Habits and Terrorism

I think the role of habit and politics determines the effectiveness of a variety of rhetorical terms. I think that by habit, I mean the practices that people accustom themselves to doing every day, the things caught up in the means of sustaining themselves in the world, the preconditions for daily life. These could be mental habits: the things we have to do to feel ready to ‘face the world’ or physical consumptive habits: what and where do I have to buy in order to (socially, physically, mentally) make it through the day. Because habits are tied so closely to the feelings of our basic humanity, questioning them can throw identity into question. Habits can also be presuppositions about choices we will have, presuppositions that determine which and what type of relationships we will pursue. Once we become invested in particular (types) of relationships, disrupting the choices that found them troubles our sense of self. So, the most effective way to convince someone a course of action is good is to just start that course of action. Our sense of choice and self emerge organically around this.

I think this makes certain governmental functions more effective than others. The executive branch, when it just decides to do something (invade, weaken environmental protections), it not only forecloses debate, but makes the most persuasive argument possible for a course of action, which is action. That’s why creating rhetorical and legal hurdles to executive action is so important: because the power to just DO matters so much.

I think habit defines the contours of debate about the choice to have an abortion, because heterosexual people have entered relationships around the notion of a right to privacy, and all it entails, including the right to an abortion. I don’t think that this means that we will never see legal restrictions on the right to abortion: I think it just raises the stakes. The force of habit makes the restructuring of relationships even more violent, and makes the pursuit of illegal, dangerous abortions more likely. I think it creates a rhetorical resource for those seeking to protect the rights of choice, as many heterosexual people think of their sexual relationships in terms of the choice of an abortion, and throwing those relationships into doubt threatens a great deal about their personal identity.

I also think that this shapes the nature of the discourse around ‘terrorism’ as a term. Its clear that under a strict definition, many of the policies that the United States has engaged in, and continues to pursue, should be labeled terrorist acts. However, the term ‘terrorist’ as a tool for mobilizing public outrage and resistance towards those acts in the US will remain ineffective because it questions the habits of political identity and consumption at the core of American identity. Cheap oil matters a lot to American self-identity. Terroristic actions taken in pursuit of cheap oil can be justified to the public because it preserves habits of consumption and movement fundamental to our identity. The term ‘terrorist’ carries no universal implications for people’s psyche; it is a term that matters for people when mobilized against (people/regimes/ideologies) that question American habits of thought and consumption.

Duncan