If It Was Not for Terrorism: Crisis, Compromise, and Elite Discourse in the Age of War on Terror
If It Was Not for Terrorism: Crisis, Compromise, and Elite Discourse in the Age of 'War on Terror' aims to investigate questions regarding the hegemonic power that is exercised by elites (and mass media) through the discourse of 'War on Terror.' The chapters in the volume provide case studies from a wide variety of geographies to debate questions regarding the construction of the meaning of 'terrorism,' communication of collective identities and otherness, and media frames regarding the 'War on Terror,' civil liberties, and government restrictions. In bringing this collection together, it was the editors intention to provide a venue for discussion of expressions and diverse concerns around the themes of media and terrorism from international and interdisciplinary perspectives. The edited volume is divided into two parts. The first part focuses on elite discourse about the definition of 'terrorism' and discursive strategies involved in construction of 'us' vs. 'others.' The second part of the volume investigates issues related to media framing of the compromises that are deemed necessary for success in the 'War on Terror.' At the same time, several chapters of this part also identify opportunities for resistance to hegemonic discourse.
Research hypothesis derives from ‘post modern’ theoretical assumptions (Mouffe, 2004: 87) on the contingent and political nature of the social and plays with two important variables; on one hand the ‘democratic deficit’ as the political stagnation of post 1990’s liberal democracies with the universalisation of neoliberal dogmas, a degrade of democracy to a cumulative procedure, and the diminishing of politics into a form of public management (Bauman, 2006); on the other hand, a chronologically simultaneous ‘rise of the particulars’ (Beck, 1999; Laclau, 2000) and the latter’s potential for new politics.