Representation and the Event
Discussion begins with a look at September 11, 2001, as an event per Jean-Luc Nancy (2000) & the Bush administration's process of hegemonization, which centers on an "us vs them" binary equal to the civilized West vs the barbarous Other. This has resulted in an elision between terrorist & radical as seen in New Republic editor Peter Beinart's (2001) condemnation of the antiglobalization movement, which includes critical reference to Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri's Empire (2000). September 11 is preserved as an event, retaining its political character, so as to resist the manner in which it has already become hegemonized. At issue is the relationship between representation & response. The logic of violence in the totalizing mobilization of the Bush administration's counterterrorism is examined as an expansion of the event. This response relies on a representation based on the civility-barbarism split, which ignores US Christian & capitalist fundamentalisms while vilifying Islamic fundamentalism. In this light is positioned Hardt & Negri's idea that radical politics is unrepresentable; thus, their account of representation is scrutinized. By eschewing representation, they do not provide the tools necessary to resist the hegemony of global capital's militarization, essentially adding to the Bush administration's assault on representative democracy. How the event can be represented so that a better response might ensue is then considered, finding that Hardt & Negri's multitude, nation, & Empire lack the capacity to offer another ethnopolitical response to September 11, whereas the divisive representation in a politics born of partisanship might provide the resources needed for a more adequate response. J. Zendejas