The terrorist is the big time. A principled enemy, a curse that must be deducted from any award of society. The terrorist crystallizes anxieties. It is pointed at, shunned, it's a monster. A blind monster (because a monster is always blind, eh!) That kills indiscriminately. He is an addict, always conspiracy and whose actions are guided by ideology. The terrorists still hiding something, and if he lives among us, it is always suspect to mask the real reasons for his presence. A terrorist has a dark side that condemns de facto. Thus all otherness becomes the sign of a possible-be terrorist. Figure
the terrorist, fanatic, hirsute and feverish, his features distorted by hatred he bears, is an image of Epinal, which crosses the ages. It attacks the social body, kills indiscriminately (so), and in some cases can be treated as an evil, a gangster who under the guise of big ideas (whose nobility is still debatable), just trying to get rich . The terrorist accepts his status as a terrorist, and receive this name for him is the purpose of his action. He wants to be recognized, because the terrorist needs the publicity (the act of making public) to exist. A terrorist becomes so only when it is called terrorism.
But the terrorist is also a scapegoat, he is stigmatized (inevitably), it has a fault, it is a bad conscience, proof that something does not work, or else that he is mad, the evidence that something does not work in it (which can go hand in hand, should not kidding). The terrorist is both a sign of discomfort as discomfort. His evocation disorder. It disturbs the ruling, inspires and provokes disgust immediate condemnation. The terrorist must be killed. He has no right of citizenship. For him ostracism or death.
Who may well have a legitimate right to name someone a terrorist? Who has this amazing power of taxonomy? J 'will not make you a drawing. I noticed something that bothered me for quite some time is that the power of branding has gradually devolved or decentralized. Certain terms are used to demonstrate the power of a group or an individual, and among these words there is an anti-Semite that became an issue in the media field. One who can designate someone as anti-Semitic, and to be heard thus recognized as legitimate to do so, finds himself with this weapon of mass destruction that is normally in the hands of the state: the taxonomy. Bourdieu has become anti-Semitic, Sine, Pudlowski, Morin goes on .... Often to resolve differences that have nothing to do with any anti-Semitism (there are anti-Semites, hence the term whatsoever). And
history of teasing, I want to finish by saying that States often dealing with individuals or legal entities as terrorists are terrorist states.
0 comments:
Post a Comment