Ferrante 1

Christian Ferrante

Professor Tsang

Independent Study

July 8, 2015

The Ideology of Fear:

Terrorism and Modern Hegemony

The events of the last two decades have shaped the United States of America more so

than any other event in the last sixty-odd years. The tragedy of 9/11 ushered in many new

policies and ideologies that have totally reshaped American democracy, such as the PATRIOT

Act. These concepts have redefined the limits of power and have allowed the federal government

to penetrate deeper than it ever has into the lives of private citizens. These enhanced forms of

surveillance, from data mining to phone records to profiling, are forms of power that are

unprecedented. The ideology behind these actions stems from the publics fear of violence and

death on U.S. soil, but upon further examination, the reality is that these acts of terrorism have

been maneuvered into means to control the masses through fear and the threat of violence. Elite

theory illustrates these notions as well as Rational Choice Theory (as illustrated in works by

Cesare Beccaria, George Homans, and James Coleman etc.); rational individuals are utility

maximizers who are isolated and are only concerned with their own safety and stability. Thus

when risk is introduced, the rational isolated individual turns to the state for protection and self-

Ferrante 2

assurance. The price of this security is individual rights and liberties, which must be sacrificed in

order for the state to prevent these types of events from occurring.

The increase in police activity as well as the militarization of local and state police forces

is also a result of the shedding of liberties. Building upon the ideas of C. Wright Mills’ Elite

theory and also RCT, how individuals act, one can turn to Marxism as a further explanation of

terrorism’s role in modern culture. Marxism illustrates the ways in which those with the money

and power utilize those tools to control the masses, ultimately to shape the common man’s basic

behaviors and desires to reflect the outcome that the elites wish to achieve. In 1970, Louis

Althusser’s essay entitled, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” built upon Marxism in

an effort to explain the factors of society through which the Superstructure maintains hegemony

over the Base. He coined the terms “Repressive State Apparatus” or RSA, and “Ideological State

Apparatus,” ISA. When this concept is explained in conjunction with Marx, C. Wright Mills,

and Raymond Williams, one can find evidence of terrorisms role as an ISA. By analyzing the

events of 9/11, through political, historical, and cultural perspectives, one can apply the ideas of

Elite theory and Marxism, to illustrate how terrorism can be defined as an Ideological State

Apparatus, which indirectly aids elites in maintain hegemony and ultimately shape the direction

of society and the culture of the masses.

Marx and Engels

In order to make a comprehensive and compelling argument that focuses on

contemporary instances of terrorism acting as an ideology that influence society and culture, the

origins of Marxist theory and the elements that Althusser built his work on must be discussed.

Karl Marx spent much of his early life in Germany where he studied at the University of Bonn

Ferrante 3

and later the University of Berlin, and after receiving his doctorate from The University of Jena,

he and his new with moved to Paris, which would become the “intellectual center of the Socialist

movement” (Hutchins, v). In Paris, Marx met Fredrick Engels, who would become his close

friend and supporter, and together their work establishes the foundation of Marxism. For Marx

and Engels, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle” (473).

There was and is a constant clash between those who control the “means of social production”

and those who “are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live” (Marx, 419). The

bourgeoisie, capitalists, who control the facets of production are able to control the masses by

providing a means for them to sell their labor power; in fact it must become a necessity for the

working class, or proletariat, to be controlled in order for the bourgeoisie to remain in power.

The current climate that exists today, and the explanation of how terrorism functions is rooted in

the notions of the bourgeoisie’s need to continue to grow richer. “The need of a constantly

expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It

must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere” (Marx, 476). Thus

globalization has slowly turned the world into a macrocosm of the smaller individual interactions

of the bourgeoisie and proletariat. “Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it

has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of

peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West” (Marx, 477). This dependence of the

poor nations of the wealthy still exists today, and in the Middle East, many nations are trying to

buck their allegiance to the Western powers.

The Communist Manifest, written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, illustrates the many

mechanism of control that the rich and powerful possess, and how they are fueled by their own

desire to gain personal wealth and prominence within society. The industrial revolution allowed

Ferrante 4

those with the means of production to not only improve their products, but also to allow for more

production to arise from the same amount or even less amounts of labor. Marx’s work in

“Capital” offers an explanation as to how there is “use-value” and “value,” and how as a result

the labor power that is put in to the commodity is the root of its exchange value (305-306). What

this means is that the production of goods in completely reliant upon the labor power of the

worker, and thus ultimately the laborer holds all the potential power in the relationship. Marx

believed that, “physical force must be overthrown with physical force, and theory will be a

physical force as soon as the masses understand it” (Hutchins, v). The problem is that the

“masses” fail to be engaged on the plain of higher thinking in terms of their positon within the

bourgeoisie power structure.

In a letter to Franz Mehring, Engels uses the term for this phenomena that has become

synonymous with Marxist theory: “Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker

consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him

remain unknown to him” (Engels, 765). This concept describes how the individual is aware of a

specific problem or idea, but fails to realize the motivation or the source of that thought. This

relates to class struggle as the proletariat is faced with inner struggles that seem to be the

“conscious” understanding of reality, when in fact they are merely the ‘trappings” of the false

consciousness created by the bourgeoisie. “[The bourgeoisie] has resolved personal worth into

exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that

single, unconscionable freedom- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious

and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx,

475). These illusions are the many variables that affect the masses from understanding their

precarious position. Religious strife, social issues, racial issues, gender issues, all these things

Ferrante 5

function as the pretext for why the masses do not realize the exploitation that is occurring. There

may be victories on these fronts, but in terms of the larger struggle between the land owning

capitalists and the poor laborer, the situation has not improved. While these are indeed noble

pursuits, they are not what Marx and Engels would view as the necessary focus of the proletariat.

Marx and Engels offer an explanation as to how and why the poor are monetized by the

rich, as they have nothing to offer but their labor power. Those with the means of production are

able to capitalize on their wealth and possession of commodities and in turn parley the laborer

into improving their commodities for a profit, which in the end offers no capital to the laborer.

Wage-labor is a key factor to the whole problem, as it both helps and hinders the worker. The

laborer cannot pull themselves up out of the bourgeoisie system because they are reliant upon it,

but by relying on it they keep themselves in the lower tier of society. Marxist theory offers an

explanation of capitalism, and how the workers are faced with a choice of either complying in

perpetuity, or rising up and resisting. Yet the bourgeoisie is not unaware of the potential for

uprising and, as the next few authors and theorists will explain, there are further mechanism of

control that are put in to place in order to maintain hegemony. Now that there is an established

idea of the rich maintaining control over the poor, further evidence can be demonstrated as to

how this is achieved, and from that one can extrapolate terrorisms role in society.

C. Wright Mills

The works of C. Wright Mills deal with many aspects of socialism, and focus in on some

of the ideas that Marx and Engels purported, but in a modern context with regard to the

American political, industrial, and military institutions that operate much like a bourgeois

association, or club. His work is crucial in understanding the current power structure in the

Ferrante 6

United States, and eventually how terrorism functions within this society. In his book The Power

Elite, Mills breaks down the relationship between these powerful individuals and how it has a

far-reaching effect on the normal individual. “The powers of ordinary men are circumscribed by

the everyday worlds in which they live, yet even in these rounds of job, family, and

neighborhood they often seem driven by forces they can neither understand nor govern” (Mills,

3). Mills goes on to say that the power elite are those high up who have more leverage in

influencing policies and events than others within society. “By the power elite, we refer to those

political, economic, and military circles which as an intricate set of overlapping cliques share

decisions having at least national consequences. In so far as national events are decided, the

power elite are those who decide them” (Mills, 18). Mills’ writing correlates with Marx’s, but

instead of focusing solely on those who control means of production, Mills explains how those

agents collude with other members of elite spheres, such as the military and politics, to profit

from their collective power. Marx focuses very heavily on the economic factor, but it is Mills

who chooses to illustrate the nature of the military-industrial complex.

According to Mills, the “optimist liberal” of the 1800’s envisioned an economic system

wherein the military would have a diminished role as industrialism took center stage (215).

What they failed to realize was the symbiotic partnership that could arise from it as both a means

for the military to ensure domestic stability, and also to promote imperial expansion around the

globe. “What the main drift of the twentieth century has revealed is that as the economy has

become concentrated and incorporated into great hierarchies… and, moreover, the economic and

the military have become structurally and deeply interrelated as the economy has become a

seemingly permanent war economy” (Mills, 215). This last part is essential in understanding the

influence that terrorism has had on modern American culture. The idea of a “permanent war

Ferrante 7

economy” is one to hold on to when later discussing terrorism, as terrorism is “War 2.0,” as it

has no banner or border to tear down or conquer.

Terrorism is thus the ideal answer to the military’s fear of an end to war and their

economic system that is so dependent upon it. Marx gives the foundation for understand there is

a struggle between the masses and the rich, and Mills supports this perceived struggle in the

modern context by illustrating the power relationship between elites. This is all vital in regard to

the argument that terrorism functions as an Ideological State Apparatus as it lays the framework

for the role that terrorism plays in the control of society. As has been explained, there is a close

tie between economic and military centers, as these two groups function symbiotically, and thus

as war continues, so do profits. But key to this is the enabling nature of the public in supporting

war efforts, for after all, without the masses at least being complacent, there is no room for

continued struggle. This is where to political sphere enters in, as it allows for the right political

message and climate to arise that pushes an agenda on the masses. Mills offers a reason as to

why this is possible, as he discusses the third sphere, politics.

“America is now in considerable part more a formal political democracy than a

democratic social structure, and even the formal political mechanics are weak” (Mill, 274). Mills

says that this is an indicator that the government has become so involved in a “complex”

economy, that the government has blurred the line between corporate interest and government

and societal interests. The function of politics become a catalyst for corporate agendas seeking

higher profit margins. This is why terrorism begins to fit in to the picture as a means to continue

a war that can never be ended, because terrorism operates outside of conventional warfare. The

political agenda must concur with that of the military industrial complex, which is a continuance

Ferrante 8

of armed aggression. Of course within the military structure there exist those who view force as a

legitimate means of response to force, outside of any economic implications: “The continuation

of war may also be justified in official circles as a rational, common sense strategy of deterring

force with equal or greater force… a warrior class or group has an interest in maintaining war or

its threat” (Nagengast, 114). Aggression is a rational choice for many within the military power

structure, yet even still the expansion of the federal government “has meant the ascendancy of

the corporation's man as a political eminence;” and because the corporate man is in politics, there

is a reason for the political structure to begin to adhere to the stipulations set forth by the

corporations (Mills, 275). The need for a constant war that Mills discusses cannot exist without

the support of the people, and a great example of that is the escalation of the Vietnam War,

which very much lacked public support. The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident was used under suspect

pretenses to encourage an escalation of military presence, as it is essential for there to be a

catalyzing moment that compels the public to support the war effort. “Johnson knew, as his

mentor Franklin D. Roosevelt had demonstrated in 1939-1945, that an effective policy abroad

requiring significant sacrifices had to rest on a solid political consensus at home” (Dallek, 150).

This incident, while perhaps not identical to 9/11 insofar as the direct manipulation by the

government, was utilized in the same way to mobilize and incite support by the American

people.

What has been discussed so far has been done so in order to explain the basis for the

argument that terrorism functions as an Ideological State Apparatus. Marx and Engels have

helped to establish the notion that there is a constant struggle between the rich and the poor, and

as Mills later points out, there is a close relationship between elites that encourages the growth of

the economy, which in turn is beneficial to both the military and politicians. It is important to say

Ferrante 9

here that this argument does not contend that 9/11 was a conspiracy, or an “inside job,” but

rather to argue that this unfortunate event is a catalyst, like past events, to help shape society and

the American culture in a way that allows elites, and specifically corporations, to continue to

reap the benefits of war economics. The result of terrorism is an ever present source of risk that

modifies the behavior of individuals and affects the culture of society. While Marx gives

historical context to class struggle and Mills a modern understanding of the power structure,

Raymond Williams and Louis Althusser offer the social and culture effects of the power

relationship between the State and society, which both directly and indirectly aids elites in

maintaining hegemony.

Raymond Williams

Raymond Williams has a very unique and insightful view on the nature of culture. An

event like 9/11 has had long lasting impacts on the culture of America, and that impact is evident

in pop culture. Williams, in his book, “Marxism and Literature,” breaks down the aspects of

culture into three parts: dominant, residual, and emergent. Dominant culture represents the

majority opinion, the beliefs and practices of the ruling or dominant class. Within the dominant

culture exists elements of the past or residual culture. Williams notes that the dominant avoids

too much influence from the residual culture, but instead, “by reinterpretation, dilution,

projection, discriminating inclusion and exclusion,” it blends some aspects of the past to provide

a transition from the old to the current and eventually the new (Williams, 123).This cycle of parts

of emergent culture becoming dominant and then residual, whether existing inside or outside the

dominant culture, offers insight into how terrorism becomes a part of the dominant culture. The

idea of terrorism has emerged as a new threat of the “global” era. With so much of commerce

Ferrante 10

based upon international relations, whether through trade, international banking, or corporate

expansion, events in faraway places can influence domestic policy in a very new way.

Events occurring domestically have a way of “waking up” society to the dangers of the

“outside” world. Things like the Iranian hostage crisis of the 1970’s seemed so far away from

directly impacting life in America, but something like 9/11 has caused the culture within the

United States to take a more cautious view of the outside world, so much so that it has

encouraged the proactive determent of anti-American activity outside the borders. Within the

dominant culture of America, which holds on to the idea of the “land of the free,” has emerged a

fear of the different, of the foreign. The increased border scrutiny of the last few decades is an

indication of a fearful and isolated culture that is gaining support. History has shown similar

instances of fear of the outside, such as the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924. But in this

modern context, a new and sinister variable has been introduced, terrorism. The effect has

affected things such as film and the media in a post-9/11 world. Films portraying terroristic

violence in the wake of the attacks were either postponed or edited to remove scenes that

displayed hostage situations. “Collateral Damage,” (2002) starring Arnold Schwarzenegger was

“postponed and reedited after the attacks, as its plot revolves around a firefighter’s wife and

children dying in a bomb blast” (Gournelos, 92).

Ferrante 11

This cartoon by artist Ed Stein illustrates how an artist’s work is an incorporation of real

life into culture, and as Soviet era writer Alexander Spirkin explains, “the forms of culture are a

kind of mirror that reflects the essence of every enterprise, its techniques and methods, and the

contribution which it makes to the development of culture itself."(Spirkin, “Dialectical

Materialism”). Thus emergent forms of culture can become part of the dominant. The altering of

contemporary film and pop culture shows the direct impact that 9/11 and the new reality of

terrorism, as filmmakers and artists try to process the events that have shook a nation. Art

Speigelman is a widely known and well-criticized cartoonist and writer who captures the

emotional and cultural significance of events. His graphic novel series entitled “Maus,” captures

the true story of his father’s struggle during the Holocaust. Similar to this in his short graphic

novel, “The Shadow of No Towers.” In it, Spiegelman tries to put in to perspective the tragedy

that has occurred. This compilation of past comics and new interpretations of 9/11 captures the

mindset that many felt about the tragedy of that day. One panel from the book shows a man

holding up pictures of glasses half full, evoking in the minds of the reader the common adage

about optimism and pessimism; it reads, “I know I see glasses as half empty rather than half full,

but I can no longer distinguish my own neurotic depression from well-founded despair!”

(Spiegelman, “No Towers”).

This world outlook is a direct result of the events of 9/11 and is clear evidence of the

cultural ramifications of the attacks. Media, whether film, radio, literature, or television, has a

way of not only capturing the individual’s emotional state, but also letting people know that

others feel the same way, and that there is a collective or shared grief. This grief can then be

turned into a perceived positive manifestation, as the emotions must be directed at an outlet of

release. Cue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to a Pew study published in October of

Ferrante 12

2002, “a solid majority of the public – 62% – supports military action in Iraq to end Saddam

Hussein’s rule, with 28% opposed” (Pew, “2002 Midterm Preview”). A similar study conducted

over the course of 2003-2008 shows that support for the war was drastically higher the closer to

the initial attacks, 72% agreeing with military action in 2003, and gradually reverses as time

passes, with only 30% saying so in 2008 (Pew, “Public Attitudes, 2003-2008”). While public

opinion may have changed, what is important to realize is that the policy does not necessarily

follow the will of the people.

9/11 provided the perfect climate politically and socially to allow for sweeping

legislation that limits the function of civil liberties if the individual is found or even perceived to

be in conjunction with terroristic activities or groups. For instance, the Patriot Act, which was

recently renewed (as of June 2015), states that when an “alien” has been detained with suspicion

of terroristic activity, “no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or

otherwise, any such action or decision” (H.R. 3162-3, Sec. 412). Essentially what this means is

that an individual has no right to petition the government concerning unlawful imprisonment

(unless through the Supreme Court or certain appellate courts deemed by the legislation). This is

the foundation for the indefinite detention of potentially innocent individuals in Guantanamo Bay

and other detention sites. This all revolves around the function of society and the dominant

culture as discussed by Williams. Williams illustrates how new aspects of culture gradually or

suddenly become part of the mainstream culture. Since the inception of the Geneva Convention,

torture has been regarded as base and inhumane, yet even 14 years after 9/11, 58% of Americans

viewed torture as necessary (Pew, “U.S. Interrogation Methods, 2015”). Within the culture of the

United States has risen a response to the domestic terrorist attacks, which is a passive acceptance

of increased security and aggression if it means a relative degree of certainty in the individual’s

Ferrante 13

daily life. This contextual information enables a discussion of Louis Althusser’s work, and

therefore the crux of the argument concerning terrorism and its role as an ISA.

Althusser and the Terrorism ISA

As mentioned in the introduction, Louis Althusser defines the terms Ideological State

Apparatus, and Repressive State Apparatus in order to make a more encompassing analysis of

the State and its function. To properly utilize these concepts in an investigation of terrorism, they

must be explained. RSA are coercive measures taken by the state to ensure cooperation, or “the

political conditions of the reproduction of relations of production, which are in the last resort

relations of exploitation” (Althusser, 101). “Relations of exploitation” referrers to Marx and the

idea of coopting the labor power of the individual to serve the needs of the bourgeois capitalist.

RSA are the direct threat by the State to keep people in line. ISA are also meant to keep people

from deviating from the dominant culture, but they are not explicitly managed or forced by State,

but rather by the private society, member of the dominant or ruing class. “Private institutions can

perfectly well ‘function’ as Ideological State Apparatuses… The Repressive State Apparatus

functions ‘by violence,’ whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function ‘by ideology’”

(Althusser, 97). ISA are a direct result of the dominant culture, they can be common practices or

institutions, like religion, education, corporate life, media, etc.

Althusser argues that the religious ISA has been somewhat replaced by the education

system as a form of modifying and aligning the future generations behavior to reflect capitalistic

mindsets. Children are at an early age subjected to certain criteria: nationalist rhetoric, revisionist

history, tradecraft, in order to dichotomize and sort them into functions of production in the

capitalist society. Within these classifications, people are put into roles that reinforce the

Ferrante 14

reproduction of relations of production. “Each mass ejected en route is practically provided with

the ideology which suites the role it has to fulfill in class society: the role of the exploited… the

role of the agent of exploitation… of the agent of repression… or of the professional ideologist”

(Althusser, 105). Each has been coached and educated by institutions that are separate from the

State in many ways, but adhere to the dominant ideology of the ruling class. Thus when

individuals try to “buck” the system, society has internal methods for ostracizing the individual

for failing to conform to social norms. This is present in many instances, such as those who are

rejected by religious institutions for failing to adhere to specific doctrine, those who fail to meet

curriculum guidelines and maintain certain levels of achievement in their education, and those

who in general reject the capitalist notion of success i.e. financial motivation.

This paradigm of society, wherein the individual is an outcast if they fail to meet the

social requirements of the ruling class in private life outside the functions of the State, allows the

State to utilize this “self-policing” by society to maintain hegemony. Althusser makes this point

in his essay as it is clear that the State, while not directly manipulating ISA or their impact on

society’s behavior (as coercion by the State would effectively make it an RSA), benefits from the

relationship between the individual and society, as well as the individual’s need to conform and

be accepted. “To my knowledge, no class can hold State power over a long period without at the

same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatuses” (Althusser,

98). So, while it can be maintained that ISA function without the State maintaining direct

control, it is of essential importance that the State maintain the existence of the accepted social

order and dominance of a particular culture and class.

Ferrante 15

Logically one may ask, where does terrorism fit in to this analysis of the State? Well, the

basic function of terrorism has already been outlined somewhat in the preceding section that

deals with Raymond William’s work. As expressed earlier, there are instances of culture quickly

evolving, or mutating, to account for the events of 9/11. To recall the work of Spiegelman in “In

the Shadow of No Towers,” the first panels of the book show a family sitting in front of the

television, at first complacent then shocked, then ultimately in the same positon as the first panel,

watching television casually, but still physically affected by the news of the attacks. Spiegelman

also notes the nationalistic tone that the media takes, which helps to reinforce the emotion of fear

and sense of danger. This ultimately causes the individual to call for the proper recourse which

when presented by the State, (with its military and industrial interests) involves security

legislation and the use of coercive force within and outside the borders of the nation. “Even on a

large TV, the towers aren’t much bigger than say, Dan Rather’s head… Logos, on the other

hand, look enormous on television; [television] is a medium almost as well suited as comics for

dealing with abstractions” (Spiegelman, ‘No Towers”). What Speigelman is observing here, the

term “abstractions,” is an explicit function of the media ISA in relation to the terrorism ISA. The

images of American flags coupled with the Twin Towers, somehow dwarfing the buildings

themselves, conveys to the viewer an ideology within the subtext of the message on the screen,

that larger than any tragedy or enemy is the State, which conquers all. This message is the

pretext for the terrorism ISA; in other words, the images on the screen confirm a new reality in

which the average individual in their own private life suddenly has a target painted on their back,

and the gut-wrenching sense of vulnerability quickly emerges.

Of course, this sense of nationalism then turns to a rejection of anyone associated with

such a heinous act, and there is someone or some group that must be held accountable. Terrorism

Ferrante 16

is a unique concept because it does not require much notice or structure. For instance, when an

army mobilizes, satellites, allies, and informants can make any defending nation or force aware

of impending danger. But when someone sitting in the next seat on a plane suddenly jumping up

with a box-cutter and rushing to seize the cockpit, there is not necessarily any warning or

preventative measure to curtail such activity. That is why in response to 9/11 the nation has put

up with increased security, scrutiny of eastern minorities, and excessive force, in terms of

military and “enhanced interrogation” (torture), in an effort to avoid such an occurrence.

Once terrorism becomes a part of the culture, which it has as of 9/11, the ruling class

ensures a strict adherence to the new norms, and society deters those from going against. This is

evident in the Pew statistics mentioned, as the vast majority of society supported a war effort in

the Middle East as well as the seemingly astronomical spending that when along with it.

Nationalism functions within the terrorism ISA, as the individual who is perhaps resistant to

aggression overseas is made to feel unpatriotic or even anti-American. “The trauma of the 9/11

attacks produced a widely felt sense of vulnerability and victimization and a national desire for

revenge and payback… (e.g., Bush’s declaration on walking into a White House meeting on the

night of September 11, “We are going to kick some ass,” cited in Lemann, 2004, 157)”

(Lieberfeld, 14). Returning to the work of Althusser, one can see many of the characteristics of

an ISA within the concept of terrorism.

As expressed by Althusser, the ruling class maintains functionality of the ISA within

society, but the ruling class is often part of the State. So in having ISA dictate the course of

culture and society, even apart from private society, the State is able to maintain hegemony.

“Given the fact that the ‘ruling class’ in principle holds State power…and therefore has at its

Ferrante 17

disposal the [RSA], we can accept the fact that this same ruling class is active in the Ideological

State Apparatuses insofar as it is ultimately the ruling ideology which is realized in the [ISA]”

(Althusser, 98). So while terrorism and the response by society may function without the direct

input of the State, the closeness of the ruling class within society and the State creates an

environment that enables certain responses to the threat of terrorism. Because terrorism functions

as an ISA, as it modifies behavior and alters the dominant culture, the State is able to utilize

certain aspects of it to encourage certain polices (like the Patriot Act) or military maneuvers (the

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) that align with their own agenda concerning economic and

political advancement. Combining this idea with the notions that Mills purports, there are those

who clearly benefit from continued armed aggression, as they are often the ones who provide the

resources of war, as well as those who go in after the conflict has dissipated to clean up and

secure local resources i.e. oil, minerals, etc. Mills cited this view of the State’s war economy

through the words of Arthur Krock, “that immediate prosperity in this country is linked to a war

economy and suggests desperate economic problems that may arise on the home front,” should

the war effort end. (Mills, 216). Thus the eventuality of an end to conflict is a risk that must be

mitigated by elites and the corporate interests, and terrorism achieves this as a mechanism for

permeating the collective consciousness of the masses, maintaining a climate of fear of the threat

of domestic attacks by an unknown foreign aggressor. The state reinforces the feelings of the

individual, vulnerability, helplessness, and through the media and other cultural facets, givens an

outlet or relief for those feelings of endangerment.

The State presents the image of terrorism as a collective enemy, one who must be met

with conventional means, like any standard war. “The War on Terror,” a term first used by

former President George W. Bush in his address to Congress on September 20, 2001, portrays

Ferrante 18

the conflict as one mirroring any other conventional war that has occurred before, yet this is not

the reality of combatting terrorism. “States remain asymmetrically vulnerable to the ideologically

unified global terrorist network because conventional deterrence cannot be brought to bear

against it” (Faynberg, 4). So, what scholars have deemed as obvious in terms of the ways not to

combat terrorism, the State continues to promote conventional means of warfare against an

ideology that thrives on resistance. One can then make the argument that this is a direct result of

the States desire to maintain an unwinnable war in the conventional sense, because it is in the

business of profiting from war.

Conclusion

The foundation for the struggle between elites, or bourgeoisie, and the common man was

fundamentally explained by Marx over one hundred years ago, but the principles still make up

the foundation for the current climate within the political structure of the Western world, and

specifically America. Marx’s work inspired others to then apply this need for the elites to

manipulate individuals and examine how those in power are able to stay in power and maintain

hegemony over the masses. The outlets through which elites utilize their power are not limited to

one aspect of society, as Mills points out, but are instead a collective of economic, political, and

military avenues. The power structure of the elites is then reliant upon the dominant culture,

which is often perpetuated by the dominant class, to promote or devalue certain social norms or

conventions in order to maintain hegemony within private society. Raymond Williams illustrates

how emergent cultures are mixed with the old and the current dominant cultures, and can often

lead to the emergent cultures becoming dominant. From this understanding of culture, one need

only to apply Althusser’s thesis on the role of Ideological State Apparatuses to see that terrorism

Ferrante 19

functions as its own institution within the American culture. As explained by Althusser, the State

and the ruling class often miss, so it is only logical that from there the ruling class and the State

utilize the functions of ISA, like terrorism, to maintain control over the masses. Returning to

Mills, one can find a realistic and logical reasoning for this need to perpetuate fear and control,

which is the power structure of corporate alliances between the military and the economic firms

of a capitalistic society, which directly profit from war and the aftermath of destruction.

“The reproduction of relations of production,” as posed by Althusser, is the means by

which the function of the State and society produce individuals who are consigned to selling

their “labor-power,” as Marx put it, in order to survive; but on a deeper level it is really meant to

secure the future of the ruling capitalist class through the subversion of the worker. This is the

role that terrorism plays in the current culture of America. Individuals who are innocent of any

terroristic activity, subject themselves to increased scrutiny by the State, in order to ease their

minds. They then permit this same State to fund and arm large military operations in foreign

nations that the state has deemed responsible for terroristic activity, i.e. 9/11. The justification is

reinforced through private society, by the media, education, nationalist rhetoric, and leaves

terrorism functioning as an ideological mechanism of the ruling class’ power in conjunction with

the State. The cultural evidence of a shift in public consciousness since the events of 9/11 are

numerous and profound; film, literature, and art all illustrate public consensus (illustrated by the

Pew data cited ) in a fear of terrorism and a support for the States agenda in response to it. There

is clear evidence that supports the claim that terrorism functions as an ISA, as defined by

Althusser, and this claim is then validated by the benefits that elites and capitalists receive as a

direct result of the everlasting conflict that is the war on terror.

Ferrante 20

Works Cited

Althusser, Louis, and Ben Brewster. "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." Lenin and

Philosophy, and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review, 2001. 85-126. Print.

Dallek, Robert. "Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam: The Making of a Tragedy."Diplomatic History 20.2

(1996): 147-62. Web

Engels, Friedrich C., Karl Marx, and Robert C. Tucker. "Letters on Historical Materialism." The Marx-

Engels Reader. New York: Norton, 1978. 760-69. Print.

Faynberg, Yana. Beslan and the Nature of Modern Terrorism. Toronto: Canadian Institute of

Strategic Studies = Institut Canadien D'etudes Strategiques, 2005. Open Canada. Web

Gournelos, Ted, and Viveca Greene. A Decade of Dark Humor: How Comedy, Irony, and Satire

Shaped Post-9/11 America. Jackson: U of Mississippi, 2011. Print.

Hutchins, Robert Maynard. Great Books of the Western World, Volume 50. N.p.: Encyclopaedia

Britannica, 1952. Print.

Lieberfeld, Dan. "Theories of Conflict and The Iraq War." International Journal of Peace Studies 10.2

(2005): n. pag. Web.

Marx, Karl. Friedrich Engels. Robert C. Tucker "Capital, Volume I."The Marx-Engels Reader. New

York: Norton, 1978. 294-438. Print.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels. Robert C. Tucker "Communist Manefesto." The Marx-Engels Reader.

New York: Norton, 1978. 469-501. Print.

"Midterm Election Preview." Pew Research Center RSS.. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 06

Aug. 2015.

Ferrante 21

Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford UP, 1956. Print.

Nagengast, Carole. "Violence, Terror, and the Crisis of the State." Annual Review of

Anthropology 23 (1994): 109-36. JSTOR. Web. 06 Aug. 2015.

"Public Attitudes Toward the War 2003-2008." Pew Research Center RSS. N.p., 19 Mar. 2008. Web.

06 Aug. 2015.

Spiegelman, Art. In the Shadow of No Towers. New York, NY: Pantheon, 2004. Print.

Spirkin, A. G. "On the Human Being and Being Human." Dialectical Materialism. Moscow: Progress,

1983. N. pag. Print. Web.

"U.S. Interrogation Methods." Pew Research Centers Global Attitudes Project RSS. N.p., 22 June

2015. Web. 06 Aug. 2015.

Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1977. Print.