Does the discourse of terrorism create insecurity?

(This is a short reflective piece submitted for a university course. It was SUPPOSED to be reflective of the issues of terrorism and security.)

The discourse of terrorism, as evidenced in such things as speeches and national security policies, is a very persuasive medium that, I feel, can create or encourage feelings of insecurity in the population. Primarily, the words used in describing terrorism and its related issues such as “terrorist”, “rogue state”, “good and evil” or “coalition of the willing” are so heavily loaded with connotations that they easily incite a variety of feelings – primarily fear, insecurity, and hatred for the “other”. Through a process of demonisation, these words have become so fundamental to our sense of security that they achieve a kind of transcendental meaning, inciting any number of different connotations and implications.

The word “terrorist”, according to Lon Troyer , was only used from about the late 1960s, and yet nowadays rarely a day goes by that one does not hear it on the news or read about it in the newspaper. The word ‘terrorist’ is now so politically charged that it incites strong feelings of insecurity, and with its almost inextricable link to Islam, it creates feelings of hatred and anger towards virtually all Islamic states. Furthermore, because of the association that terrorism has with September 11th, 2001, (i.e. the deaths of around 4000 Americans on their home soil), the discourse has now linked Islam with ‘evil’ while The West is now ‘good’.

But does this actually create insecurity in a literal sense? One might think “Surely the words they use don’t influence the actual meaning of what is being said!” In truth, I feel that this is only true in a limited number of cases. Without meaning to sound condescending, the large number of people who are either uneducated or uninterested in the topic of terrorism are the most likely to be persuaded by the language. Without a broader understanding of the issues, it is much harder to ‘read between the lines’ and make an educated judgement.

However, does this mean that insecurity is thus a social or political construct? Well, maybe! I feel that the language used in regards to terrorism (my most recent favourite: “the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism – GlobalSAVE”) probably has less effect on people who have undertaken some study in the field than, say, a blue-collar worker on a farm in rural Texas. The uneducated or uninterested would be more likely to believe whatever they hear (or, indeed, the opposite of it if the person in question does not like the government) simply because they are not aware of the bigger picture enough to make a personal judgement. They are thus more likely to feel insecure simply by being indirectly told that they should, or that there is a legitimate reason for this.

So, what’s the point of all this? Are political strategists using this discourse with the intention of taking advantage of the uneducated majority’s tendency to be easily persuaded by tough-sounding, politically charged words, and by doing so, creating an ‘evil’ beast out of nothing just to rally support for the ‘good’ side that is fighting it? Well, I think so. I am sure that they realise that while there are people out there who can see straight through their façade of fancy language and metaphor, there are plenty of people who cannot.