TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
Words, Images, Enemies:
Macro-Securitization of the Islamic Terror,
Popular TV Drama and the War on Terror
Bezen Balamir Coşkun
Zirve University, bezenbalamir@yahoo.com
Abstract
This article is an attempt to analyze popular TV Drama from a security studies perspective,
thus applies securitization theory to discuss the presentation of the war on terror and Islamic
terror after 9/11 in American and British television drama with references to ongoing macro-securitization of Islamic terror. The central position of speech in the Copenhagen School’s securitization
theory is criticized as a result of the increasing importance of media images in political communication. The objective of this article is to analyze how the enemy other was presented in television
drama and how these presentations contributed in securitization processes. For the analysis, popular post 9/11 TV Dramas namely 24 and Spooks from both sides of the Atlantic will be analyzed.
Keywords
Securitization, Narrative, Television Drama, Islamic Terror, 24, Spooks
37
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
Introduction
Securitization refers to a process
through a particular discourse transforms
certain entities or issues into a threat. It is
defined by the Copenhagen School as kind
of threat construction through speech acts.
Securitization requires the use and perpetual repetition of the rhetoric of existential
threat mostly by the power elite. Throughout securitization process political/military
elite legitimize the use of exceptional measures to prevent this threat. The central position of speech in the Copenhagen School’s
securitization theory is criticized as it sets
restrictive criteria for an analysis of security.
In this regard, Williams (2003) underlines
the increasing importance of media images
in political communication and calls for securitization theory to develop a broader understanding of the mediums and structures
of political communication. Hence, one has
to consider the means through which security is expressed and how securitizing actors
and referent objects are constructed.
The objective of this article is to discuss
the role of other types of narrative than
speech act in securitization process by analyzing how the enemy other was presented
in television drama and how these presentations contributed in securitization processes. The analysis will be based on the presentation of the war on terror and Islamic
terror after 9/11 in American and British
television drama with references to ongoing macro-securitization of Islamic terror.
The article starts with a presentation of securitization theory and the components of
securitization. This section is followed by a
brief discussion of global war on terror as a
macro-securitization process. The final sections explore the role of television drama
in constructing narratives in general and in
constructing enemy others and legitimizing
38
the use of extraordinary measures in particular.
Theory of Securitization
Securitization theory was developed by
the Copenhagen School during the 1990s. As
Ole Wæver claims, the aim of securitization
theory is to construct a “neo-conventional
security analysis (which) sticks to the traditional core of the concept of security (existential threats, survival), but is undogmatic
as to both sectors (not only military) and
referent objects (not only states)” (Wæver
1996, 110). According to the Copenhagen
scholars, what is needed is an understanding of the cultural process of securitization;
by which actors construct issues as threats
to security.
For the Copenhagen School, the contemporary security environment is deeply
related to the politicizing of an issue. Security politics is not just about underlining
pre-existing threats; but also a performative
activity that makes certain issues visible as
a threat. Within this context, security refers
to a concept that is more about how a society
or any group of people come to designate, or
not designate, something as a threat. It is
about the process by which threats get constructed. This view proposes the concept of
securitization be defined as “the discursive
process through which an intersubjective
understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an
existential threat to a valued referent object,
and to enable a call for urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat” (Buzan
and Wæver 2003, 491). The threat can thus
be used to legitimate political action which
might not otherwise appear as legitimate.
Through the securitization process, it is
claimed that a particular security issue ne-
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
cessitates priority over others; therefore,
the securitizing actor claims the special
right to handle the issue using exceptional
measures. Hence, positing an issue as an existential threat requires a move from normal
to emergency politics since the usual political procedures do not apply in a state of war
or emergency and responses to existential
threats fall outside standard political practices.
The analysis of securitization focuses on
“the questions of when and under what conditions who securitizes what issue” (Buzan
and Wæver 2003, 71). As far as the question
of what issue can be securitized is concerned,
according to the Copenhagen School’s approach, issues in sectors (political, societal,
environmental and human security) other
than the military may also be subject to securitization. Social groups (ethnic, religious
etc.) are considered by the Copenhagen
School to be equally important as distinctive
referent objects of security. Societal security, more specifically concerns “the ability of
the society to persist in its essential character under changing conditions and possible
or actual threats…Societal security is about
situations when societies perceive a threat
in identity terms” (Wæver et al., 1993, 23).
According to the Copenhagen School, societal insecurity occurs “when communities
of whatever kind define a development or
potentiality as a threat to the survival of
their community” or more accurately the
identity of their community as such (Buzan
et al. 1998, 119). Societal security highlights
the role of identity or the sense of we-ness in
security relations. As Michael Williams argues, “a successful securitization of identity
involves precisely the capacity to decide on
the limits of a given identity … to cast this
as a relationship of threat and even enmity
and to have this decision and declaration accepted by [a] relevant group” (2003, 519).
The idea of securitization as a process of
threat construction has drawn attention to
the symbiotic relation between securitization and the formation of collective political
identities. According to Williams, this line of
thought can be clearly seen in the process of
securitization, where a securitizing actor is
at its most efficient exactly because of operating ‘legitimately’ beyond otherwise binding rules and regulations (Williams 2003,
518). The securitizing actor only achieves
this status by underlining the existence of
‘the other’ as an ‘existential’ threat for two
reasons: first, because security is always relational in the sense that one’s insecurity/
security centers on other(s’) insecurity/security – the classical formulation of a security dilemma. Second, it makes little sense
to speak of one’s security without recognizing the source of the threat, ‘the other’. In
the absence of ‘the other’ one cannot speak
about security (Wæver 1997, 353). In this
sense, securitization is about the process
through which a state/society is consolidated vis-à-vis an enemy-other (Fierke 2007,
112).
Speech Act, Securitizing Actor,
Audience and Facilitating
Factors of Securitization
The main argument of securitization theory is that security is a speech act. According
to Wæver, security is not an objective condition; rather it is a speech act: “The utterance
itself is the act. By saying it something is
done” (Wæver1995, 55). Wæver defines security as a speech act, where “security is not
of interest as a sign that refers to something
more real; the utterance itself is the act…
By uttering ‘security’, a state representative moves a particular development into
a specific area, and thereby claims a special
right to use whatever means are necessary
39
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
to block it” (Wæver 1995, 55). That is to say,
the mere invocation of something using the
word ‘security’ declares its threatening nature and “invokes the image of what would
happen if security did not work” (Wæver
1995, 61). Thus, a specific security rhetoric
which underlines survival, priority of action
and urgency defines the contours of securitization.
The Copenhagen School posits securitization as being founded upon a speech act
by an actor claiming to speak in defence of
a collectivity and demanding the right to
act on its behalf. As a speech act is one of
the basic components of securitization, by
definition it is an inter-subjective communication process that requires, as a rule, at
least two sides: a securitizing actor and an
audience. Securitization necessitates the use
and perpetual repetition of the rhetoric of
existential threat by the securitizing actor,
who is usually the government and/or its
military and bureaucratic elite. Through the
articulation of danger and existential threat,
the securitizing actor demands justification from the audience to use all necessary
means to eliminate the threat. According to
Paul Roe, securitization is a kind of ‘call and
response’ process. An actor makes a call that
something is a matter of security and the audience must respond with their acceptance.
If there is no such level of acceptance, securitization will have failed (Roe 2004, 281).
Securitizing actors seek moral support from
respective societies which are embodied in
the form of public opinion.
To complement the speech act, securitizing actor and audience triumvirate,
the Copenhagen School considers ‘facilitating conditions’ that influence the success
of the securitization process: the demand
internal to the speech act of following the
grammar of security and constructing a plot
with existential threat, point of no return
40
and a possible way out; the social capital
of the securitizing actor, who has to be in a
position of authority, although this should
neither be defined as official authority nor
taken to guarantee success with the speech
act; and conditions historically associated
with a threat. It is more likely that one can
conjure a security threat if there are certain
objects to refer to which are generally held
to be threatening – be they tanks, hostile
sentiments, or polluted waters. In themselves they never make for necessary securitization, but they are definitely facilitating
conditions (Buzan et al. 1998, 33, Wæver
2003, 15). These three conditions facilitates
a securitizing act which has a chance to be
successful, which means only then a securitizing actor has been able to convince her/
his audience of the need to mobilize extraordinary measures.
Buzan and Wæver introduce these conditions as important factors in understanding securitizing speech acts with a particular
focus on power and the inter-subjective establishment of threat (1998, 25, 31-32). In
this regard, they claim that “it is important
to be specific about who is privileged in articulating security. To study securitization
is to study the power politics of a concept”
(Buzan et al. 1998, 32). It is argued that
the capacity to mobilize security expectations depends on the position, status, and
authority of the would-be securitizing actor
(Huysman 1999, 19). Wæver’s restrictions
on who is likely to succeed in securitization
are based on the realist notion of the distribution of capabilities and powers. The more
capabilities a securitizing actor has the more
likely this actor will succeed in attempted securitization. In other words, individuals or
groups deprived of powers and capabilities
in the society can seldom act as securitizing
actors. They may speak about security to and
of themselves, but they never have the power and capability to securitize the particular
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
issue they perceive as an existential threat.
Global War on Terror as
Macro-Securitization
The Copenhagen School’s theory and
its applications have mainly focused on
the state and/or nation level of securitizations. It is understandable that middle level
of world politics is more active in terms of
threat constructions, but there exist system
level securitizations as experienced during
the Cold War and more recently in global
war on terror case. In order to cover securitizations that speaks to referent objects
such as universal religions or political ideologies and primary institutions of international system Buzan and Wæver suggest
the concept of macro-securitization (2009).
According to Buzan and Wæver the most
powerful macro-securitizations “will impose
a hierarchy on the lower level ones incorporated within them, but it is also possible
for a macro-securitization simply to bundle
other securitizations together” (2009, 257).
The macro-securitization of global war on
terror works this way and links the securitizations of drugs, crime and weapons of mass
destruction with the securitization of terror.
Each macro-securitization operates on
behalf of a huge collectivity but not all of human kind. However, the global war on terror
has tried to embrace all civilized or wantingto-be-civilized people. According to Buzan
and Wæver the global war on terror has
“strong elements of existing order universalism –all states against non-state terrorists,
order against chaos- mixed with an American inclusive universalism (2009, 265).
As stated by Buzan and Wæver macrosecuritization is defined by the same rules
that apply to other securitizations but macro-securitizations have more complicated
structure than the others since they contain
both higher and lower level securitizations.
Like all securitization processes macrosecuritization requires securitizing actors,
speech acts and responsive audiences. In
addition to those, macro-securitizations
requires a more expansive dynamic (2009,
257-58). Hence, a macro-securitization
should be studied in terms of actors, audiences and speech acts and dynamics among
them. According to Buzan and Wæver Buzan and Wæver’s framework (2003) the US’
securitization of terrorism has been loose
in terms of referent object, threat and the
relationship between countermeasures and
specific threats.
It is widely accepted that terrorism is a
major global security issue. In that sense it
is relatively easy to link any specific issue
such as religious radicalism to terrorism and
make this issue as a security issue. Besides,
by adding universality a vertical move to
link greater securitizations is also possible
(Buzan and Wæver 2009). After 9/11 attacks, the US declared a global war on terror and asked other states whether they are
with the US in their war against terror. The
choice of language and terminology made it
an international security issue.
The ability to initiate a successful macrosecuritization depends on power as well as
on the “construction of higher level referent
objects capable of appealing to, and mobilizing, the identity politics of a range of actors within the system” (Buzan and Wæver
2009, 268). According to Buzan and Wæver
a successful macro-securitization demonstrate and legitimize the leadership and facilitate alliance formation. It can also help
to draw spheres of influence and boundaries
of containment (2009, 268). 9/11 provided
grounds for a potentially dominant macrosecuritization around which the US and its
allies’ foreign and security policies could be
coordinated. With the zero-sum rhetoric of
41
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
the global war on terror caused the resurrection of colonial themes of civilized vs. barbarian by highlighting the terrorist threat
to liberal universal principles of democracy,
human rights and the market.
was constructed, then legitimized and institutionalized.
Words, Images and Enemies:
Television Drama and
From the very beginning the global war
Macro-Securitization of Islamic
on terror presented as a macro-securitization with the whole of the civilized world Terror
and universal principles of democracy, human rights and liberal market as its referent object. As argued by Buzan and Wæver
it has been “relatively successful in mobilizing a number of allies for some of its major
operations, fewer for other operations, but
generally the main allies have all adopted
the rhetoric of ‘terrorism as our main security problem’” (2009, 274). Beyond its success in legitimizing the US’ global leadership
and facilitate and sustain alliance formation,
the macro-securitization of global war on
terror has caused deeper effects on society
level. Besides the official rhetoric about the
terror as an existential thereat reinforced
through speech acts other means of narrative construction have been instrumental
in macro-securitization of the global war
on terror. The most significant of all, the
striking images of 9/11 attack that shown
through global media were more effective
than George W. Bush’s speech in generating a macro-securitization process. These
images have been also reinforced by other
means of communication, particularly by
popular TV dramas, that eventually created
an image, a prototype of terrorism and terrorist in the eyes of ‘civilized’ people. Thanks
to the bombardment of images and speech
which have been used for signification,1 an
objective reality regarding the war on terror
1
In Beger and Luckman’s The Social Construction of Reality, signification refers to human production
of signs, which has an intention to serve as an “index
of subjective meanings.” This can be a dance, gesture,
marking, language etc. (1966)
42
As recent events demonstrate media
has a major role in security relations. From
the Gulf War to the events of 9/11 the role
of media in the representation of security
threats is proved to be significant. In his
critique to Copenhagen School, Michael Williams (2003) argues that the Copenhagen
School’s narrow focus on speech acts as the
key form of communication in securitization fall short of understanding the dynamics of contemporary political communication which is increasingly embedded within
televisual images. As Williams discusses, the
impact of televisual images and their global
reach is increasing and this poses challenges
to the Copenhagen School’s speech oriented
securitization theory. Thus, it is necessary to
reconsider securitization theory to include
the mediums, structures and institutions of
contemporary political communication.
The Copenhagen School’s focus on security as a speech act demarcates a framework
for the explanation of social practices. The
act itself is seen in linguistic terms. Copenhagen School’s focus is not liable in a communicative environment structured by televisual media. As Cori Dauber states “while it
is often the case that the rhetorician will focus on linguistic texts, on words themselves,
in an increasingly media-saturated environment, ignoring visual imaginary provide less
and less satisfactory work” (Dauber 2001
quoted in Williams 2003, 526). Consideration of the role of images in such a “mediasaturated environment” would broaden the
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
framework of analysis developed by the Copenhagen School for a better understanding
of security relations.
The striking and repeated images of 9/11
had a significant impact on our perceptions
about the horrors of the events. This experience, as Williams points out, was constructed by television images and discussions
around the images. Thus, it is inevitable that
any theory including securitization theory
which is premised on the social impact of
communicative action must consider the
impact of different mediums of communication (Williams 2003, 526).
Mediatization of terror and the examination of television journalism and the
states’ monopoly of legitimate use of violence against terrorism are particular subjects that have attracted academic interest
(Schlesinger 1991, Paletz and Schmidt 1992
and Cottle 1997). But the role of television
drama in construction of people’s perception
of terrorism mainly remains untouched. The
most imminent work on the subject is Philip
Schlesinger and Graham Murdock’s book
Televising Terrorism (1983) which discusses
the role of television drama in constructing
public’s perceptions of terrorist and legitimization of the extraordinary means that
can be used to stop terrorists. Schlesinger
and Murdock argue that the popular television drama in general, television series in
particular are based on the heroes vs. villains / we vs. other dynamics:
The plots always revolve around the central characters. They are heroes. They are on
screen for most of the time and the action is
seen from their point of view. The villain’s
function is to disturb the social and moral
order and present the heroes with problems to solve. The villains do not have to be
rounded characters to fulfill this role. They
simply have to personify threats to the es-
tablished order in a readily recognized form
(1983, 79).
Schlesinger and Murdock analyses The
Professionals (1977-1983) to show the television drama’s treatment to terrorism. As
discussed by Schlesinger and Murdock the
TV series responded to the period’s anxieties about threats to order and democracy
posed by terrorism in a way which serves for
the legitimization of official violence. The
contradictions in such a position –difficulties of distinguishing acceptable violence
from terrorist violence- presented in The
Professionals more than twenty years ago has
similarities with the treatment of terrorism
in contemporary popular television dramas
such as 24 and Spooks. Given the global reach
of popular television drama today, the role
they played in securitization of terrorism in
general Islamic terrorism in particular is significant. Since television drama constitutes
an important part of constructing narratives it must be taken into consideration in
analyzing securitization processes besides
speech acts and other visual images.
Television Drama: Narrative, Hegemony
and Representation
There exist works about how television
has positioned within different political,
cultural and social contexts and the role of
television in societal identity building (ie.
Corner 1997, Van den Bulck 2001, Ashuri
2007). Here, on the other hand, television
in general, television drama in particular is
discussed as part of a macro process of narrative construction initiated by global hegemonic powers.
Jean-Francois Lyotard (1984) views narrative with an explanatory function, providing a rationale for macro-global and micropersonal state of affairs. Macro-narratives
43
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
take the form of explanatory accounts of
the world while micro-narratives provide
individual subjects with a sense of place,
purpose and meaning. The work of Jacques
Lacan (1989 [1977]) suggests that it is in
language that human subjects acquire a
sense of identity. Language and narrative
provide human subjects with the means by
which to make sense of identities.
In Introduction to the Structural Analysis
of Narrative (1977) Barthes suggests that
narratives are universal, common to all societies and take different forms (oral, visual,
filmic, televisual or written). Barthes makes
a clear distinction between what happens
(story) and how the happenings are represented (discourse) but he stresses that
the functions, actions and narration of the
story and its discourse are not outside of
society, even though characters and actions
are fictional. Barthes states that “narration can only receive its meaning from the
world which makes use of it” (1977, 115).
No fictional narrative is detached from the
realities of the world in which the narrative
circulates. Similarly, the work of Mikhail
Bakhtin (1981, 1986) emphasizes that narratives are made meaningful in relation to
social, cultural, economic, political and personal situations.
Narratives are one of the main means
by which meanings are articulated. Frank
Kermode (1967) underlines the necessity
of stories and fiction in the understanding
and construction of human cultures. Within
this context, television drama is among the
most everyday source of narrative in contemporary culture. As Stuart Hall (1987)
describes, television drama can be theorized
as a source of the narratives as constructing, mediating and framing our social and
individual identities, believes and ideas. As
far as television narratives are concerned
anxieties about narrative are related to the
44
question of their effects on audiences, particularly their power to convince audiences
of one reality above others. According to
John Corner television narrative can oversimplify complexity. “Certain perspectives
on events and circumstances depicted are
given an epistemological privileging while
others are subordinated, marginalized or excluded … Engagement with the story and its
characters entails a degree of alignment …
with dominant viewpoints” (1999, 51).
Television dramas do not offer objective
versions of contemporary realities. Cultural
categories that are represented in television
dramas structure how audiences decode dramatic representations. Television as a medium relies on a subject-audience who views
images on the screen. These images are packaged in terms of narratives and they are not
simple representatives of some objective reality, but are mediated in terms of ideologies
and desires. According to Colin McArthur
television drama has an ideational function
and there is a relationship between the popularity of a drama and the extent to which it
reinforces the ideas of the majority audience
(1981, 288).
Television drama is seen in relation to
the conflicts of history as well as shifts in
discourse, ideology and representation. The
stories that circulate within culture work to
construct our sense of who we are as individual and social subjects. In considering the
stories which TV drama construct we must
also consider their contexts of production
and reception within the context of power
relations, which brings to the fore the issue
of hegemony.
Hegemony is defined by Gramsci as the
“spontaneous consent given by the great
masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group …” (Gramsci as
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
quoted in Femia 1981, 42). For Antonio
Gramsci, the processes through which dominant social groups win the consent of subordinate groups. Consent in a hegemonic situation takes the form of active commitments
based on a view that the superior position of
the ruling group is legitimate (Femia 1981,
42). Hegemony is a process of struggle at
the level of ideas and representations. Every
representation is a potential point of struggle over meaning (Hall 1977, 334). In Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse
(1973, 1980) Hall argues that events real or
fictional are assigned meaning or encoded by
being placed in a structured context and this
meaning open to contestation. The characters and events of the television drama have
meaning in relation to the overall meaningstructure constructed by the genre, which
emerges at a particular historical moment.
Hence, television drama plays out in narrative form the concerns of a particular society
at that moment.
As far as the issue of representation in
television drama is concerned it is about the
discourses. As Michael Foucault argues all
discourses are infused with power relations.
Draw upon Foucault’s argument Stuart Hall
(1992a, 292) argues that television drama
carries both discursive power, the power to
define, and material power, the power to
enforce our compliance. Through the stories
they tell and the knowledge they produce
television drama may influence and perpetuate relations of power in ways which serve
the interests of dominant groups. In the
case studies below it is shown that television
drama both reinforces macro-securitization
process by serving the securitizing actors’
need to reinforce the masses’ ideas about
the Islamic terror as an existential threat
and becomes a site on which the contradictions and tensions within the securitization
process are played out.
Villains and Heroes:
The Representation of the War
on Terror in Popular Television
Drama and Securitization of
Islamic Terror
In this part of the article selected TV
dramas are discussed as part of providing
public (‘audience’ in Copenhagen School’s
terminology) consent for the macro-securitisation of Islamic terror initiated by the
US administration. Even though President
George W. Bush was at the fronts of this
macro-securitisation process as the leading
securitising actor, TV and media images reinforced the construction of Islamic terror
as a threat to the survival of ‘civilised world.’
Both 24 and Spooks are discussed here as
complementary to the speech acts of securitising actors.
As stated by Jack Bratich both the 9/11
attacks and the war response to them have
become immanent to everyday life. Following the 9/11 attacks “homeland” began to
signify something that has to be defended
against outside attacks and referred to the
mundane habits of everyday life (2003, 41).
What was happening is the institutionalization of warfare into everyday life. In this regard, securitization through speech acts and
images have served for the institutionalization of war against terrorism into everyday
life. Besides the speech acts of securitizing
actors and news media, televisual images
reinforced by popular television drama have
played a significant role in this process.
Speeches and newspaper articles reinforced
by the extensive use of images and drama in
TV. By constructing a narrative that points
out terrorism as an existential threat the use
of all sort of means to stop this threat has
been legitimized.
Following 9/11 prime time television
45
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
dramas ranging from the White House drama The West Wing to military dramas JAG
and NCIS, even Ally McBeal have produced
episodes that reflected events of 9/11 as story material. But Fox TV’s 24, BBC’s Spooks
become particularly effective in delivering
overt messages regarding the war on terror. These TV shows are considered as useful
cases for exploring the cultural problematics created by the macro-securitization of
global terror. They are distinct in their focus
on terrorism and the conventional concerns
found in espionage genres (Erickson 2008),
and clearly illustrate the post 9/11 zeitgeist.
The TV series in question represent an ongoing war between legitimate security apparatus and terrorists which take place in an
ambiguous political and moral environment.
Thorough the story line, those TV dramas
highlighted the idea that in case of terror attacks the state has all the legitimate rights
to employ extraordinary measures. For example, in 24, the state, embodied in Jack
Bauer character, has claimed the right to use
violence against whoever involved in terror
activities to threaten its political security.
The dominant themes of the shows werelegitimization and normalization of counterterrorist activities through the construction
of terrorist threat. Through the stories and
discourses given, these TV shows contributed in an ongoing macro-securitisation process against Islamic terror after 9/11. As TV
drama is among the most influential source
popular narrative, they have been effectively
used by producers to reinforce the anti-terror feelings among the Western audience.
According to Christian W. Erickson,
shows like 24 and Spooks served to produce a consensus on the range and extent
of counterterrorism by making counterterrorism activities of fictional agents as legitimate and normal within the context of
the global war on terror (2008, 345). Both
24 and Spooks have been instrumental in
46
establishing a counterterror genre distinct
from previous espionage genres. This new
genre concerns with the domestic effects of
a global conflict that is distinct from previous conflicts against the threats that target
the homeland (Erickson 2008, 355).
24 was a breakthrough in television drama as a result of its revolutionary real-time
format, its claustrophobic obsession with
conspiracy and betrayal within the American political and security establishments
and for its timing. The first series began
airing on the American Fox network in November 2001, just two months after 9/11. In
spite of the initial reactions against the 24’s
evocation of images of terror all too fresh in
collective memory, by the end of the third
season the show had become weekly rationalization of the war on terror while Jack
Bauer, the hero of the show, had become
the newest edition to the legion of ‘fight for
right’ American heroes. According to Jane
Mayer (2007), 24 plays off the post-9/11
anxieties and it depicts the fight against
Islamist terrorism. 24 set a tone that supports President Bush’s speech act claiming
terrorism as the deadliest enemy, and no
weapon will be left unused in the war on terror. For Jack Bauer, counterterrorism agent
of 24, and his fellow agents, there’s never
any question of civil liberties or other liberal
ideas taking precedence over the urgency of
their mission. The story line forces Bauer
and his colleagues to make difficult choices
that put liberty against security: a resistant
suspect can either be accorded due process
or be tortured in pursuit of a lead. Most of
the time, Bauer chooses coercion. Throughout the show, there are secondary characters
who question the abusive interrogation tactics but nobody argues that torture does not
work or it undermines the US’ foreign policy
strategy. These scenes were clear indication
of a successful securitization process which
managed to gain the consent of audience to
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
use extraordinary measures, including torture which was legitimized through speech
act as well as images of relentless terror
plots.
The producers of 24 defend the series
by arguing that it was acceptable for a television drama to deal with real world issues
such as terrorism: “For it to have any believability and resonance, we had to deal with
the world we’re living in, and the terrorists
are the jihadists … It wouldn’t feel realistic if
you did anything else” (Joel Surnow quoted
in The Independent 2006). Surnow argues
that there’s no question that torture can be a
legitimate counter-terrorism tool: “If there’s
a bomb about to hit a major US city and you
have a person with information ... if you
don’t torture that person that would be one
of the most immoral acts you could imagine”
(Surnow quoted in The Independent 2006). It
was shocking to find that such a practice embedded in a television drama as if it is routine enough to serve as a mere strand as part
of television entertainment.
Spooks, Britain’s equivalent to 24 notably
in its use of split-screen, was eagerly picked
up by the BBC when it was retooled following the 9/11 attack. Similar to 24, Spooks
also emphasize the youth, vigor and idealism of fictionalized UK Security Service (MI5) agents in the counterterrorist ‘Section
D.’ With destructive plots from terrorist organizations, Spooks has successfully updated
espionage drama for British television with
topical story-lines ripped from the headlines. Spooks prides itself on plot-lines that
are inspired by recent events in the news.
After the 7/7 bombings in 2005, the series
featured al-Qaeda bombers plotting an attack on London. Besides these plot-lines, the
potential threat posed by the use weapons
of mass destruction and attacks on critical
infrastructure appear in Spooks as another
frequent plot-line. The representation of the
dangers of the use of the weapons of mass
destruction highlights the extent of damage
in case of terrorists can acquire them perpetuates a political culture of high anxiety
around these issues. The balance of terror
plots mainly remained with Al Qaida until series 7 thorough which the MI5 turned
its focus to Russia. Like 24, by legitimizing
extraordinary measures to counter terror
threat, Spooks played a reinforcing role in
threat construction process in Britain. The
imaginative terror plots against British state
and society skillfully handled by the state’s
agents, gave public the message that “we are
here to protect you from the enemy others
by all means.”
As discussed by Erickson (2008, 346) 24
and Spooks like TV dramas provide grounds
for the “normalization of torture through
representations that assume the ubiquity
of its use by security personnel for interrogation; and the normalization of a permanent culture of anxiety and existential
threat posed by the use of weapons of mass
destruction.” Normalization takes place
through narratives that rationalize the extension of counterterrorist policing even in
apparently democratic polities. One of the
justifications for agents’ employment of torture, assassination, and violation of human
rights rests on the demonization of enemies
who present a threat of violence and chaos.
The enemies -terrorist and criminal organizations- portrayed in both 24 and Spooks, as
the key threats of disorder in the US and UK.
Spooks particularly touch upon the issue of
rogue nations, placing an emphasis on the
threat posed by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the activities of the intelligence
and military services of these rogue states
occasionally working in conjunction with
terrorist organizations.
Television dramas, on either side of the
Atlantic, serves for official government pol-
47
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
icy of counterterrorism, warning audience
of horrors of the global anti-terror struggle.
As surveillance and state intrusion reach
disturbing levels under the banner of global
war on terror, the televisual agents help audience to legitimize systematic repression of
personal freedoms. Hence, the viewers are
being manipulated into a kind of complicity
that legitimize the existence of such state
security apparatus which tortures, bugs,
blackmails and peddles officially-sanctioned
misinformation. It is important to locate these shows in
the political dynamics of the counterterrorist and counterinsurgency policies of the US
and the UK, as they reflect debates about
the extent of the threat and the required response that takes place. Both 24 and Spooks
should be understood as fictionalized reflections of the debates about counterterrorism,
security mobilization, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Following the 9/11 there
was a concerted effort to construct a narrative and apocalyptic discourse as part of the
ongoing securitization process. Bush administration took advantage of ontological terrorism, prolonged fear of imminent annihilation and panic over insecurity, to keep the
public disoriented and in a sustained feeling
of in need of protection (McLaren 2003,
149). Popular television dramas like 24 and
Spooks dramatize this process of securitization. They illustrate the role of television
drama in the macro-securitization and diffusion of the logics of “ontological terror”
(McLaren 2003, 149) to the most intimate
levels of everyday life. Yet they also suggest
that this diffusion necessarily results in an
involution. Far from simply reinforcing the
terror paradigm, these programs transform
the Manichean2 structures used to justify
2 Manichean (paranoia) is the notion
that self has to comprise the forces of good and
face off against the forces of evil, and that own
48
war, inside/outside, us/them, good/bad, civilized/barbarous, into something complicated. These dramas highlight the dichotomy
of ‘us and them’ that has underwritten the
global war on terrorism and perpetuated the
state of emergency post-9/11. In all of these
dramas, it is legitimized the alienation of
“us” from democratic principles and moral
values in the name of detecting and combating the others. A study of these television
dramas both reveals the processes through
which permanent war is macro-securitized
and foregrounds the terms of debate about
terrorism and counter-terrorism in such a
way as to open them to contestation.
In the face of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, and the constant speculation about
the potential terror attacks TV drama in
both the US and UK cannot escape from creating their own narrative regarding the war
on terror. Both 24 and Spooks reflect more
general themes such as the protection of the
boundaries between the self and the enemy/
other, and proliferation of various wars on
terror. Given the ratings and popularity of
them, they become successful in their attempt to contribute in the creation of a securitized world order.
As shown in the context of global
war on terror, television drama has constituted a bridge between the speech acts of
securitising actors and the audience by serving as a popular platform to construct public’s perceptions of terrorist and legitimization of the exceptional measures to prevent
terrorism. As discussed in 24 and Spooks
cases TV drama has been instrumental in
constructing a security narrative vis-à-vis
the other and legitimizing the use of force
against it. Popular television dramas like 24
moral superiority over and against the other
forces which will give the self necessary justification when commit immoral acts.
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
and Spooks have been appeared as official byproduct of the war on terror, by underlining
the state’s monopoly of the use of violence
against terrorism. Both raise the question
of where should we draw the line between
defending one’s own country and committing immoral and illegal acts in the name of
national defense. The shows’ plots create a
sense of urgency and peril, the sort of ontological terrorism, and make audience think
about good and evil, sacrifices and trade offs
that have to be made for the sake of securing
us and homeland against enemy others
Conclusion
Analyzing security within the context of
contemporary communication environment
requires an analysis of visual representation and reception of security as well as the
rhetoric of securitizing acts. In an age of images securitization analysis must focus on
the ways through which images’ impact on
the speech act of securitization. It is important to explore in what ways are visual representations of security threats structured
and how they influence social perspectives.
As discussed throughout the article televisual images in general, television dramas in
particular are capable of contributing to the
process of securitization. Security policies
are constructed not just through linguistic
legitimization but also through acceptable
visual narratives created by television drama
as well as television reporting. This has been
clearly illustrated in the case of the representation of Islamic terrorist in popular television dramas. These visual representation,
yet fictional, have had considerable influence on the public perception of the Islamic
terror as an existential threat and on the legitimization of counterterrorism policies in
the eyes of public.
49
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
References
Ashuri, Tamar. 2007 “Television Tension: National
versus Cosmopolitan memory in a Co-produced television Documentary.” Media, Culture and Society 29(1):
31-51
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination:
Four Essays. Translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press
Balzacq, Thierry. 2005. “The Three Faces of Securitisation: Political Agency, Audience and Context.” European Journal of International Relations, 11(2): 171-201
Barthes, Roland. [1977] 1993. “Inaugural Lecture,
College de France.” In A Roland Barthes Reader, edited by
Susan Sontag, 457-478, London: Vintage
Berger, Peter L. and Luckman, Thomas. 1966. The
Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology
of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books
Bratich, Jack. 2003. “Cultural Studies, Immanent
War, Everyday Life.” In 9/11 in American Culture, edited
by Norman Denzin and Yvonne Lincoln, 41-43. New
York: Altamira Press
Buzan Barry. 1991. People, States and Fear, 2nd Edition. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Buzan Barry and Wæver Ole. 2003 Regions and
Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Femia, Joseph V. 1981. Gramsci’s Political Thought.
Oxford: Clarendon Press
Fierke, Karen M. 2007. Critical Approaches to Security. Cambridge: Polity
Hall, Stuart. 1973. Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. Occasional Paper 7, Birmingham:CCCS
Hall, Stuart. 1977. “Culture, the Media and the
Ideological Effect.” In Mass Communication and Society edited by James Curran et al., 315-348. London:
Edward Arnold
Hall, Stuart. 1980. “Encoding/Decoding.” In Culture, Media, Language edited by Stuart Hall et al., 119138. London: Hutchinson
Hall, Stuart. 1987. “Minimal Selves.” ICA Documents 6. London: ICA: 44-46
Hall, Stuart. 1992. “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power.” In Formations of Modernity edited by
Stuart Hall and Bram Gieben, 275-320. Cambridge:
Polity
Huysman Jef. 1999. Language and the Mobilisation of Security Expectations: The Normative Dilemma of
Speaking and Writing Security. Paper presented at ECPR
Joint Sessions, Workshop Redefining Security, Manheim, 26-31 March
Kemode, Frank. 1967. The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction. London: Oxford University
Press
Buzan, Barry. 2009. “Macro-securitisation and
Security Constellations: Reconsidering Scale in Securitisation Theory.” Review of international Studies 35(2):
253-276
Lacan, Jacques. [1977] 1989. Ecrits: A Selection.
Translated by A. Sheridan. London and New York: Routledge
Buzan Barry, Wæver Ole and Wilde, Jaap. 1998.
Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne
Rienner Publishers
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester
University Press
Corner, John. 1997. “Television in Theory.” Media,
Culture and Society 19(2): 247-262
Mayer, Jane 2003 “Whatever It takes: The Politics
of the Man Behind 24.” In Secrets of 24 edited by Dan
Burstein and Arne de Keijzer, 22-36. New York and
London: Sterling
Corner, John. 1999. Critical Ideas in Television Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Erickson, Christian W. 2008. “Thematics of Counterterrorism: Comparing 24 and MI-5/Spooks.” Critical
Studies on Terrorism 1(3): 343-358
50
McArthur, Colin. 1981 “Historical Drama.” In Popular Television and Film edited by Tony Bennet et al., 288301. London: British Film Institute
McLaren, Peter. 2003. “George Bush, Apocalypse
TJP Turkish Journal of Politics Vol. 3 No. 1 Summer 2012
Sometime Soon, and the American Imperium.” In 9/11
in American Culture edited by Norman Denzin and
Yvonne Lincoln,147-153. New York: Altamira Press
Roe, P.aul. 2004. “Securitisation and Minority
Rights: Conditions of Desecuritisatio.” Security Dialogue
35(3): 279-294
Schlesinger Philip and Murdock, Graham. 1983
Television ‘Terrorism’: Political Violence in Popular Culture.
London: Comedia
Van den Bulck, Hilde. 2001. “Public Service Television and National Identity as a Project of Modernity:
the Example of Flemish Television.” Media, Culture and
Society 23(1): 53-69
Williams, Michael. 2003. “Words, Images, Enemies:
Securitisation and International Politics.” International
Studies Quarterly 47(4): 511-531
Wæver Ole et al. 1993. Identity, Migration and the
New Security Agenda in Europe. New York: St. Martins
Press
Wæver Ole. 1995. “Securitisation and Desecuritisation.” In On Security edited by R.D. Lipshutz, 46-86,
New York: Columbia University Press
Wæver Ole. 1996. “European Security Identities.”
Journal of Common Market Studies 34(1):103-132
51