Fear, Rhetoric, and the “Other”

Abstract

The events of September 11, 2001 struck an unexpecting, yet already weary American public whose view of the rest of the world was that of a world filled with problems, disorder, and dangerous people. The reality that those dangerous people had crossed vast ocean borders and struck at the heart of a superpower allowed a distorted narrative to be constructed that fell directly in line with precarious stereotypes—dehumanizing entire populations—as well as drastically narrowing policy decision making and public debate about if and how to respond to these attacks. The lens through which the American public was encouraged to view the world sharpened the focus on an already present “us-vs.-them” mentality. This post–September 11 narrative of a “war on terrorism” has now become firmly grounded in the American lexicon, the mainstream American public’s understanding of the world, and their interpretation of what it means for America’s role in the world. This essay explores how the narrative of the “war on terrorism” and the view of the world that it encourages have relied on long-standing stereotypes, activated primitive portions of our brains, played on our inability to think rationally under great stress, and divided us as a country. The essay will also point to some preliminary research—almost ten years later—that suggest the American public is open to an alternative narrative about safety and security that will help all of us better understand the world in which we live.