[Reader-list] We can begin a conversation

[Chad Chowbey]

Dear all,

This posting derives from Mr Shuddhabrata Sengupta's excellent imperative
that 'we can begin a conversation'. And I think we need to think about how
we can distinguish -- in all that we say, write, provide opinion on, make a
joke out of , or demand needs urgent attention, or redressal, at the level
of the institution -- between 2 very different discursive terrains: the 'war
on terror' and the 'war of terror'. At one point of time in human history (I
request you to be patient with my recourse to the fabular mode) there used
to exist a phenomenon called terrorism. In time, this material reality,
which was a form of performing disaffection, and has always remained so, any
act of terrorism is nothing but a performance of disaffection, in time this
material reality activated the need for a discourse that sought to
understand it, always with the intention of blocking it, cowing it down.

Here is a blackhawk down. The discourse on terrorism has today crashed. The
tenuous unity of this discourse was never in doubt, its foundational bases
have been heavily argued about (also on this list), but

the fact remains certain oppositions (sacred/profane, true/false,
identity/ID, proof/proof, troop/troop, droop/droop, rise/shine) have so
percolated in society, and not only through the information society, so that
'bomb blast' or 'explosion' or 'shrapnel' are snynonyms of 'conversation'
itself, they have so hardened.

the fact remains the stereotypes the discourse on terrorism unleashed, the
subject-positions rendered 'secure' and otherwise, causing an immense
transformation in human personality, and the breadth of thought humans were
capable of; the search it unleashed for identity that had to have an origin
for it to be authentic, so that it could be traced, and for that had to be
traceable (global, desi, pan-desi, pan-islamic, qausi-AngloSaxon,
demi-baader-meinhof, neo-Hindu); the immense pressure, in the form of
constriction, it placed upon humans to define themselves as not-human, but
only global, desi, pan-desi, pan-islamic, qausi-AngloSaxon,
demi-baader-meinhof, neo-Hindu; the fact remains these stereotypes have
so percolated, through information society, and especially in society
outside, where the pamphlet still works, or the tannoy, hoarse voices of
persuasion, they have so hardened.

So, is it possible to distinguish 'war on terror' from 'war of terror'? When
did the discourse on terrorism so break down, if at all it did? What do you
think?

How do we pinpoint the twin or dual emergence of 'war on terror' as distinct
from 'war of terror', if it needs to be pinponted at all?

Can we debate the question of the 'performance of disaffection'?

Is it possible to consider that it would be more germane to resolve the 'war
of terror' than the 'war on terror'?

In the spirit of Mr Shuddhabrata Sengupta's excellent imperative that 'we
can begin a conversation',
yours,
Chad Chowbey