Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Does Susan Faludi's Terror Dream Oversimplify Post-9/11 America?

By Bree Nordenson, Columbia Journalism Review. Posted December 12, 2007.


Faludi loads a lot of conclusions on a thin strand of history.
Advertisement

Since September 12, 2001, the American media have churned out a remarkable body of work on our nation's response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The issue has been hashed out in newspapers and magazines, fiction and nonfiction books, documentary and feature films; yet the question of why we reacted the way we did -- with a paroxysm of muscular rhetoric and military might -- has never been addressed head on. Instead, the dialogue has generally centered on whether the way in which we reacted was appropriate, and, if it wasn't, what we should do about it. Now, nearly six years later, Susan Faludi, the feminist author and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, has written a sweeping historical analysis of why our nation -- as reflected in the American media -- reacted to the 9/11 attacks by "cocooning ourselves in the celluloid chrysalis of the baby boom's childhood," a domestic Leave it to Beaver-like fantasy. According to Faludi, our return to a fifties-era culture of masculine strength and feminine weakness was an attempt "to repair and restore a national myth" of invincibility. Faludi, whose previous two books, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women and Stiffed: The Betrayal of The American Man, were devoted to gender issues, broadens her scope in The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America, yet sticks with gender as her true north. "This is not a book about what September 11 'did' to women or men, no matter how absurd or insulting the mantras of post-9/11 'new traditionalism' may have been to its targets," declares Faludi. "This is a book about why we responded the way we did to 9/11." Our cultural regression, Faludi argues, belongs "to a long-standing American pattern of response to threat, a response that we've been perfecting since our original wilderness experience."

Much like in Backlash, Faludi begins The Terror Dream with an elegant and highly readable introduction in a searing critical tone. Weaving together post-9/11 media snippets, bits of antiquated scientific and psychological theory, and film history, Faludi lays the groundwork for her most ambitious book yet: an explanation of the American psyche. If her aim is a bit grand, it's hard to notice as Faludi wields her rhetorical prowess. And though she bolsters her introduction with evidence that is at times questionable (interpretations of Americans' post-9/11 dreams) and unsubstantiated ("the most showcased victims bore female faces"), Faludi makes up for it in the first -- and much stronger -- half of her book with a highly detailed documentation of our reaction to 9/11. What she reveals is startling.

In the days after the attacks, Faludi received numerous calls from the media, "among them a New York Times reporter researching an article on 'the return of the manly man' and a New York Observer writer seeking comment on 'the trend' of women 'becoming more feminine after 9/11.'" The irony of "heralding feminism's demise" after an "attack hatched by avowed antagonists of Western women's liberation" is not lost on Faludi, and it makes her account of the American media's response all the more disturbing. From The National Review to The New York Times, Faludi cites endless columns and articles declaring that feminism was over and that America had grown soft and needed to reassert its strength. My favorite is an excerpt from a December 2001 Times column by John Tierney (I've quoted a slightly longer passage than Faludi used):

Since Sept. 11, the 'culture of the warrior' doesn't seem quite so bad to Americans worried about the culture of terrorism. The 'male paradigm of confrontation' didn't prove so worthless to the men who defeated the Taliban -- or the women benefiting from the defeat. American males' fascination with guns doesn't seem so misplaced now that they're attacking al Qaeda's fortress. No one is suggesting a Million Mom March on Tora Bora.

Even more frightening than the chest-thumping and often misogynistic responses splashed across the pages of the American press were the media's reactions to the thoughts of a handful of women writers who expressed anything less than a nationalistic call to arms. In response to the published opinions of Susan Sontag and Barbara Kingsolver, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter wrote, "Talk about ironic: the same people always urging us to not blame the victim in rape cases are now saying Uncle Sam wore a short skirt and asked for it." Faludi lets quotes like these speak for themselves, but she knows how to make an argument, and so is careful to cite examples of liberal male public figures who expressed opinions similar to Sontag's or Kingsolver's but were not greeted with the same hostility as their female counterparts. Such instances were only made worse, says Faludi, by a noticeable decline in female representation in newsrooms, on op-ed pages, and on the Sunday morning talk shows. This erosion in women's equality was precisely what she so convincingly documents in Backlash. But in this book, it's only the beginning.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: 9/11, faludi, masculinity, femininity, jessica lynch

Bree Nordenson is a freelance writer based in New York, and a former assistant editor of the Columbia Journalism Review.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why is AlterNet Ignoring Women Author's Questioning 9/11?
Posted by: BillDouglas on Dec 12, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article skims a surface of women writers and 9/11's affects on women. Alternet is ignoring a best selling feminist author who's cutting right to the heart of the 9/11 issue. The increasingly clear reality that we have all been lied to about 9/11.

Best selling feminist author, Naomi Wolf, explains how disturbing it is that those questioning 9/11 are being so viciously marginalized.

Alternet, is among other so called "left" media that has made those of us on the left who still have enough sense to question the many glaring problems with the official 9/11 story . . . feel marginalized. Even though we are a growing majority not only on the left, and in the American public according to polls.


See Naomi Wolf's concerns of tactics used against us by American media, including AlterNet at the below youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61hXsf8Qu1M

It would be wonderful if Alternet would welcome an essay from Naomi Wolf on how the left media has not only ignored those questioning 9/11, but actually used old Soviet style tactics of pseudo-psychological attacks on us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh why, oh why? Posted by: Joshua Holland
Terrorism
Posted by: willymack on Dec 12, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We'll probably NEVER know what really happened on 911. In my mind, one thing is certain: It wasn't pulled off by 19 losers with boxcutters, run by a "fugitive" in a cave half the world away. For those of you who have been residing on a planet of another star, or are just dim bulbs, the REAL terrorists have made themselves known with crystal clarity, and they're not in some exotic, far-away land; they're right here in the good ol' U S of A.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorism Posted by: richholland
VERY WEAK CRITIQUE OF FALUDI HERE
Posted by: annika on Dec 12, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very unconvincing piece. Why does alternet go through the trouble to print such a weak piece?

The author merely reiterates a lot of Faludi's points without raising any real problems, other than arguing that Faludi seems to cherry pick on one minor point on the Lynch story -- although Faludi's points, the author says, are well... mostly true. This whole piece is an oxymoron.

i do think captivity narratives are interesting and do provide historical hindsight into America's imperial and militaristic character.

Moreover, i don't think any reasonable person can assume Faludi aimed to sum up 9/11's cultural impact in one book written less than 10 years after the event. but there is a lot to notice about it now, and Faludi has done that.

nothing doing here....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE American narrative
Posted by: dbaldwin on Dec 12, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Faludi's central argument--that the captivity narrative, starting with Mary Rowlandson's tale of captivity published in 1682,is America's central myth--is historically solid, but I would make three points.

First, she does overstate the gender issue and thus minimizes other cultural issues. For example, the obscurity of the story of Hannah Dustin, who killed 10 Indians and escaped captivity, is due to more than simplistic male chauvinism. Mary Rowlandson's story was modeled on the Puritan "personal narrative," in which the writer sought to demonstrate the action of Saving Grace in his or her soul and thus to justify the individual's claim to stand among the Elect and receive full church membership. A story centered on the murder of 10 people, including 6 children, just didn't fit the mold.

Second, Rowlandson's story establishes the pattern of assuming the innocence of white settlers and ignoring the fact that white settlers were invaders from an Indian point of view. The Indian attack therefore is presented as a terrible surprise, a sneaky, cowardly, and uncivilized move by Savages. The pattern appears not only in myriad Westerns, but also in the justification of U.S. entry into wars: the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War ("Remember the Maine"), World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam. Pearl Harbor was a surprise, but the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was produced by manipulation.

Third, Faludi does not give enough emphasis to the transformation of the tradition effected by James Fenimore Cooper. Cooper's Leatherstocking tales take the captivity tradition and invert it, creating a "rescue narrative". Built upon by Kit Carson and other historical figures, it was elaborated by Buffalo Bill, refined by Owen Wister's The Virginian (which reasserted male moral superiority in place of the 19th century acceptance of female moral superiority), and on into Western films.

Does one really need to argue that the Western, both written and cinematic, offers a pattern for both individual and national identity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Getting 9/11 So Wrong
Posted by: johndoraemi on Dec 12, 2007 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article and book fall under "pointless distraction."

There was something macho and heroic about George W. Bush sitting reading about a pet goat after learning "America is under attack?" He knowing that he was personally a target for assassination in the July Genoa G-8 warning of suicide hijackings? He not doing a single thing that his role of "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces required? No, something else is going on here.

And after the "Air Piracy (Hijacking)" procedures were rewritten on June 1st, 2001 requiring Secretary of Defense "approval" BEFORE launching fighter interceptors -- and where was Rumsfeld during the attack? MIA. No approval. The pentagon is mysteriously attacked with no one inside the building having any idea of the attacking plane?

Oh, but that's not true either, because Secretary of Transportation Mineta -- IN SWORN TESTIMONY TO THE 9/11 COMMISSION -- tells about them tracking "the plane that went into the Pentagon" and that Dick Cheney was aware of this plane, and he confirmed "orders" related to this supposedly unkown attack.

Talking about the nation's response to 9/11 WITHOUT talking about the Project for a New American Century, and The Grand Chessboard, Peak Oil and Israel -- is a load of time-wasting pop culture gibberish that is better skipped.

What's missing from this picture?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not "oversimplifying", just focusing on one aspect
Posted by: madaha on Dec 12, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read the Faludi book. No probs with it. I don't remember her saying we only had ONE monolithic response to 9-11, she just focuses on one particular response that was very noticeable. Totally valid. Needed to be said. Of course there were other things going on, her thesis does not negate that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Art of Written Discourse
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 12, 2007 4:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bree has a bent against feminists who extrapolate their argument out to incorporate a wide social segment. She somehow thinks feminists are "trying too hard," or assuming an overly weak position for females. However, the substance of academic argument has always been like this. You either buy the assumptions or you don't. It's pretend if you think you can really "prove" you are right. The winner is just who has the best command of the written word. In this respect, I don't think Bree proves anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A partial critique of an incomplete investigation as a double positive.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 12, 2007 10:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be less interesting but equally possible to pick apart Nordenson's review as she did Faludi. Just one kicker: Nordenson describes Faludi's finale as "merely platitudinous. It's certainly a disappointing way to conclude...."

Yet Nordenson's summary limps out with "...a historical precedent (...whose) underpinnings, which I fear are more complex than Faludi has acknowledged." Faludi may have left something out? Do tell now.

I enjoyed the review, in part because it acknowledges Faludi's skill. Also because I shared a similar jaundiced view until I read some of Faludi's post-pub commentaries. There she showed, for instance, how her analysis can open up an understanding of what it means to play "the sex card" in public discourse.

The sex card approves of females who submit to men and impugns the character of those who don't need pampering. As that plays a major role in the current media reaction to Hilary Clinton, I find it very helpful, contrary to Nordenson's evaluation of Faludi's "impressive body of research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]