Saturday evening I found myself drying tears from my eyes, yet again. For the first time in weeks these were not tears of pain, or anger, or sadness, these were tears of fear. Fear had never been an emotion I had associated with Sunday, but just the thought of showing up to church in the morning made my skin crawl. This week I would be counted among the damned for sure.
Half a monster, but also half of me, I am sorry baby, I should have loved you.
So she sits, afraid to sleep, tears welling in her eyes. Her mind is blank, her body numb, her words were not enough. Now to face a fight, that she never dreamed.
Several years, I wasted, picking out his flaws. I loved him everyday in spite of them, and never thought that would end. Now, everyday he changes some, growing better as a man. The closer he comes to perfection, thought, the faster I want to run. I am quite certain there is some psychological explanation for this fucked up reaction of mine, there has to be.
So there’s this guy, I find him rather neat. His head is bald, his smile bright, and his ink is inspired by his grandmother. I’ll be in his arms again tomorrow, and there is a fluttering in my stomach. 🙂
No, heaven’s not a place that you go when you die. It’s that moment in life when you actually feel alive. So live for the moment, and take this advice, live by every word. Love’s completely real, so forget anything that you’ve heard. And live for the moment, now.
‘Children will change you life forever’, it’s a tale as old as time, and a truth, that many people realize too late. Having children is a societal expectation, and those who CHOOSE not to follow the masses, are frowned upon and labeled ‘selfish’.
I am one of these selfish people who has chosen not to have children. I love them, think they are fun to be around, but, kids are not for me. Honestly, the whole idea of pregnancy, having something growing inside of me, that I eventually have to expel, frightens the hell out me. The idea of being solely responsible for another human life, when I still am not sure I have my own figured out just seems like a horrible idea.
I have been working with kids my entire life, and I concur, that children really do change one’s life. My late teens turned me into a bit of a party animal, I am not proud of the person I was. I was drinking too much, hanging with the wrong crowd, and was well on my way to having tried pretty much every drug imaginable. I would sometimes not sleep for days after cocaine binges, lost many nights to a drunken haze, and spent several months locating and deleting not so lady-like pictures and videos of myself.
Weeks after my 20th birthday, I was in my third car accident in less than a year, and in way over my head. I decided to take a break, to do something totally different. Change my life so drastically that things could never be the same. Others looked at my decision, as ‘running away’, but I knew I needed such a change. I went online and researched being an Au-Pair. In a matter of days, I had found a family, and had a plane ticket in hand. As prepared as I thought I was, I quickly learned, I was not.
I was suddenly not just living for myself, but was now a role model for 4 little girls. Just looking at them, I knew that I would not want them to follow in my footsteps. And yes, I fell in love. Over the course of 7 years, these little kids taught me so much. I learned that I could live a sober life, that I was allowed to not be perfect, and that I could make changes as they needed to be made.
Because of these kids I am no longer the person I was, and that is okay. Some of my favorite lessons from these crazy kids are:
-If (insert name here) says ‘he said, that she said, that they said, that he said, (insert information here), It MUST BE TRUE.
-No matter how green your grass is, even if you live next to a parking lot, the grass will ALWAYS be greener on the other side.
-A smile really can brighten a room.
-Kids are honest, if a kid says you’re ugly, old, fat, you are ugly, old, fat. 
At the end of the day, yes, I am truly, honestly, in love with these kids. I am more truly, honestly, in love with the idea, that at the end of the day, I can leave them with their parents! I choose to remain childless, not because I hate kids, but because I am okay with being ‘selfish’.
🙂
Sometimes words don’t come easy. Emotions can be too strong, and sometimes hard to share, but as my third grade teacher said, “Where there’s a will, there are words.” She spoke these words with a smile as we stood alone, “You are a beautiful girl, and wise beyond your years” I remember I had tears in my eyes, but I didn’t know why. From day one I was told that I was pretty, and good grades were just expected. I never put much thought into the things I did, I guess because I just knew my role. I was a pleaser, as long as everyone around me was okay, I was too. Away from home, I was a ballerina, a tom-boy in a dress, and as I won every contest I ever entered, my classmates despised my “luck”. I never had the vacation stores, or family tales to share, so when I was asked to turn in my essay about “What I did this summer”, my heart was heavy, and my face was red. I had spent my summer, like every summer before being tossed around between my mom and grandparents (my dad was not around). Sure I had lots of stories, but nothing I could share. My grandmother was confined to her bed at home, she was sick, and had been for years. She couldn’t walk, she couldn’t breath without a huge machine, she was in no shape to care for kids. My grandpa was a workaholic, probably trying to avoid the pain he felt seeing his wife the way she was. He would rise before the sun, and return just in time to watch the news, then go to bed. I never questioned the situation, I did wonder where my dad was, but I kept that to myself. I was responsible. I had been as long as I could remember. That summer though, something went wrong, after days of not saying a word, my grandma began to write. I remember crying, because I didn’t get what she was trying to say. She wasn’t writing stories, she wasn’t telling me what to do, she was just writing. There was no order to her words, but she wanted desperately for someone to understand. With a shaky voice I phoned my grandpa at work, from there he called an ambulance, and then there was a knock at the door. I opened up, and 3 men joined us inside. Some minutes passed before they decided to take my grandma away. I didn’t know that would be the last time she passed through that door. She spent the next weeks in the hospital, and I, I was sent to mom.
I just want to sleep at night. I want to know I’m sane. I want to know it wasn’t me, that I’m not the one to blame. I really want to smile, even when it’s dark, but every time I close my eyes, he whispers in my ear. I feel his hands around my neck, and I feel the fear. I want to dream of peaceful things, please give me back my bliss. I ask to be forgiven, God, for every wrong I’ve done. I want to see the good again, and prove that I’m not weak. I want to trust myself, that’s all.
Lieber Gott hörst Du mir zu? Ich finde heute keine Ruh. Verzeih mir was ich falsch gemacht, und schenk mir bitte eine gute Nacht.
Introduction
When studying civilization, or any aspect of culture, sociologists are guided by the scientific method. After 9/11 sociologists were left questioning the social forces and historical realities behind the attacks. The goal of this paper is to examine the cultural causes, mainly, politics, religion, and civilization of the terrorist attacks of 11, September 2001. In doing so I will examine Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis „The Clash of Civilizations“, a speech held by Admiral Robert Natter, “Can a State be “Terrorist?” by Paul Wilkinson as well as works by Max Weber, and Émile Durkheim, and an interview with Tom Katis.
I. Explanation and politics of 9/11
At 8:40AM on September 11, 2001 the attack on the World Trade Center towers began. Days later on October 7, 2001, President George Bush announced that U.S. military forces had begun strikes against targets in Afghanistan, noting that these strikes were just the beginning of a larger, global campaign against terrorism. On March 22, 2003, Bush announced the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. At this time the word “terrorism” which according to the dictionary, is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, was something new for many Americans. The Bush administration led on that terrorism was something new, and that it is a salient fact of our times justifying emergency measures, even a permanent state of emergency. It was this understanding of terrorism along with the widely accepted explanation of the World Trade Center attack as an unprovoked attack launched by evil people, against democracy, that allowed the government to justify, to the American People, the extremely irresponsible measures that were taken.
“9/11 happened because Osama Bin Laden and his followers needed a new adversary. They were part of defeating the soviets in Afghanistan. They needed a new cause to perpetuate their Cult.” (Tom Katis)
Aside from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States efforts to defend itself also include detention of uncharged captives at Guantanamo Bay, abuse of prisoners in Abu-Ghraib prison, arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens, the Patriots Act which restricts freedom in the name of freedom, and a national security doctrine authorizing preemptive war as opposed to preventive war on the supposition that a particular country may pose a threat to the US in the future. According to Paul Wilkinson, it is a “fundamental truth that one cannot adequately understand terrorist movements without paying some attention to the effects of the use of force and violence by states.” (467) Did the Cold War, the ongoing occupation of Palestine, or sanctions against Iraq influence the hijackers who flew planes into U.S buildings? These are a few of the questions sociologists should investigate.
The Cold War represented a war that was never directly fought between the two world superpowers, but took the form of indirect, proxy wars. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US armed, trained and funded Osama bin Laden and the Islamist fighters that would eventually create al Qaeda. The Islamists’ victory over the Soviet Union propelled the dissolution of the USSR, a victory for the US. The US, in turn, would become sole political and economic leader in the world, but with unforeseen side effects. Those accidental consequences included arming, training, and funding a network of radical Islamic fighters who had not only gained confidence from defeating the second biggest military in the world, but their victory gave them a fair amount of legitimacy in the Muslim world. On one level then, a key piece in the downfall of the USSR (the resolution of the Cold War) had the unintended consequence of emboldening a new enemy and creating new conflicts at the very same moment.
II. Importance of Religion, Ethics and Symbolism
When studying the effects of religion, sociologists must do so under the assumption that no religions are false. It is a sociologist’s job to focus on the social aspect of religion, such as the characteristics common to all religions and the ways in which people use religion to justify almost any kind of action.
The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were largely successful attacks of some of the United States’ most visible symbols, and caused a feeling of patriotism that was not there before. Fortunately, in a sense, the terrorists struck targets that are more symbolic than structurally essential to the day-to-day functioning of American society. Had they instead destroyed three or four strategically located nuclear power plants, for example, or a nuclear weapons depot, the resulting Chernobyl-like catastrophe could have been decidedly more cruel and pernicious to our social system.
The idea that we are witnessing a clash between two disparate religions is one popular explanation of the terrorist attacks on the United States. What religion is, and the cultural roles it plays can be examined with the help of Karl Marx’s “Conflict Theory”, Max Weber’s “The Sociology of Religion” and “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”.
In the opening sentences of “The Sociology of Religion” Max Weber states, “To define religion, to say what it is, is not possible…. Definition can be attempted, if at all, only at the conclusion of the study”. He offered the broad definition that religion encompasses those human responses that give meaning to unavoidable problems of existence such as, birth, death, illness, aging, injustice, tragedy and suffering.
In his book “The protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Weber studied the major world religions and some of the societies in which these religions were practiced. Weber introduced the East West conflict, and focused on how norms generated by different religious traditions influenced economic orientations and motivations. He concluded that a branch of Protestant tradition, called Calvinism, supplied an ethic that supported the motivations and orientations required by capitalism. Calvinistic principles emphasized work as an ascetic mean to avoid temptation and as the purpose of human existence. Work was for them a moral issue, a divine decree that is imposed on all, rich and poor. Accordingly, the division of labor was perceived as part of the divine program on earth and therefore fulfilling one’s part in it was doing god’s biding. According to the Protestant ethic you were supposed to play your assigned role in life in order to do your part for the common good.
Weber argued that Capitalism produces a society run along machine-like, rational procedures without inner meaning or value and in which men operate almost mindlessly. For example, Al Qaeda is more of an ideology and a very loose network than it is an organization with clear command structures or cohesiveness. Nonetheless, the idea of Al Qaeda and the original formation of those networks surfaced in the early-mid 1980s in the largely informal and volunteer pan-Arab response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda can also be traced to the radical re-interpretations of Islam from thinkers, the illegitimacy and repressiveness of most Arab states among and against their own people, the lack of economic opportunity in the Muslim world, and old networks of resistance from a previous Marxist era of resistance to foreign aggression within the Muslim world.
Some sociologists argue that industrialization and scientific advances, both driving forces of capitalism, cause society to undergo unrelenting secularization, a process in which religious influences become increasingly irrelevant, not only to economic life, but also to most aspects of social life. Others argue that as religion becomes less relevant to economic and social life in general, a significant number of people take on a fundamentalist view. They reexamine their religious principles in an effort to identify and return to the most basic principles.
Like Weber, Durkheim believed that the term religion is difficult to define. He believed that all religions address the problems of human existence in different ways. He says that religion cannot be studied using standards that reflect ones own personal experiences and preferences. Durkheim maintains that sacredness springs not from items, rituals, or events themselves, but rather from the symbolic power and from the emotions that people experience when they think about the sacred thing or when they are in its presence. These emotions can be so strong that believers feel part of something larger than themselves. Durkheim’s definition of religion highlights three essential characteristics: beliefs about the sacred and the profane, rituals, and a community of worshipers.
Civil Religion is an institutionalized set of beliefs about a nation’s past, present, and future and a corresponding set of rituals that take on a sacred quality and elicit feelings of patriotism. It forges ties between religion and a nation’s needs and political interests. A nation’s values (such as freedom) and rituals (such as parades, fireworks, and singing the national anthem) often assume a sacred quality. The dynamics of civil religion are most notable during times of crisis and war and on national holidays. Part of the social context of the Muslim world is the inherent grievances many Muslims have towards the US and the West. For the most part, Muslims feel a sense of solidarity with other Muslims regardless of nationality.
“If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of religion.” (Bellah, 1973, p. 191 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life])
In Durkheim’s theory of suicide, one could attempt to explain why a terrorist would be willing to die, in the name of religion or culture. Altruism is a fundamental condition accounting for human cooperation for organization of society and its cohesiveness. In the conceptual map of French sociologist Emile Durkheim, The World Trade Center attacks as well as suicide bombings would fall in the category of altruistic suicidal actions, distinct from other types of suicidal actions caused by personal catastrophes, hopelessness and psychopathologies that lead people to believe life is not worth living. Altruistic suicides, on the other hand, involve valuing one’s life as less worthy than the group’s honor, religion or other collective interests.
13 days after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, Admiral Robert Natter, Commander and Chief of the Atlantic Fleet held a speech in New York City at Yankee Stadium to honor the victims of the terrorist attacks. In this speech Natter discusses the symbolic strength of the United State’s Flag for the American people. He mentions that this symbol was displayed proudly in front of homes and business all across the country and the feeling of togetherness it brought to the people during a time of crisis. This phenomenon supports Durkheim’s theory. Another popular idea aside from the clash of religions is that 9/11 is due to a clash of cultures or civilizations, which is associated with Samuel Huntington.
III. Huntington’s theory
Multiculturalism sometimes features so-called identity politics, which usually refers to social activism, theories and similar activities based on the shared background of a specific group. Huntington applies a version of identity theory to world politics in what can be called a postmodern theory of international relations. Unlike multiculturalists, his aim is to understand future clashes. According to Huntington, the main source of future conflict will not be ideological or economic but rater a cultural clash between groups of different civilizations.
Huntington’s hypothesis is explicitly tied to surpassing the concept of the nation state in the form of a civilization or culture, terms that he identifies and does not distinguish in grouping countries together in terms of their culture and civilization. According to him, the processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities, hence weakening the nation state as a source of identity. He further holds that as ideological divisions disappear or weaken cultural differences become more important. As examples, he points to the contest over some 1300 years between Islam and the West, and to the interlocking directorate composed of the United States, Britain and France which together with Japan dominates the decisions made at the UN Security Council or in other important bodies.
The considerable interest of his approach lies in acknowledging that for historical reasons the identity of the main historical actors changes over time. This is an important point that is often neglected, particularly in modern philosophy, which persists in depicting the subject on a quasi- Cartesian model as situated beyond social context, time and history.
Certain details of Huntington’s overall analysis of international relations are questionable. Writing a dozen years ago before the effective emergence of China on the economic world stage, Huntington thought that Japan presented the only non-Western threat to Western economic dominance. He holds, thought this is not confirmed by such phenomena as emigration or religious conversion, that though other traits can be altered, membership in one or another civilization cannot.
He assumes cultural homogeneity, which is not often if ever attained in large contemporary nations, such as China, India and the United States, and as a result of greater mobility, increasingly less often even in the smaller ones such as Holland. Even in China, where the Han people represent more than 90% of the population, the plurality of languages and distinct cultures in that immense country makes it questionable to regard it as a single homogeneous entity.
Huntington weakens the roles of ideology and economics in arguing for culture as the main explanatory factor, conceptions of ideology and economics. Ideology is arguably as widespread and important now as it has ever been. In the Bush administration no or practically no questions are decided on their merits, since all or practically all decisions are decided in terms of ideological commitments to various special interest groups. Ideology operates as a proximal cause though it is finally an effect. Hitler obviously hated Jews, but it would be farfetched to regard his deep anti-Semitism as a basic cause of the Second World War. At most Hitler’s desire to kill Jews was a secondary theme, enlisted as a means to realizing his vision of Germany, but not the end in view. The fact that his virulent dislike of Jews was not the central point enabled so many intellectuals, who did not necessarily share his anti-Semitism, to become enthusiastic Nazis.
Ideology, which can be understood in many different ways, is often taken to mean the system of ideas that form the basis of political and economic theories and policies, and is characteristic of a given group, social class or individual. Arguably the most interesting conception of ideology is the Marxian conception of false consciousness based on group identification with specific economic interests. Ideological false-consciousness is ingredient in national policy of many nation-states. Important instances of ideology in recent American military history include the so-called domino theory, which was not a cause but an important explanatory factor fallaciously tending to justify the Vietnam War and the infamous weapons of mass destruction cynically invoked by the Bush Administration to justify the present Iraqi War. No one pretends that the domino theory was the cause of the Vietnam War nor that weapons of mass destruction caused the Iraqi War though in each case a myth, which was later discredited was an important enabling factor in carrying out the conflict.
The relative role of economic factors, which Huntington saw as diminished, in any case less important than the clash of cultures more than a decade ago, is not born out by more recent conflicts. The Iraqi War, which only occurred because George Bush’s desires were sufficiently important to set the war in motion, is a good example. This war is regarded as rationally justified because of regime change, concern for the Iraqi people, weapons of mass destruction, the security of Israel, a commitment to rightwing political beliefs, and access to oil.
These proposed justifications are obviously very different. The commitment to regime change is a euphemism for the US practice when it finds it convenient of attempting to replace any government it finds adverse to its interests. The concept of weapons of mass destructions, in which some administration officials may once have believed, later functioned as a kind of ideological smokescreen to justify a war which, has never gone according to plan. The issue of the security of Israel blends together support for a historical ally and client state with what, for right-wing Christians, is frequently a religious commitment. Access to Iraqi oil is the clearest and probably single most important economic reason for going to war.
After not sleeping for more than 30 hours already, I finally landed in Munich. Munich airport and I are not the best of friends, however, today, I couldn’t lose the smile on my face if I had to. I was happy to be back in the country, that after 7 years, truly feels like home. I was happy that I would soon be bombarded with kisses from my lovely little girls. And I, probably I alone, was happy to have a very long layover in front of me. Layovers and flying are quite possibly my favorite part of traveling. This is time for reading! It is time for coffee, wine, and watching people run.
After going through security, and having my bags searched; this always happens to me in Munich, I walked around the terminal, checking out all the G gates to see where people were flying today. My gate was all the way at the end, number 6, but my flight was still several hours away. I found a lounge, and pulled out some books, that I had collected over the past 3 weeks, and, at best, only half read. 40-ish minutes later I could finally add one to my finished pile, hidden in my bag. It was now time for coffee. I collected my bags, all 16 kilos of them, and made my way to one of the many free coffee machines that Lufthansa is kind enough to provide for travelers. As I returned to the lounge it was empty, in the middle of the madness that is an airport, I was alone.
I finished a second book, and was struggling to keep my eyes open. I needed more coffee, and lots of it. As I was about to lug my bags, once again, to the nearest coffee machine, a man walked into the lounge. He was quite handsome, and he had books too! Maybe as many as I had! I smiled at him as I passed, and again when I returned minutes later. As I opened my third neglected book for the day, the man approached me. He had a lovely smile, and said he had a rather odd question for me. He asked if I had earrings on… No, I don’t, I responded, with a puzzled look on my face. Turns out the man was struggling with the sim-card lock on his iPhone, the kind you need something needle-like to open. I was sure I had nothing of the sort in any of my cary-on bags, until I remembered that I did have my thesis notes with me, nicely bond together, with, a… staple! I do have something! I showed the man the staple, and he was quite pleased with the Mac Gyver-like improvisation.
After changing his phone card, and making his call, the man came to sit next to me. I smiled at him, but said nothing. I was much too tired to bother trading names or conversing. Sitting together for nearly an hour, both lost in a book, the man asked me when my flight was. It was still over 4 hours away. He still had quite a wait, too. He was flying to Copenhagen for a short vacation, from his native Italy. After discussing our mutual feelings of being Tom Hanks in the film The Terminal, this kind man invited me to lunch.
Over wine and fruit salad, we traded stories of studying in Germany. He had completed an Erasmus semester in Berlin, and was sad that he didn’t stay to complete his studies there, and sad that he had not really learned German. He didn’t speak much German or English, and my Italian vocabulary consists of maybe 40 words, so we decided it was a good chance for both of us to practice our French. We struggled with this beautiful language, mixing in some of the others, for over an hour.
With a friendly hug, we said goodbye, as it was finally time for him to board his plane. I now had just one hour left until I could board my plane, and used the rest of my time to respond to some messages from people I hadn’t had much time to visit with back home. I had time to think, to not worry about forgetting an appointment, no stress…..This is why I love layovers.
The suited man was rather tall. His eyes were bright and kind. His words were full of might, as he paced up and down the isle. Almost like he knew us all, he helped us give our friend to God. His way with words brought smiles, rather than a million tears.
Anthony was mischievous, as were all his friends. We found our way around most rules, that was just our style. Anthony was a good man, and one might say he had a heart of gold. He lived life with a smile. He often shared them, too. Anthony was a clever kid, good at many things. He most definitely could sell ice to an Eskimo, even salt to a snail, that is all we’ll say when we talk about his “job.”
As a friend, and father though, he ranked well about the rest. Four smiling faces called him “daddy.” Now, four tiny hearts are hurting. This all leads us to question God. Today this wise preacher said, we will not find answers at the bottom of a bottle, the pain won’t fade with pills, and sex won’t dry our tears. It’s okay to cry, many grown have men shed tears there.
Coles, we love and miss you more than words can say.
discourse of atelophobia 