Week 8 Readings
In the first essay Politics of Resentment, Jeremy Engels explores how the the concept of a democratic public has been defined and redefined through history and why. The subtitle of the essay is “Reimagining the People: From Duas Civitates to E Pluribus Unum to E Unibus Duo” which helps to describe the general trend of the definition of the public. In the introduction of the book, Engels worked through a historic understanding of the duas civitates which describes a power struggle between the poor and the rich, the mass and the elite, that has been demonstrated throughout history, but more specifically in the context of Rome and Greece. The clash between these two classes and the struggle for the poor to maintain power in the face of the rich produced the emotion of resentment. There are two conflicting understandings of resentment: one that understands it to be the force behind instrumental action to ensure equality between the rich and the poor in a democratic society and one that sees democracy itself as a threat and a “violent imposition of the popular will” (41).
Sanchez-Escalonilla writes this article to explore how panic as a public emotion has been expressed in film post-9/11. He writes that filmmaker Steven Spielberg is “one of the most sensitized Hollywood directors to the social fault lines caused by 9/11” and proceeds to demonstrate how Spielberg’s various films reflect this. Spielberg’s films respond to a five main points: tension between security and civil liberties, xenophobia, self-destructive widespread panic, preventive war (Bush Doctrine), and the cost of the “spiral of violence-vengeance” (12). Sanchez-Escalonilla describes the film Minority Report where there is devised a system of screening that can determine those guilty of “pre-crime,” that they will eventually commit a crime if not apprehended. The film confronted the theme of surveillance and the presumption of innocence before proven guilty. Further, he describes how Spielberg and others’ films worked to deconstruct the various strands of fear that have pervaded the mainstream media.
Engle describes how the work of mourning has influenced our understandings of the 9/11 attacks and how it was employed by the government and mainstream media to “make sense of what happened” (63). Mourning and grief was paired with other modes of iconography such as souvenirs, Norman Rockwell, and t-shirts to provide a unifying justification for the war on terror. By being able to purchase World Trade Center memorabilia such as these, there is a personal identification with the events that transpired on 9/11, despite the fact that the vast majority of people witnessed it from thousands of miles away. Engle writes that, “sympathy becomes a means of participation” (77). This means of mass secondary participation allowed many Americans to reconfigure their identity as US citizens as it was shaped by the context of 9/11.
I think that Engels’s Essay I gives us an architecture through which to place a lot of our other readings into. Just glancing back through our syllabus, I am immediately just lead to believe that everything can be fit into the politics of resentment. For example, the article we read for last week, “Trumpism is a Politics of Loss and Revenge.” The author of the article, John Marshall, argues that Trumpism is “ best understood as a reaction to the erosion of white privilege, supremacy, and centrality in American life.” This article in The Atlantic describes how Donald Trump won the presidency precisely because he was white, an active factor in the presidential race. The introduction of Resentment makes it clear that Engels is not pointing fingers at conservative Americans and that both liberals and conservatives are “hardworking people just trying to get by as best as they can in a difficult economy” (22). Through our socialization in the politics of resentment, we have been taught not to direct our resentment at the other half of the duas civitate, but rather at each other, leaving those at the top untouched.
I really enjoyed the Sanchez-Escalonilla article because it showed how directors try to understand and express public fear and control.
I thought that the article about how the movie Minority Report has become real life was really interesting. The article talks about civil liberties versus national security, which I struggle to separate at times because I think is a really fine line. I think that since 9/11, we have screened and profiled, both at a national and personal level, and I think that this film, and your attached article, speaks to this (seemingly) outlandish “pre-crime” notion, which I think ultimately reinforces panic.
In all of the movies the the article talks about, there is a theme of fear that is often used “for the greater good”. In particular, the movie The Village speaks to this theme. The article said “the terror kept the community united, even though it was based on deception.” I think it is fascinating how director M. Night Shyamalan was able to create a thriller movie that spoke to these fears.
Overall, I saw the way that directors try to portray and understand these fears through film as really interesting. With both the Shyamalan films and Spielberg, these directors are successful because they are able to speak to our fears and worries as a society in a creative manner. The article talks about the contribution of Shyamalan as creating a notion of humanity as the most dangerous species. Overall, I found this reading so interesting in exploring how directors portray these themes about society though film in a creative and subtle way through various genres.
I also enjoyed how the articles discussed filmmakers’ abilities to harness a public’s fear. The benefit of films that show these situations from a removed perspective is that they allow us to see our own situations more clearly and to apply the same logic to our own experiences. These movies address the kind of liberties that we have given up, consciously or not, because of a fear that we possess that may or may not be justified. I think this begins to ask the question, are our civil liberties worth it to ensure protection? What if that protection isn’t ensured and is merely empty promises? I don’t think there is a True answer to this question, but something that we need to reach a national consensus on.
In Essay I of Engels’s Politics of Resentment the section titled “Hobbes’s Gamble” stood out to me as particularly noteworthy because, as Alexa states in her post, it provides an architecture through which we can place a lot of our other readings. Here, Engels shows how Thomas Hobbes’s political philosophy about enemyship, as a means to manage democratic resentment, taught the founders of the United States two vital lessons about governance. The two lessons: governments can manage populations by providing protection from enemies because security is a highly desired basic human need and that political authority can be won by cultivating fear, reminded me of the film Minority Report spoken about in the Sanchez-Escalonilla article (56). While the concept of a legal system based on “pre-crime” seems very far-fetched and unrealistic in reality, the link that Alexa posted to the article “When Minority Report Becomes New Yorkers’ Reality” demonstrates that this might not be an accurate assumption. The Cuomo initiatives discussed in this article eerily allude to the basic notions of the Minority Report as well as the political theories of Hobbes. The author states that these initiatives pose the risk of misidentifying innocent people as terrorists, especially individuals of color. Hobbes’s theory of enemyship, however, contends that people’s strong need for security holds the potential to outweigh people’s desire to maintain all of their natural citizen rights and likely would be even more willing to forfeit the rights of other racial groups.
I agree that there is a lot of tension between security and freedom. Hobbes Gamble is kind of made up of two facets that work in tandem. Governments can provide security and a government can “cultivate fear” and therefore convince the public of a need for security. The point of the article about Minority Report was to demonstrate how all of these possibilities aren’t as far-fetched as they seem and are closer to reality than they appear. But similar initiatives that appear in Minority Report are liable to deem one group more of a danger than another and further divide the public for undue reasons.
I agree that there is a lot of tension between security and freedom. Hobbes Gamble is kind of made up of two facets that work in tandem. Governments can provide security and a government can “cultivate fear” and therefore convince the public of a need for security. The point of the article about Minority Report was to demonstrate how all of these possibilities aren’t as far-fetched as they seem and are closer to reality than they appear. But similar initiatives that appear in Minority Report are liable to deem one group more of a danger than another and further divide the public for undue reasons.
I found Karen Engle’s “Putting Mourning to Work : Making Sense of 9/11” to be very interesting, and helpful in understanding the nations continuous mourning of 9/11. Specifically, I thought the section on identification was crucial to understanding the rhetorical purpose of souvenirs. Engle states that one reason consumers are drawn to trinkets such as the twin tower keychain is to create closer proximity with the tragedy. Consumers want to feel physically closer to the event, and by purchasing the keychain they are satisfying the, “desire for nearness.” Engle also makes the interesting point that by producing a keychain of the twin towers, 9/11 is being engrained into everyday life. Every time someone would use their keys, the twin towers would become apart of that action. Personally, after reading this essay, I found the production and consumption of objects such as the twin towers to be incredibly disrespectful. By turning the towers into a keychain, producers are reducing the tragedy of 9/11 to a piece of plastic with “Made in China” stamped on the bottom.
I would agree with the general feeling of cheapness that is produced when events such as 9/11 are reproduced onto things like keychains. I would question why exactly people feel a need to be close to the event. Either a person was affected by the event and doesn’t necessarily need to further cement their connection, or a person wasn’t really affected by it, yet are being told that they should feel affected by this event. After 9/11, it was construed as an attack on the American identity, that the terrorists didn’t like the very foundation of America. So I think that the production of keychains and other sorts of memorabilia are just serving an overall purpose where the attack was construed in order to support larger interests.
Our readings this week really solidified for me how there are greater forces of society at work, which primarily dictate our public emotions and feelings. Engle’s article in particular reframed the idea of mourning, remembrance, and commemoration to demonstrate not only its vast power, but also the different forms it takes that can sometimes impact us subconsciously. Here, Engle shows us how mourning is both an intangible public feeling, as well as a tangible form of commemoration through souvenirs (as in the case of 9/11).
Sanchez-Escalonilla’s article shows us how film represents public sentiments about tragedy and terror in a similarly subconscious way that Engle does. What I found especially interesting about this article was how his examples were not necessarily war-related movies; rather, they were movies that mirrored our obsession with terror, American unity, and prevalence over evil. Although I have never seen most of the movies referenced, it has given me a new perspective about the motives of film genres and the underlying themes the film industry perpetuates.
Both articles, combined with Engel’s essay on resentment, in my opinion, demonstrate how society thrives off of public sentiment because that is exactly what fuels policy. Class differences, fear of attack, and a desire to remain powerful are all common threads throughout all areas of society ranging from activities of leisure (watching movies) to visiting memorial sites (such as ground zero) all contribute to our understandings and feelings of terror.
I also thought it was interesting how all of the films Sanchez-Escalonilla mentions weren’t explicitly war films. By presenting them within the formats of other genres, the argument becomes much more nuanced than a simple reflection of American society. I think that these forms are even a little more dangerous too, because we rarely explicitly notice the message and therefore it becomes a little more difficult to refute the message. Instead, we just subconsciously soak it all up.
Our readings this week really emphasized the public and media’s reaction to 9/11. I really enjoyed Sanchez-Escalonilla’s article on how celebrity directors interpreted and coped with what occured on 9/11. I think it was really interesting to see how they shaped their work to comment on the effects of 9/11 and how our society has changed since then. Sanchez-Escalonilla’s descriptions on all of the popular movies that came out after 9/11 and referencing the changes that were going on in real life was really eye-opening for me. I had heard of the movie Minority Report, and definitely knew that it referenced an almost 1984 sentiment, but I didn’t realize that it was filmed just one year after the Patriot Act was passed. I really enjoyed Alexa’s hyperlink to an article written about the comparisons between the two.
Then, I thought it was really interesting to read Engle’s work when discussing how the public reacted just months after 9/11, and connecting it to the huge sense of mourning we continue to have over 9/11 despite the fact that it was 17 years ago. Engle’s parallels on the purposes that the Four Freedoms served in Roosevelt’s times as opposed to post 9/11 was also surprising, but it made sense how effective the images produced were, especially given the state of mourning the country was post 9/11.
Both articles, combined with Engel’s introduction and first two essays, really embodied how the public reacted to 9/11. I really liked the combination of the historical media, the “historical fiction” that Hollywood produced, and then finally, ancient Greek history as well as history of the rise of resentment in our politics.
I definitely think it would be interesting to see a more in depth review of movies in a post 9/11 world. Although it’s been 17 years since 9/11 and that is a pretty short period of time in the grand scheme of things, I definitely think there would be a difference in themes of movies closer to 9/11.
After reading the Engle reading, I found it really interesting in the ways in which she reflects on the mourning and grief of individuals towards the event of 9/11 and how they deal with these feelings. I find this article particularly noteworthy because of the ways in which it relates to my final research project in which memorials help individuals grieve and mourn those who lost their lives to this “war on terror”. Engel states “Butler re-phrases this in her meditation on mourning post-9/11, proposing that the experience of loss and grief is shared by all humans, and that this cxommon experience of loss- despite important contextual differences- suggest that the ‘subject ’ through its relations with an other” (Engel). Through this common experience of visiting memorials and monuments, it gives these individuals a spot to reflect on who and what has been lost. As Alexa pointed out in her post, by having the ability to purchase memorabilia, it gives individuals a personal identification to the events that transpired with 9/11. While there is some controversy in having a gift shop at the memorial of 9/11, it does give visitors a piece of memory from this site, in helping them reflect those who were lost.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I would like to challenge the notion that people need a “piece of memory.” I just don’t understand why there is a need to identify with a national tragedy. I think that there is a larger national scheme to persuade the public that they have a need to identify with the tragedy in order to unify the country under the guise of an attacked identity.
We’ve discussed before in class how war, terrorism and citizenship ideologies are embedded into our society through pop culture. The Sanchez-Escalonilla article further perpetuates this subconscious reiteration of messages in film. These films use subtle references to a 9/11 esque threat to citizenry. Sanchez-Escalonilla’s article discusses how 9/11 influenced movies like The War of the Worlds, The Mist, and Cloverfield had disaster plot lines enhanced with drama, science fiction and thriller elements. Political themes run though the movies including dehumanizing and othering enemies, and highlighting the danger of paranoia and all encompassing fear. A different motif that is represented in the films mentioned but isn’t discussed at length in the article seems to be American exceptionalism. The idea that “America cannot be invaded”, an overwhelming sense of American nationalism and perseverance is consistent in the movies. These themes reminded me of post 9/11 political rhetoric, especially that of George W. Bush, his infamous “You’re either with us or against us” rhetoric seems to mirror the attitude in many of the movies.
I also was really interested in the connection between The Minority Report and America’s Global War on Terror. Alexa explains that The Minority Report is about a society in which citizens who will commit crimes are pre-determined. Pre-emptive action is taken to ensure that these crimes are not carried out. This plot is also the basis of preventative and preemptive war, the war on terrorism. Alexa’s link really put to words the connection between the movie and reality, “When Minority Report Becomes New Yorker’s Reality” and explains the new world of paranoia and surveillance we live in.
I think you were right about the usage of American exceptionalism in all of these films. After 9/11 there was an overwhelming sentiment of what you call “perseverance.” President Bush urged Americans to continue about their days as normally as they possibly could because to allow the terrorists to alter their lives would admit defeat. But at the same time, the Minority Report drew attention to how much our civil liberties were being impacted in a post 9/11 world. So obviously, we weren’t wholly unaffected by the event.
I think these readings sufficiently demonstrated how fear can be one of the most motivating factors for humanity. Fear is an interesting emotion because it determines our preservation of self, and therefore we allow it to be subject to manipulation and also serve as a focus of fascination because it helps us to shape our identity in ways that are more appealing. Engel’s article and the discussion of souvenirs allowed for the public to better identify with 9/11, and the first essay showed how we are inclined to harbor resentment until we are provided an outlet. To me this is a direct reaction to the displacement, awe and horror felt by so many on that day, and it demonstrates how in an attempt to feel unified and thwart our worst fears, we may have mistakenly turned to tangible items or even groups of people to reaffirm our collective identity as Americans against the “other,” arguably because in times of fear what we want most is to know we are not alone. Sanchez-Escalonia’s article was also along these lines with the discussion of very carefully constructed cinematic experiences manifesting these grievances into productions that could hopefully make us feel differently. It left me wondering about the question he raises about turning 9/11 into a film, especially when he noted that only 1 in 3 Americans said they would even want to see a movie version. I am slightly skeptical about the validity of that statistic simply because of how we have seen Americans respond to the other ways 9/11 has been commodified. I wonder if it would ever actually be possible to create a film with the exact right rhetorical tone in order to not only create a film audiences would be inclined to see, but that also could influence people without exploiting their fear and resentment.
I was also curious about the statistic that said only one out of three Americans would see a movie about 9/11. I think this relates to the freshness of the attack and would be interested to see how those statistic change over time. All of the films that Sanchez-Escalonilla brought up weren’t necessarily movies about 9/11, but we’re definitely created in response to 9/11. The othering of identities in opposition to “American” was interesting because it gives American’s an enemy to direct their resentment and their otherwise unsavory emotions.