Gender, Patriotism and the Events of 9/11

Abstract

In the weeks after 9/11/2001, the events of that day were described in many ways. One of the most significant spins came from the government: initially the events were described as “a terrorist attack,” but not long after they became an “act of war.” We Americans were told that what occurred was not a crime to be addressed by punishing the perpetrators, but an attack on a nation-state, which requires us to take up arms against the enemy.Why does this shift in conceptualizing the events matter? Acts of war and acts of crime call for different responses: in war procedural safeguards (for example, innocent until proven guilty) are suspended, civil liberties are curtailed, the death of innocents is justified. Crimes against humanity unite us as human beings in response to the horrific acts of individuals. In contrast, attacks on nation-states call for an identification of “the enemy” as other nation-states, and we are called upon as patriots to defend our country.Since the fall of 2001, the U.S. continues to frame the 9/11 attacks as an act of war: procedural safeguards for those captured and held in Guantanamo Bayhave been suspended; civil liberties have been curtailed by the Patriot Act; other nations, most notably Iraq, have been identified as “the enemy;” and the death of innocents in combat has been justified. Does any of this have anything to do with gender?