on: 1) debunking the myth that classical Islam did not have extreme and repugnant views; and 2) illustrating that pre-modern Islam was emphatically pluralistic and tolerant despite the existence of those views. Muslims should not deny their history; nor should they live in fear of it. The urge to appease the American public regarding the tenets of Islam should not lead to a new form of fundamentalism among American Muslims that rejects the pluralism of experiences and histories their individual stories bring to the table.

Leti Volpp’s essay, "The Citizen and the Terrorist," focuses the reader’s attention on the transformation of the American concept of citizenship. Volpp begins by drawing the reader’s attention to public perceptions of racial profiling, hate crimes, anti-American activities, and internment following September 11. Her point is that behaviors, beliefs, and actions previously deemed incomprehensible and abhorrent became understandable, desirable, and patriotic. As a result of these changes, the accepted definitions of "us" and "them" have become much broader and more diffuse through the development of a national identity that is both strongly patriotic and multiracial. The person who appears to be "Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim" becomes the subject of nationalist based exclusions, even if that person is formally a U.S. citizen.

Volpp also addresses the creation of the homeland and the transformation of the "postnational" era. She implies that in the new definitions of citizen, there is a greater emphasis on the boundaries of both the nation-state and "loyal" citizens. Specifically, a person who is "Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim" is not welcome to join the American community no matter his/her status. Despite formal citizenship, a person who is "Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim" and has the status and rights that accompany citizenship still cannot claim the "identity" of citizen. In the post-9/11 United States, not all citizens are equal. Although it is debatable whether the majority’s unwillingness to confer equality, rights, status, and identity upon a clearly visible minority constitutes a transformative moment in U.S. history, one thing is certain: the rhetoric and actions of policy makers not only permit but encourage divisive and dangerous behaviors based upon misapplied patriotic ideals.

"Civil Liberties in the Dragons’ Domain: Negotiating the Blurred Boundary between Domestic Law and Foreign Affairs after 9/11," by Christopher L. Eisgruber and Lawrence G. Sager, focuses on the intrusion of foreign affairs into the sphere of domestic civil liberties. The authors note that historically the federal courts have limited their jurisdiction to domestic affairs. In the arena of foreign affairs-i.e., concerns about immigration, the military, trade, espionage, and the like-the courts have been deferential to Congress and the President. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11 resulted in the blurring of lines between domestic policy and foreign policy. New policies, aimed at homeland security, domestic intelligence operations, immigration proceedings, and military detention, have combined domestic police activities with foreign affairs. As a result, the conceptual context for civil liberties has changed for the courts.

Eisgruber and Sager suggest two ways in which the courts may assert the protection of constitutional rights in this blurry new judicial forum. First, the courts may employ doctrinal devices, such as increased procedural regulation, sunshine provisions, and gatekeeping, to check excesses of legislative and administrative power. Second, through the use of military tribunals, constitutional protections may be applied to foreign soldiers and enemy combatants. Eisgruber and Sager argue that the use of military tribunals is not necessarily problematic for civil liberties if basic norms of fairness continue to apply. They note that, if enemy combatants are tried in the same fashion as U.S. soldiers, then the government could not circumvent basic principles of due process. However, Eisgruber and Sager also note that, despite the mechanisms available to the courts to protect civil liberties and ensure due process, there is no returning to the state of constitutionally based judicial review that existed before 9/11. In this case, transformation has occurred.

Laurence R. Helfer’s essay, "Transforming International Law after the September 11 Attacks? Three Evolving Paradigms for Regulating International Terrorism," places the events within the historical search for transformative moments. He argues that international law is no stranger to the "allure of the transformative." Highlighting the key question in every essay contained within this volume, he questions whether processes of adaptation and prediction should be labeled genuinely transformative. Helfer states that there is only one undisputed transformative moment in international law: the change from a medieval world where ecclesiastical authority dominated secular power to a world controlled by independent and sovereign nation states (the "Grotian moment").

Although it is tempting to use events like 9/11 to create fresh paradigms, there is no need for transformation. Helfer notes that such events can be understood and dealt with by using three existing frameworks that international law already offers to respond to terrorism: 1) terrorism as international crime; 2) terrorism as armed conflict; and 3) terrorism as atrocity. The only change has been to the willingness of the United States to pick and choose among these three categories, claiming the right to respond to terrorism unilaterally. Helfer reiterates that September 11 does not represent a "Grotian moment" that changed the world order. Rather, the terrorist attacks have acted as a catalyst for the recalibration of existing legal paradigms to an emerging international political climate.

The final essay, "Empire’s Law: Foreign Relations by Presidential Fiat," by Ruti G. Teitel, argues that we are indeed in a constructed transformative moment. Her analysis, which she characterizes as a pragmatic approach, suggests that September 11 changed the relationship of laws and politics on the world stage. Specifically, she alleges that there is a concerted effort to shift political sovereignty to the U.S. executive. The result of that shift is the creation of a "juridical-political regime associated with absolute sovereignty and security," which she terms "empire’s law" (p.196).

Teitel states that exceptional uses of law, previously associated with extraordinary periods of conflict, have become entrenched and generalized. She refers specifically to the claims that, as the self-appointed world police, the United States must operate in a state of exception without checks, balances, legitimacy, or accountability. Terrorism, while it defies easy analogies, should not be used as an excuse for lawlessness. Perhaps international law and politics have indeed been transformed. The United States has always thought itself to be exceptional and has conducted its affairs accordingly - it is only the willingness of the international community to acquiesce that has changed.

The afterword, by Mary L. Dudziak, is entitled "Remembering September 11." Dudziak begins with a commentary on the national reflection of September 11, 2002, a year after the terrorist attacks. She states that memories of 9/11 obviously change with time and with the process of retelling the stories that emerged that day. Individual frames of reference evolve. As rhetoric develops and policies emerge, the events of September 11 are placed within the broader context of American "exceptionalism," power, and even manifest destiny. Dudziak then reiterates her original question: Was this a transformative moment in the history of the United States and the world? Was this a day when we all changed together? She states that the results are most likely impossible for this generation to measure. The one change most certain is the perpetual construction and reconstruction of memories of September 11.

Overall, the essays in SEPTEMBER 11 IN HISTORY: A WATERSHED MOMENT? are informative and thought provoking, and the authors’ perspectives and premises well articulated. Not all of the discussions are equally compelling, but each contributes to the impact of the volume as a whole. This book would be a welcome addition to the personal libraries of individuals with genuine interests in history, public policy, and political culture. It could also be utilized effectively as a text or reader in history, journalism, political science, sociology, and/or legal studies classes. Because the essays are drawn from a cross-section of disciplines, it has broad-based appeal for a variety of audiences.

In the end, this book cannot possibly answer the central question: was September 11 a watershed moment? From my perspective, that is probably for the best. Through thoughtful analysis and commentary, these authors place September 11 within the context of the larger human experience. Rather than providing glib, facile answers, serious consideration is given to providing indicators that historians may use to judge whether September 11, 2001, constitutes a transformative moment for the world. The question that begs an answer, however, is whether we want September 11 to be a transformative event or not. Can we accept the events of that day as a violent expression of continuous changes and challenges to politics and law, or must it be unique to have validity? It is the answer to those questions, from academicians, policy makers, and the general public, that will frame the treatment of September 11 in history.

******************************************************************