What's in a Frame? The Perils of "Domestic Terrorism"
Monday, 07 December 2015 00:00 By Kay Whitlock and Michael Bronski, Beacon
Broadside | Op-Ed
Robert Dear, held over the mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic,
and public defender Dan King make a court appearance by video in Colorado
Springs, Colorado, November 30, 2015. (Photo: Daniel Owen / Pool via The New
York Times)
This piece appeared originally on Beacon Broadside.
Think of a frame as a conceptual path shaping how people understand an issue
and what ought to be done about it. - Considering Hate: Violence, Goodness
and Justice in American Culture and Politics
Three people were dead and nine others treated for gunshot wounds. Even as
Robert Lewis Dear, the white man who, on November 27 2015, allegedly laid
armed siege to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs was taken
into custody, social media posts - from progressive advocates, pundits, and
some politicians - immediately characterized his actions as "domestic
terrorism."
What does it mean for liberals and progressives to embrace a "terrorism"
frame," that has traditionally been used by the Right - and is so fraught
and over-determined in our post-9/11 political climate? What are the
intended and unintended consequences of demanding that the government
respond to violence against women's health care providers with the same zeal
it employs in its so-called "War on Terrorism"?
The Colorado Springs shootings are unquestionably symptomatic of deep
structural forms of violence in the United States. Planned Parenthood stands
at the center of a political firestorm obsessively intending to destroy the
capacity to provide the health care that is one essential component of
reproductive justice.
The Right targets Planned Parenthood because of its prominence, visibility,
national reach, and symbolic heft. Yet, far more than the existence of an
organization is at stake; a host of social and economic justice issues are
also in the mix.
Attacks on the right to safe, legal abortion - the most visible of
components of reproductive justice - have been a grim feature of the civic
landscape since the 1970s. These include: vandalism, harassment of staff and
clients, clinic invasions and disruption, death threats, arson, bombings,
physical assault, burglary, stalking, and murder.
Given this, it's easy to understand the powerful lure of the "domestic
terrorism" frame - and the anger of the people who employ it.
False Promises of the "Domestic Terrorism" Frame
The recent violence directed at Planned Parenthood is not the first time
social justice advocates have turned to "domestic terrorism" as the frame
for mobilizing opposition to assaults on vulnerable and marginalized
communities. Many characterized the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and the
2015 killings in Charleston, South Carolina's Emanuel AME Church as acts of
"domestic terrorism."
The use of the frame is intended to - finally - compel public officials to
take violence and the human toll it takes on vulnerable, marginalized groups
as seriously as they take "international terrorism." Wouldn't this
understanding of violence against reproductive justice advocates place
police more on "our" side? Wouldn't it generate greater federal and state
commitment to women's lives and rights? Wouldn't law enforcement do more to
monitor extremist groups and work to prevent such violence? Couldn't this
perhaps shift public attention away from the conflation of all Muslims,
immigrants, and refugees with "jihadist terrorism" and more rightly place
the focus on right-wing individuals and groups, most of whom are Christian?
It will do none of those things. The right is too invested in deepening
polarization and promoting their own narratives of victimization at the
hands of purported "baby killers," "transgender invaders," "reverse
racists," "union bullies," and the "politically correct police."
The very definition of "terrorism" is socially constructed and serves
entrenched, structurally violent, political ends. There is no new crime
called "domestic terrorism," but the USA Patriot Act does define it in ways
that give many justice advocates, including the ACLU, pause.
The "terrorism" frame offers only intensified surveillance, policing, and
deployment of military force as its preferred strategies for creating safety
and justice. There is no place for discussion of dismantling structurally
violent social, political, and economic policies and practices. No
commitment to exploring alternative approaches for creating more just, more
caring, and less violent communities. As the deceptively named "War on
Terror" shows us, the frame justifies consolidation and expansion of the
structural white supremacy, gender violence, and economic violence
foundational to U.S. law enforcement and military forces. In the pursuit of
this war, there is no real concern for civilian lives.
"Terrorism" and its handmaiden, "domestic terrorism," have already been used
against the very communities progressives seek to protect - to squelch
social, economic, and environmental justice movements that government
authorities find troublesome. With that frame, authorities don't look for
racial, gender, and economic justice; they look for terrorists. Politicians
and police frequently cite fear of terrorist violence as a way to disallow
or contain public protests of all kinds.
And even if they have to invent some terrorists to suit their objectives,
law enforcement authorities will find them.
For years, the terrorist frame has been applied to the environmental
movement. In 2003, the right-wing, corporate controlled, American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) drafted a model law called the Animal
and Ecological Terrorism Act. Known as "Ag-Gag," state variations of the law
have been used to apply the terrorist label to a variety of nonviolent
activists. Climate change activism increasingly is coming under law
enforcement scrutiny.
The very concept of "terrorism" is predicated on obscuring structural
brutality and intensifying policing of suspect communities and individuals,
purportedly to prevent (and then harshly punish) violence. It is incapable
of accurately naming and dismantling the violence of structural racism,
patriarchy, xenophobia, and poverty.
We will never find our way to a just and caring society by remaining in the
conceptual gulag of "terrorism."
Freeing Our Cultural and Political Imaginations
Matthew Dowd, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush reportedly
stated, "If you argue against us while using our language, we're winning."
He's right. Language is powerful, and right-wing demagogues often use it to
produce politically motivated violence.
Once a framework is firmly established in the public mind, almost all
dialogue and debate occurs within it. Debate is now focused on who produces
the scariest terrorists: the left or the right; Christianity or Islam. That
immediately brings us to the competitive question of who is most victimized
and which terrorists ought to be most heavily policed.
This is not a vision to inspire creative organizing and the building of
strong mass movements necessary to produce change. We will never find our
way to a just and caring society by remaining in the conceptual gulag of
"terrorism."
What we need is transformative change, not an expansion of the "terrorism"
frame. Such change can occur only by understanding how violence against
marginalized and vulnerable communities is inextricably bound to broader
social and political systems. This cannot happen within the framework of
"terrorism" that dominates the public imagination, serving as the only
subject of debate.
It's possible to describe violence plainly, clearly, accurately, and provide
historical, social, and economic context without resorting to shortcut,
placeholder phrases and slogans. It's possible to describe the ways in which
such factors as race, gender, disability, citizenship status, and class
serve to unjustly distribute that violence. But that, by itself, is not
enough.
It's also possible to imagine radically new social structures that work to
produce compassion and more just distributions of social, civic, cultural,
economic, and ecological resources. It's possible to imagine new
community-based approaches to the creation of safer communities without
resorting to policing and retribution. It's possible to imagine holding
those accountable for violence in ways that do not presume the inevitability
of prison and the death penalty.
This will lead to developing new political action frames, strategies, and
tactics that embody and support organizing around much bolder visions of
structural change.
In this way, by refusing to remain in the framework of fear, mass movements
create the future.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
MICHAEL BRONSKI
Michael Bronski is the co-author, with Kay Whitlock, of Considering Hate:
Violence, Goodness, and Justice in American Culture and Politics (Beacon
Press, 2015).
KAY WHITLOCK
Kay Whitlock is an activist and writer whose work focuses on dismantling
structural violence and abolishing the prison industrial complex. She is is
the co-author (with Michael Bronski) of Considering Hate: Violence,
Goodness, and Justice in American Culture and Politics (Beacon Press, 2015)
and the co-author (with Joey L. Mogul and Andrea J. Ritchie) of Queer
(In)Justice: The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States (Beacon
Press, 2011). She is, with Nancy A. Heitzeg, the co-founder and co-editor
the Criminal Injustice series on the Critical Mass Progress blog. Follow her
on Twitter: @KayJWhitlock
RELATED STORIES
Terrorism Plot or Entrapment? The Case of the NATO 3
By Steve Horn, Yana Kunichoff, Truthout | Report
"Terrorism Is Part of Our History": Angela Davis on '63 Church Bombing,
Growing Up in "Bombingham"
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
Terrorism Serves the State
By Brian Martin, Truthout | News Analysis
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
What's in a Frame? The Perils of "Domestic Terrorism"
Monday, 07 December 2015 00:00 By Kay Whitlock and Michael Bronski, Beacon
Broadside | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Robert Dear, held over the mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood
clinic, and public defender Dan King make a court appearance by video in
Colorado Springs, Colorado, November 30, 2015. (Photo: Daniel Owen / Pool
via The New York Times)
. This piece appeared originally on Beacon Broadside.
Think of a frame as a conceptual path shaping how people understand an issue
and what ought to be done about it. - Considering Hate: Violence, Goodness
and Justice in American Culture and Politics
Three people were dead and nine others treated for gunshot wounds. Even as
Robert Lewis Dear, the white man who, on November 27 2015, allegedly laid
armed siege to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs was taken
into custody, social media posts - from progressive advocates, pundits, and
some politicians - immediately characterized his actions as "domestic
terrorism."
What does it mean for liberals and progressives to embrace a "terrorism"
frame," that has traditionally been used by the Right - and is so fraught
and over-determined in our post-9/11 political climate? What are the
intended and unintended consequences of demanding that the government
respond to violence against women's health care providers with the same zeal
it employs in its so-called "War on Terrorism"?
The Colorado Springs shootings are unquestionably symptomatic of deep
structural forms of violence in the United States. Planned Parenthood stands
at the center of a political firestorm obsessively intending to destroy the
capacity to provide the health care that is one essential component of
reproductive justice.
The Right targets Planned Parenthood because of its prominence, visibility,
national reach, and symbolic heft. Yet, far more than the existence of an
organization is at stake; a host of social and economic justice issues are
also in the mix.
Attacks on the right to safe, legal abortion - the most visible of
components of reproductive justice - have been a grim feature of the civic
landscape since the 1970s. These include: vandalism, harassment of staff and
clients, clinic invasions and disruption, death threats, arson, bombings,
physical assault, burglary, stalking, and murder.
Given this, it's easy to understand the powerful lure of the "domestic
terrorism" frame - and the anger of the people who employ it.
False Promises of the "Domestic Terrorism" Frame
The recent violence directed at Planned Parenthood is not the first time
social justice advocates have turned to "domestic terrorism" as the frame
for mobilizing opposition to assaults on vulnerable and marginalized
communities. Many characterized the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and the
2015 killings in Charleston, South Carolina's Emanuel AME Church as acts of
"domestic terrorism."
The use of the frame is intended to - finally - compel public officials to
take violence and the human toll it takes on vulnerable, marginalized groups
as seriously as they take "international terrorism." Wouldn't this
understanding of violence against reproductive justice advocates place
police more on "our" side? Wouldn't it generate greater federal and state
commitment to women's lives and rights? Wouldn't law enforcement do more to
monitor extremist groups and work to prevent such violence? Couldn't this
perhaps shift public attention away from the conflation of all Muslims,
immigrants, and refugees with "jihadist terrorism" and more rightly place
the focus on right-wing individuals and groups, most of whom are Christian?
It will do none of those things. The right is too invested in deepening
polarization and promoting their own narratives of victimization at the
hands of purported "baby killers," "transgender invaders," "reverse
racists," "union bullies," and the "politically correct police."
The very definition of "terrorism" is socially constructed and serves
entrenched, structurally violent, political ends. There is no new crime
called "domestic terrorism," but the USA Patriot Act does define it in ways
that give many justice advocates, including the ACLU, pause.
The "terrorism" frame offers only intensified surveillance, policing, and
deployment of military force as its preferred strategies for creating safety
and justice. There is no place for discussion of dismantling structurally
violent social, political, and economic policies and practices. No
commitment to exploring alternative approaches for creating more just, more
caring, and less violent communities. As the deceptively named "War on
Terror" shows us, the frame justifies consolidation and expansion of the
structural white supremacy, gender violence, and economic violence
foundational to U.S. law enforcement and military forces. In the pursuit of
this war, there is no real concern for civilian lives.
"Terrorism" and its handmaiden, "domestic terrorism," have already been used
against the very communities progressives seek to protect - to squelch
social, economic, and environmental justice movements that government
authorities find troublesome. With that frame, authorities don't look for
racial, gender, and economic justice; they look for terrorists. Politicians
and police frequently cite fear of terrorist violence as a way to disallow
or contain public protests of all kinds.
And even if they have to invent some terrorists to suit their objectives,
law enforcement authorities will find them.
For years, the terrorist frame has been applied to the environmental
movement. In 2003, the right-wing, corporate controlled, American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) drafted a model law called the Animal
and Ecological Terrorism Act. Known as "Ag-Gag," state variations of the law
have been used to apply the terrorist label to a variety of nonviolent
activists. Climate change activism increasingly is coming under law
enforcement scrutiny.
The very concept of "terrorism" is predicated on obscuring structural
brutality and intensifying policing of suspect communities and individuals,
purportedly to prevent (and then harshly punish) violence. It is incapable
of accurately naming and dismantling the violence of structural racism,
patriarchy, xenophobia, and poverty.
We will never find our way to a just and caring society by remaining in the
conceptual gulag of "terrorism."
Freeing Our Cultural and Political Imaginations
Matthew Dowd, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush reportedly
stated, "If you argue against us while using our language, we're winning."
He's right. Language is powerful, and right-wing demagogues often use it to
produce politically motivated violence.
Once a framework is firmly established in the public mind, almost all
dialogue and debate occurs within it. Debate is now focused on who produces
the scariest terrorists: the left or the right; Christianity or Islam. That
immediately brings us to the competitive question of who is most victimized
and which terrorists ought to be most heavily policed.
This is not a vision to inspire creative organizing and the building of
strong mass movements necessary to produce change. We will never find our
way to a just and caring society by remaining in the conceptual gulag of
"terrorism."
What we need is transformative change, not an expansion of the "terrorism"
frame. Such change can occur only by understanding how violence against
marginalized and vulnerable communities is inextricably bound to broader
social and political systems. This cannot happen within the framework of
"terrorism" that dominates the public imagination, serving as the only
subject of debate.
It's possible to describe violence plainly, clearly, accurately, and provide
historical, social, and economic context without resorting to shortcut,
placeholder phrases and slogans. It's possible to describe the ways in which
such factors as race, gender, disability, citizenship status, and class
serve to unjustly distribute that violence. But that, by itself, is not
enough.
It's also possible to imagine radically new social structures that work to
produce compassion and more just distributions of social, civic, cultural,
economic, and ecological resources. It's possible to imagine new
community-based approaches to the creation of safer communities without
resorting to policing and retribution. It's possible to imagine holding
those accountable for violence in ways that do not presume the inevitability
of prison and the death penalty.
This will lead to developing new political action frames, strategies, and
tactics that embody and support organizing around much bolder visions of
structural change.
In this way, by refusing to remain in the framework of fear, mass movements
create the future.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Michael Bronski
Michael Bronski is the co-author, with Kay Whitlock, of Considering Hate:
Violence, Goodness, and Justice in American Culture and Politics (Beacon
Press, 2015).
Kay Whitlock
Kay Whitlock is an activist and writer whose work focuses on dismantling
structural violence and abolishing the prison industrial complex. She is is
the co-author (with Michael Bronski) of Considering Hate: Violence,
Goodness, and Justice in American Culture and Politics (Beacon Press, 2015)
and the co-author (with Joey L. Mogul and Andrea J. Ritchie) of Queer
(In)Justice: The Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States (Beacon
Press, 2011). She is, with Nancy A. Heitzeg, the co-founder and co-editor
the Criminal Injustice series on the Critical Mass Progress blog. Follow her
on Twitter: @KayJWhitlock
Related Stories
Terrorism Plot or Entrapment? The Case of the NATO 3
By Steve Horn, Yana Kunichoff, Truthout | Report"Terrorism Is Part of Our
History": Angela Davis on '63 Church Bombing, Growing Up in "Bombingham"
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video InterviewTerrorism Serves the State
By Brian Martin, Truthout | News Analysis
Show Comments
