The ‘Perfect’ Memory of ‘Terrorism’

Evelyn Heun

University of Melbourne

Death secures the perfect memory of ‘terrorism’. Or does it?

A question to this degree requires an analysis that breaks down each word to shed light on the depth of this question in society throughout history and the implications for it today. From face value the question seems understandably straight forward, but the assertion of perfection onto memory is what raises concern. The ambiguity of each word highlights a whole host of issues that develop from this question. This essay will analyze the fallibility of memory in conjunction with terrorism, which will demonstrate how that statement is certainly inaccurate. Using the Lacanian psychoanalysis, with analysis from Freud, it will explain the multitude of perspectives that impact how humans label each other and as a result give the complexity of what is considered ‘terrorism’. Death itself provokes numerous emotions and as a result impact the way in which humans remember events. When a terrorist attack occurs in time there is a reaction from the public that illuminates how people will remember going forth in the future. This will be thoroughly analyzed in the case of 9/11. This essay will comb through the complexity of the question in affiliation with the nature of humans on how memory is constructed psychologically and symbolically.

The uniqueness of memory is represented in the way we remember. The way society and the environment in which we develop fosters the way in which memory is captured and interpreted. Even the way we perceive events is affected by our upbringing. Feldman explores how memory is constructed through political culture; a narrative is created from the perspective of the dominant subject. The way in which individuals are taught about history and how things are remembered is somewhat biased from any angle that an event is captured. Events are too multifaceted to get an accurate description and depending on the lens can result in different victimization. Each perspective has a different story that attempts to dominate the culture to further propel their political ideologies and justify all actions, including violence. Historical memory is controlled by power and the way in which people’s memories are symbolized. In Belfast there are plenty of reminders of the events that took place in the region, ranging from the names of places to leftover bomb debris (Feldman, p. 60). Going through Feldman’s personal experience in the area and his view on how memories are manipulated, he learned an important lesson, ”I have been given an invaluable epistemological lesson: I was being taught less what to remember, the focal point of positivist social science, and more how things are remembered and forgotten in the political emergency zone”(Feldman, 2003, p. 60). Forgetfulness has been utilized as a tool to preserve the status and state of mind of the dominant subject. While individuals of Northern Ireland are constantly being reminded of the history in almost every aspect of their life, the British choose the parts of history they want to remember. A division on “us” versus “them” is automatically conceived and sustained through history by these symbols that are facilitated as our ways of remembrance of our perceived truth. The domination of the narrative is controlled by the environment you are exposed to when you first learn of the events. People are subject to be part of a group that does not believe they could be to blame for an issue, the absolute wrong is always placed on the opposed. Feldman illuminates on Nietzsche’s ideas of how we are told to remember, “This is a sacrificial model of memory formation, one where emblematic scenarios and bodies are made to encapsulate the prescriptive memory for an entire collective”(Feldman, 2003, p. 62). This quote examines how the political realm has a firm grasp on the way in which members of society remember events. With the politics using categorization as a tool to diminish any grey area, an individual’s perspective is decided for them. Death of someone that is considered the “other” in politics is considered somewhat just and in the eyes of the predominant political power there is only one truth, their truth, that they will narrate through history.

In Debra B. Bergoffen’s article, Between the Ethics and Politics of Innocence, she analyzes how the other is created and positioned in the world through control of people’s perceptions. Using Lacan’s ideas on the mirror stage and establishing self and other, when translated to terrorist attacks and the political atmosphere, it’s highlights how the self shapes perception to influence memory and dominate the narrative. There is an attempt to diminish the experience of the “other” in order to maintain the perceived superiority and establish what they believe to be their true innocence (Bergoffen, 2006, p. 51). Having a one-sided narrative to direct the memory is far from perfect and to make the assumption that death can mend the story to express to actual truth is naive. With controlling of the memory comes power and institutes a foundation that leaves no room for self reflection or grey area on who belongs to what side of the story. There are times when this foundation is shaken by the possibility of a new voice that sheds light on a different perspective of an event that can alter individual’s memories. At this point in time anxiety can ensue and provoke an aggressive reaction that attempts to rebalance, to return back to the original state dominance. Once power has been distributed after an event has taken place it creates a relationship between the subject and the Other that without each other could also increase anxiety. Without having the other, the subject would have no power to direct the narrative, “…the subject per se is empty – nothing by him- or herself- that all the subject’s power comes from the symbolic insignia that he or she temporarily takes on”(Salecl, 2004, p. 22). This quote clarifies how anxiety can arise from many different manners between the relationship between the subject and the Other. What is deemed a perfect memory is what the subject attempts to cling to in times of anxiety. The memory provided by the subject usually projects that they are in the place of pure innocence and in an endeavor to retain this state they will do almost anything. This can be seen in the United States during the aftermath of 9/11 when the death of thousands provoked an emotion that resulted in a very offensive front that didn’t allow for any intersubjectivity (Bergoffen, 2006, p. 52). From both sides there is a lack of understanding and even with thousands of deaths the memories created by American’s and Al Qaeda will tell a completely different story. Self reflection to find error when believed to be purely innocent does not exist, for even the idea to question the ways of the subject would protest its innocence and possibly the memories created by the subject.

In order to maintain the narration, there is an innate drive that we all have within us and as a collective we show this in our actions. Freud explains this through the death drive and how we justify our aggression through acts of violence in an attempt to dehumanize others. He outlines how society has attempted to rid this drive of ourselves through laws and commandments in religion, or even the golden rule we learned in kindergarten, “treat others the way you want to be treated”. What comes prior to memory is human nature. There can be as many road blocks put in place by civilization to keep it in line, but when stripped of them, it leaves a desire of superiority and dominance over others. Freud notes,

“The time comes when each one of us has to give up as illusions the expectations which, in his youth, he pinned upon his fellowmen, and when he may learn how much difficulty and pain has been added to his life by their ill-will. At the same time, it would be unfair to reproach civilization with trying to eliminate strife and competition from human activity. These things are undoubtedly indispensable. But opposition is not necessarily enmity; it is merely misused and made an occasion for enmity”(Freud, 2001, p. 112).

Any competition in life is practically associated with aggression and hostility, so in the context of terrorism and memory there is a strive for dominance over the narration due to the opposition. The perfect narration is arbitrary in any context. The death drive within humanity makes it difficult for self reflection and therefore dispels the idea of one truth and one accurate memory, even with the entanglement of death thrown into the context.

Death itself awakens a unique aspect of humanity. It inflates emotions to a degree that produces a volatile and overreaction by society generally. Death in the context of terrorism is seen as an attack on the identity of a society, to who they are as a collective. The way it is interpreted by the political ideology in power will determine the memory and the forceful reaction of society as a whole. In the case of 9/11, it was seen as a line drawn in the sand between us versus them, self versus other, and was the beginning of the ‘War on Terror’, ‘good’ versus ‘evil’. In a way the attack was almost an embarrassment of the United States; for such a powerful country to have their foundation and identity be threatened by ‘others’. From death there is usually a cycle of mourning subsequently, but in the context of 9/11 there was a clear statement that the United States would not negotiate with terrorists, which prevented the mourning process to occur. In the article, Constructing the enemy-other: Anxiety, trauma and mourning in the narratives of political conflict, it explains how vital the mourning process truly is, “…directed histories that insist on looking to the future and denying the past not only fail to facilitate mourning, they also inhibit the mourning process by simply inverting the previously pathological form of all-good or all-bad images”(Murer, 2009, p. 127). The resistance of self reflection throughout history from any point of view results in a lack of understanding of how to move forward without further violence and tension. Keeping memories frozen in time without reevaluation creates a rigid society that will use an explanation that positions themselves as the innocent incontestable. The memory of specific deaths of members in the subject’s own society will almost transcend throughout time and make it more difficult to approach the idea of introspection. So, the idea that death helps improve memory is brash and through more consideration can show how an association with a perfect memory is almost inconceivable.

Overall, there are many things to consider when analyzing this question and applying theories from individuals like Lacan and Freud. Societies are very complex on how they create the collective memory in the wake of a terrorist attack. From the initial labeling of the perpetrators as the other and the evil, while retaining pure innocence, the idea that there is no fault to blame within each society involved prevents resolutions and the process of mourning to occur. Political ideologies in power also tend to dominate the narrative to instill the desired memory of an event into their own society and it creates a continuous cycle that is difficult to break with on going terrorist attacks being committed. With the death drive being a main component of the human race, it also contributes to this desire to monopolize the memory of the masses and create a superior persona. The society that governs how people interpret an event will declare that their memory is the ‘perfect’ memory, but as clarified before there is no such thing with perfection. There are too many sides to an event, so there will never be one truth understood by the world. There will always be numerous numbers of perspectives in a terrorist attack, ranging from the perceived victim to the perceived perpretrator, and even societies that are bystanders. It is almost impossible to get a holistic picture of specific events of terrorism, so the idea that death secures this ‘perfection’ of memory is incredulous.

References

Bergoffen, D. B. (2006). Between the Ethics and Politics of Innocence. Australian Feminist Law Journal, 24(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2006.10854352

Feldman, A. (2003). Political Terror and the Technologies of Memory: Excuse, Sacrifice, Commodi…

Freud, S. (2001). Civilisation and Its Discontents (J. Strachey, Trans.). Vintage.

Murer, J. S. (2009). Constructing the enemy-other: Anxiety, trauma and mourning in the narratives of political conflict. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 14(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1057/pcs.2008.33

Salecl, R. (2004). Anxiety at Times of War Two | On Anxiety | Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from Taylor & Francis website: https://www-taylorfrancis-com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/