CONF 730: STURCTUAL SOURCES OF CONFLICT

Professor Ho-Won Jeong
George Mason University
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Student Papers

Symbolic Power: An
Analysis of the War on Terrorism

Jackie Vavra

May 6, 2002

Introduction: The "old days"
The most important issue facing the president is the economy, according to White House officials (Allen, September 4, 2001). As congress reconvened in the fall after a summer break, articles in newspapers focused on lack of consumer confidence, a skittish stock market and slackened business activity. Bush's political agenda included reshaping education policy, boosting military spending, and reforming social security and Medicare. However, with the bleak economic forecast, there were many predictions that he would have to make some compromises with democrats. Reporters said that political battles were bound to escalate since finger pointing began as soon as the new budget numbers came out in August. "I think it is going to be a very difficult fall," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). "It's not going to be pretty," said a Senate Republican leadership aide, who predicted a "knock-down, drag-out battle" that could last past Thanksgiving (Dewar, September 11, 2001).

However, those were the "old days" and they ended September 11, 2001. In his opening remarks on the war against terrorism that he made October 11, 2001, President Bush reminded the American public, "I think the American people do understand that after Sept. 11 that we're facing a different world." The world is different. We have changed. We have lost our innocence. The stage was already set for different rules in a different world.

There has been a very marked change in the political climate since that day. The U.S. government is now waging a war on terrorism with the apparent backing of the citizens of the United States. How did the war on terrorism become legitimized? How is it that President Bush, a man that received less than 50% of the actual votes of the American public during the elections, now enjoys support of 90% of the general public? The events that occurred on September 11 were very tragic. Many people, both in the United States as well as in countries throughout the world, lost loved ones. Families, friends and others will continue to be affected in various ways for a long time. In this paper, I will neither seek to address the events nor assign a moral or ethnical value to them. This paper will examine the change in the political climate and in people's perceptions and attitudes of the events using Bourdieu's work as an analytical framework.

In his work, Bourdieu speaks about the social and socio-historical conditions of language that have established a particular set of linguistic practices as dominant and legitimate. Using the concepts he developed, I will examine politics and political discourse from Bush and his administration since the events of September 11. However, before engaging in a discussion, it is necessary to mention a couple of key concepts that are important in understanding Bourdieu's theory.

Habitus
One of Bourdieu's key concepts is habitus, which is a set of dispositions that incline agents to act and react in certain ways. Habitus generates practices, perceptions and attitudes that are regularized and provides individuals with a sense of how to act and respond in the course of their daily lives. It orients their actions and inclinations without strictly determining them and gives people a sense of what is appropriate and not appropriate in a particular situation. When individuals act, they always do so within specific social settings and contexts. Hence, practices or perceptions should be seen as the product of the relation between the habitus, on one hand, and the specific social contexts or fields within which individuals act, on the other. The habitus of the politician is specific and depends on specialized training in which they acquire skills that enables them to perform their role.

Political Representation / Professionalization
Bourdieu is interested in the way groups emerge in different fields and struggle for power and influence. A field or market may be seen as a structured space in which the positions and their interrelations are determined by the distribution of different kinds of resources or capital. He identifies three types of capital, namely economic, cultural, and symbolic, which are material wealth; knowledge, skills and other cultural acquisitions; and prestige and honor, respectively. One of the most important properties of fields is the way in which they allow one form of capital to be converted into another.

If one wants to be successful in politics or in the military, for example, and produce discourse that is valued in that setting, one must receive the training needed to enter the profession and once a member, observe the forms and formalities of that field. Bourdieu says that fields are the sites of struggles in which individuals seek to maintain or alter the distribution of capital that are specific to it. The aims of participants engaged in the struggle may differ. Some will strive to change the status quo. Others will want to preserve it. Political fields are the sites in which agents seek to form and transform their visions of the world and thereby the world itself. This is the place where words are actions and the symbolic character of power is at stake. Bush used his influential position in the political machinery to mold our visions of the world. Through the production of slogans and commentaries (axis of evil, nation under siege) agents in the political field continuously sought to construct and impose a particular vision of the social world, while at the same time seeking to mobilize the support of those upon whom their power ultimately depends.

Bourdieu also discusses how the process of professionalization has concentrated the political field in the hands of professional politicians and the bureaucratic institutions that train them. Individuals in specialized fields gain authority through institutions that have been established and recognized as legitimate. This means that Bush gains legitimacy from the Republican Party. As political parties and bureaucracies expand, the ideologies become more and more autonomous, like a game with its own rules and conditions. You must be educated on the rules of game in order to play. In order to be accepted in the field, professionals must also conform. They must learn the correct discourse and what their roles are as well as pay attention to decorum and hierarchy.

However, professionals in the political field are in a constrained position in that their constituents often feel distanced from the political field. In order for politicians to succeed, they must secure material and symbolic support from those who they claim to represent. They must appeal to groups or forces that lie outside the field. Bush must appeal to citizens of the US as well as to the representatives that have been elected by the people to both gain and maintain power for himself and his party.

In the following pages, we will examine how, through their discourse, Bush and his administration created the vision of a good but vulnerable people who were attacked and continue to exist in an unsafe world. The enemy was dehumanized and portrayed as uncivilized while Americans were portrayed as strong and compassionate. The media was full of slogans portraying this mentality and the public absorbed this vision of the world. Mobilized by fear and insecurity, they supported Bush and the policies for which he advocated.

Symbolic power
Bourdieu uses the term symbolic power to refer to an aspect of most forms of power as they are routinely deployed in social life. He asserts that power is seldom exercised as overt physical force. Instead, it is transformed into symbolic form and given a kind of legitimacy that it would not have otherwise. Symbolic power, according to Bourdieu, is that invisible power which can be exercised only with the complicity of those who do not want to know that they are subject to it or even that they themselves exercise it. It is an invisible power, which is mis-recognized as such and thereby recognized as legitimate.

The exercise of power through symbolic exchange always rests on a foundation of shared belief so that even those who benefit least from the exercise of power, participate, to some extent, in their own subjection. They recognize or tacitly acknowledge the legitimacy of power and fail to see that hierarchy is an arbitrary social construction serving the interests of some groups more than others. Now more than ever, people believe in the power of the government and the military. People perceive them to be legitimate. In the U.S., faith in government has generally been low. Prior to 9-11, the level of faith in government was 55% and dropped as low as 26% in 1998 (Stille, Sept 22, 2001). Within weeks after 9-11, the number of people who said they trusted the government to do what is right most of the time hit its highest level in 30 years. What caused this change in perception?

According to Bourdieu (1996), the power of ideas is not measured in whether or not they are true; the power of ideas is measured by the power of mobilization they contain. Thus, politicians use slogans which produce their own verification by producing groups and thereby, social order. Political speech commits its author completely as it constitutes a commitment to action, to the responsibility of carrying out the action that is spoken. It is a promise in a sense. On September 11, Bush made a commitment to the people of the United States, "to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act. Terrorism against our nation will not stand." (Sanger and Van Natta, September 12, 2001). Bush promised justice. These words were some of the first that were uttered that sent the US on a committed path and began to frame the new social world. The idea of obtaining justice was very powerful and continues to evoke strong emotion and rally support.

To Bourdieu, it does not matter if words are true or not, as words have the power of mobilization if people can be mobilized by them, and Bush's words had the power to mobilize people into supporting his plan.

According to Bourdieu (1996), symbolic power is a power to which a person submits or grants credits to the person who exercises it. Through the credit that is given, the person entrusts him by placing his trust in him. This power exists because the person who submits to it believes that it exists. The politician derives his political power from the trust that a group places in him.

Why was Bush able to gain the trust of the American public? What did he do to ensure this? Four months after September 11, Bumiller (January, 2002) says that Bush has changed and become more confident, but she asserts that the public has changed too. Through the use of symbolic power, we can see that Bush has been able to construct a new reality with the complicity of the American public.

Symbolic power is making people see and believe, of confirming or transforming the vision of the world, and thereby action on the world and thus the world itself, not by force, but by mobilization. This means that Symbolic power does not reside in systems but that it is defined in and through a given relation between those who exercise power and those who submit to it. Essentially, the power of words and slogans, a power capable of maintaining and subverting the social order, is the belief in the legitimacy of words and of those who utter them. Words alone cannot create this belief. So, the power of the words in the papers and in their acceptance is due to people's acceptance of them.

In the current situation, Bush was able to take advantage of personal capital, a capital that Weber calls 'charisma', and is the product of an inaugural action performed in a crisis situation, in the vacuum and silence left by institutions and apparatuses. The 'national crisis' (that we were told we were facing) has given Bush a chance to transform himself in the eyes of the public. His story can be seen as that of a particular kind of mythic hero dear to the American imagination. He has been able to embody the characteristics and qualities that people so desperately want him to have. According to Bourdieu (1996), the prophetic action of giving meaning, retrospectively founds and legitimates itself by the confirmation that its own success confers on the language of crisis and on the initial accumulation of the power of mobilization which its success has brought about. Since 9-11, Bush has displayed strength, compassion and a mastery of a complex war on many fronts and has taken the opportunity to shape the social sphere.

Essentially, Bourdieu may contend that people have been manipulated into mis-recognizing this power as legitimate and are participating in their own subjection. According to Bourdieu, symbolic power is a power of constructing reality, and tends to establish the immediate meaning of the world, in particular, the social world. So, what meaning has Bush given the world? How has he framed the world for the citizens of the United States?

Fear and insecurity
Americans were frightened. This is the first time in the history of the United States that Americans have felt so vulnerable and unprotected. Headlines such as, "America under Attack" and "A Nation under Siege" dominated the papers, televisions and speeches of our political leaders. Every day, all day, for weeks, we saw pictures of planes flying into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, of their collapse, and scenes of death and devastation. The media showed us pictures of terrorists who were from countries throughout the world and told us stories of how they used our technology, the internet, to communicate and buy airline tickets, took flying lessons at our flying schools, and stayed here on student or tourist visas.

These people lived next door to us, and we had no idea. Words like 'danger', 'threat', 'terror', 'attack' and 'alert' flooded news headlines and conversations about the safety of the American public. The general feeling was one of insecurity and the sight of a plane flying overhead made people nervous. Our politicians reinforced these feelings, particularly in the first 24 hours when President Bush was flown all over the country, staying as far from Washington, D.C. as possible. People were in shock, traumatized, and were looking for leadership.

We are good people
We are good people, so why did this happen to us? In his remarks on the War on Terrorism on October 11, The President confirmed to us that we are good people and that this was unjust, "I'm amazed that there's such misunderstanding of what our country is about that people would hate us. I, like most Americans, I just can't believe. I know how good we are," and "America is strong and determined and generous." Bush reaffirmed that we are good people and that we are suffering, and went on to say, "I think the American people are sacrificing now. I think there is a certain sacrifice when you lose a piece of your soul." We are all victims. He has confirmed for us that we are a nation that has lost our innocence, unjustly. He also reminded us, repeatedly, that we are unsafe and in need of protection. Why would he do this instead of reassuring us of our safety?

We are unsafe
The objective of the political game is to mobilize and gain the support from the largest number of people possible by manipulating ideas and groups at one and the same time, of producing ideas capable of producing groups by manipulating ideas in such a way as to ensure that they gain the support of a group (Bourdieu, 1996). Bush played the political game by manipulating the fear that Americans had. Bourdieu says that a well-informed politician is able to gauge what stances will be suitable and 'choose' among them. Bush capitalized on the insecurity that the nation felt. The media perpetuated this sense of insecurity and the unknown. We were told that more attacks were imminent and that anthrax and other biological weapons could harm us.

Starting immediately after the events, we heard statements like the one from Marvin Katz, a former anti-terrorism expert who said, "I don't know how you protect yourself against a flying bomb," (Archibold, September 14, 2001). Statements such as this, made by 'experts', served to further unnerve an already jumpy population and molded the public even further. However, early on, Bush told the public what could be done to prevent more terrorist attacks: "Our nation faces a threat to our freedoms and the stakes could not be higher. We are the target of enemies who boast they want to kill, kill all Americans, kill all Jews and kill all Christians. We've seen that type of hate before. And the only possible response is to confront it and to defeat it," (Bush, November 11, 2001).

'We've seen that type of hate before' means that we have experience with this and we know what to do, in a sense. Bush told us, "This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life. The terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education. The terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care or should leave their homes…we must defeat these evildoers," (Bush, October 11, 2001). Bush dehumanized the enemy for us. What kinds of people do not believe women should have healthcare or education?

He spoke of history and reminded us that it was our political forefathers who fought for the freedom that we have enjoyed as a nation and that it was his responsibility to do so as well. Essentially, he told us that by virtue of whom he is, that he is authorized to speak and act on behalf of the nation.

Bourdieu would probably assert that Bush is also successfully using the delegated capital of political authority that is held and controlled by the political institution. It is the party which, through the action of its officers and militants, that has in the course of history, accumulated a symbolic capital of recognition and loyalties and which has a permanent organization of party officials capable of mobilizing militants, supporters, and sympathizers. So, Bush was given legitimacy by both the political machinery and the people.

We have a duty
Bush said that we have a duty, and he told the public what it was. "Your government is doing everything we can to recover from these attacks and to try to prevent others...we must fund our military…we must defeat the evildoers where they hide. …and we must bring them to justice…we must rid the world of terror so our children and grandchildren can grow up in freedom. It is essential." (Bush, October 11, 2001). In his state of the union address, he reminded us that, "History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight." He said that we cannot wait to take action, that, "..time is not on our side." The message is that this is urgent and we must act now against the evil that threatens the world.

So, through language and use of symbolic power, i.e. his position in the social hierarchy as an elected official serving the interests of his constituents, Bush used language to tell, to convince people that it is in their interests to unite and to fight the war on terrorism. He even tried to control their expectations of what this different war might look like.

A different war
The administration created a meaning of the social world as a war on terrorism in which, "The world has come together to fight a new and different war," (Bush, October 11, 2001), and this war is "justified and supported by a vast majority of countries" (Bush, September 19, 2001). These comments were repeated in Bush's speeches in the weeks and months following September 11. Comments such as, "I think the American people do understand that after September 11 that we're facing a different world," were common, and thus, people became accustomed to hearing him tell us that all the rules have changed and that we must change too. We must fight a different kind of war. "It's not the kind of war that we're used to in America…it requires a different type of approach and a different type of mentality." He did not tell us exactly what that was, just that it was different from the past and that it would require long-term commitment. One of the reasons was because the enemy had a vast network throughout the world, so it would be very difficult to locate them efficiently, or at least they were portrayed in this manner.

In order to maintain social order, the public was told that it had a responsibility to unite and that the government had a responsibility to protect. "We are a different country than we were on September the 10th, sadder and less innocent, stronger and more united and in the face of ongoing threats, determined and courageous," (Bush, November 11, 2001).

We were also told continuously that not just Americans should unite, but that the entire world should unite in the war on terrorism and that those who were not with us, were against us. Bush applauded Americans for their unity in his state of the union address saying that it has never been stronger. He commended the nation and told us he was proud to lead this country. So, he continued to cultivate the trust that the public bestowed upon him in order to maintain the monopoly over power that he and his political party were enjoying.

For Bourdieu, symbols are the instruments of social integration. As instruments of knowledge and communication, they make it possible for there to be a consensus on the meaning of the social world, a consensus that contributes to the reproduction of social order. Very shortly after September 11, the flag became a physical symbol of unity that people put on their cars, outside their homes, wore on their clothes, etc. Robert Putnam, a professor of political science at Harvard University, said that the flag also represented the increased trust in government and the feeling that government does important work (Stille, September 22, 2001).

We have a plan
It is the duty of the professionals to handle political questions as they have been trained as specialists, and it is their responsibility to answer in the name of knowledge (Bourdieu, 1996). The habitus of the politician depends on specific training in which they acquire skills that enables them to perform their role. Since politicians have been educated for this role, they are expected to understand political stances offered in the field, the range of interventions that are possible, and also know the demands made by non-professionals. In this instance, Bush and his political administration have quite successfully framed the political stances that are possible.

The political field produces an effect of censorship by limiting the universe of political discourse. The boundary between what is politically sayable or unsayable, thinkable or unthinkable, for a class of non-professionals is determined by the relation between the expressive interests of that class and the capacity to express these interests, a capacity which is secured by its position in the relations of cultural and thus political production.

The production of politically effective and legitimate forms of perception and expression is the monopoly of professionals, and is thus subjected to the constraints and limitations inherent in the functioning of the political field. The more people lack any social competence for politics and any of their own instruments of production of political discourse or acts, the more that political means of production are left in the hands of the professionals.

Politicians reaffirmed their expertise by telling the public 'we have a plan', we know what you want, and since we have the knowledge, we will lead us to success. Since people have not been trained as politicians, and also because they have expectations of politicians since they elect them, most people either do not possess the linguistic capabilities to engage in discourse in the field, or they are simply not interested. Furthermore, I would contend that leaders not only understand that people expect them to fulfill these roles for which they have been trained and elected, but they also know that underlying this expectation lies fear and insecurity and that they manipulate this in order to gain trust and promote their own agenda under the alleged guise that they are representing the American public's desire for justice and to preserve freedom.

Interests and Agendas
As stated earlier in this paper, prior to 9-11, the economy was sagging and the Republicans were worried that they would have to compromise items on their agenda in order to achieve their political goals. Bush's agenda has appeared to have changed post 9-11, or has it? Political professionals impose their own interests as the interests of those whom they represent as they hold a monopoly of the instruments of production of the politically expressed and recognized interests of the masses (Bourdieu, 1996).

Presidential scholars and political activists have applauded Bush's new agenda as representing an obvious need to meet a crisis and have said that protecting national security is a legitimate role of government (Harris and Milbank, September 19, 2001). In this article from the Washington Post, the writers have confirmed that experts in other political fields, namely scholars and activists, also recognize this role as one that government should fill.

The political field is constrained by the fact that it is not independent of other fields and forces. Since their power is symbolic and politicians are dependent on the credit accorded to them by non-professionals, they constantly work to nourish and sustain the belief and trust that non-professionals have in them. Ultimately, these symbolic productions are related to the interests of the dominant class. Ideologies serve particular interests that they tend to present as universal interests, shared by the group as a whole, when in fact, they often represent the interests of the dominant class but are framed as interests of the constituents.

Politicians have been able to manipulate emotions, using them to frame their political stances and agendas while telling the people they understand what they want. They capitalized on people's fears in order to present themselves as trustworthy leaders who are listening to their constituents and will protect them and make their world safe again. With their agendas and interests hidden underneath a blanket of emotions, they have been able to frame the war on terrorism in such a way that people feel it is their war, it is right, they support it.

In his speech on November 11, exactly two months after the incidents, President Bush outlined efforts the administration was taking to ensure the public's safety. In addition to continuing the war in Afghanistan, this plan included the creation of a new office of homeland security to strengthen homeland protections. A new terrorism task force was also created to tighten immigration to make sure no one enters or stays in our country that would harm us. These measures were not questioned very much by the public. For the most part, they were accepted as being necessary efforts to ensure our safety and that of our country. However, it is interesting that these measures also allowed the administration to promote its own interests, especially regarding immigration, increased military spending, and the economy, as war stimulates the economy, and engaging in ward took some of the pressure away from Bush to address economic pressures in other ways.

Since he has been enjoying such a high percentage of public support, he has been able to introduce and pass legislation on a number of topics in record time without encountering much opposition, at least in the beginning. His popularity, and thus political power, made it difficult for other members of congress who were not in favor of Bush's immigration, military or other policies to question them as they would essentially be framed as questioning measures that are safeguarding the vulnerable citizens of the United States. So, this rhetoric shapes the political agenda, enables leaders who enjoy power to make rules and pass legislation based on their professional interests, and people buy it in the name of freedom, ironically.

Lessons/history
As stated, politicians must constantly appeal to non-professionals in order to secure and maintain support that will enable them to wage a successful battle over other professionals. Bush is doing this with his war on terrorism. He is using the socio-historical context to frame his convictions for using the military, a move that, at some other time or with some people, would not be supported. Prior to September 11, his agenda for increased military spending would never have been accepted. However, by gaining support of nearly 90% of the general public, he is able to assert power in the political field that he would not have been able to do a year ago.

Many of his appeals have been framed as 'lessons' we have learned. "We learned a good lesson on Sept. 11, that there is evil in this world…And it's my duty as the president of the United States to use the resources of this great nation, a freedom loving nation, a compassionate nation, a nation that understands values of life and route terrorism out where it exists."

We have also been told that we learned some very important lessons from Vietnam. "One of the most important lessons that was learned was that you cannot fight a guerrilla war with conventional forces. That's why I've explained to the American people that we're engaged in a different type of war. We've got to fight on all fronts...As far as the use of conventional forces, we've got a clear plan, "(Bush, October 11, 2001).

Individuals have differing capacities to produce linguistic expressions appropriate to particular markets. Hence, due to specialization, politicians would be considered legitimate spokespersons regarding military engagement and foreign policy. This is what they have been trained to do and this is what non-professionals expect of them. As a result, what civilians say regarding military engagement would, in most circumstances, not be considered valid or legitimate since they have neither the knowledge of the correct language or the social history and experience of being a member of either a political or military group and being socialized into it. Thus, non-professionals become reliant upon their expertise and guidance.

With specific regard to the military and what the military says to us regarding the war against terrorism, when speaking and offering advice on how the US should wage its war against terrorism, they have the legitimacy that civilians do not have and could not have. They have gone through an initiation, a boot camp that oriented them to the service and made it through certain rites of passage. They learn a specific kind of language and way of relating to other members of the military, their seniors, initially. They submit to the values, hierarchies and censorship mechanisms inherent in the field. While the political field does not have such a clear demarcation of initiation and inclusion/exclusion as the military, there is still a bureaucracy that trains politicians and there are clearly insiders and outsiders.

Domination, according to Bourdieu, can be accomplished in a more personalized way of exercising power over others. One way is debt. An actor can bring another under his sway by enforcing obligations, by giving a gift, especially a generous one that cannot be met by a counter-gift of comparable quality. The politicians tell us that our military gives us the gift of freedom by fighting for the rights upon which our forefathers built this great country. They are protecting us. They are keeping us safe from terrorists and 'evildoers' who want to harm good, innocent people.

Thus, the message is that we are vulnerable and need to be protected, and the military protects us. We remain free and safe because of them. How can we repay them? What can we offer them? Politicians tell us that we must support them without questioning them. People hear this and accept the words spoken by the leaders they have elected. People hear they are indebted to the military. This use of symbolic power, or what would Bourdieu would call symbolic violence, enables relations of domination to be established and maintained through strategies that are softened and disguised. They conceal domination beneath a 'veil of enchanted relation' and even go so far as to tell the public what the military needs to continue serving them and how they can, in turn, support the military.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said that:
"it costs a lot to fight this war…we have spent over $30 million a day, and we must be prepared for future operations." To defeat the enemy and put troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely, "Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training, and they also deserve another pay raise. My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay…Time and distance from the events of Sept 11 will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons."

So, the relationship between the dominant and those who are dominated is embedded in the president's speech on national security. He speaks like a patron taking care of his people and tells them how their safety will be ensured. Ironically, or maybe not, increasing military spending also serves his political interests. However, we are not asked to question this agenda. In fact, Bush tells the public what their role should be.

Citizens' roles
"We must go on with our lives, the American people have got to go about their business."
In his speech on November 11, Bush said that he created a task force to develop additional ways that people can get directly involved in this war effort. How? People can offer their support and protect their freedom by volunteering locally. The message is that volunteering locally will make peoples homes, neighborhoods and schools safer. "We are a nation awakened to danger. We're also a nation awakened to service and citizenship and compassion. None of us would ever wish evil that has been done to our country. Yet we have learned that out of evil can come great good."

Bush also said, "Many ask, what can I do to help in our fight? The answer is simple. All of us can become a September the 11th volunteer, by making a commitment to service in our own communities. So you can serve your country by tutoring or mentoring a child, comforting the afflicted, housing those in need of shelter and a home." His speech continues to list examples of how normal people can get involved locally and does so in directive, fatherly tone. In Freire's (1998) manipulation theory on anti-dialogical action oppressors, through manipulation, try to conform the masses to their objectives. People are manipulated by the series of myths created by those in power, and through manipulation, the elite can lead the people into an unauthentic type of organization and can avoid the threatening alternative of true organization.

Manipulation tries to anesthetize people so they will not think. The oppressor labels concepts such as unity, organization, and struggle as dangerous. One way to prevent various forms of cultural action is to manipulate people into thinking that they are being helped (Freire, 1998). This manipulation also encourages people to focus on more localized views of problems rather than seeing them as dimensions of a totality. While teaching a child to read or do arithmetic is certainly important, I have a hard time finding the direct link between volunteering in a local community center to fighting a war on terrorism in Afghanistan that destroys peoples' homes, infrastructure as well as kills innocent victims.

Thus, it seems that the administration is manipulating the people into focusing locally in the war on terrorism through volunteer efforts, making them feel useful, and in a sense discouraging people from worrying about what the government is doing. It re-establishes the government's role at the national level and in a sense, tells people that is not their realm, so don't think or worry about it, just accept it. Show your patriotism and unity by serving soup at a homeless shelter.

In his state of the union address, Bush also tells the public that, "Our cause is just, and it continues." So, Bush tells us that we are right and that what we are doing in Afghanistan is right. Additionally, he tells us that this war is far from ending, in fact, "our war against terror is only beginning," and thus sets the stage for expanding his military and party agenda. Experts in the pentagon have informed us that there is an 'axis of evil' in the world and that these enemies have weapons of mass destruction that can be used against innocent people. We are told that the United States is willing to train and provide military aid to 'governments everywhere' for the fight against terrorism and that "inaction is not an option" (Bumiller, March 11, 2002).

The American public accepts this since we have been told we are unsafe, need protection, and that the administration knows what is best and is taking care of us as well as looking out for the world. As the administration is still riding on a high public approval rate, it has the latitude to push forward this agenda without expecting much opposition, and, as we remember, this is a time for national unity and patriotism. You are either for us or against us.

The Double Game
The struggle that sets professionals against each other is the symbolic struggle for the conservation or transformation of the vision of the social world and of the principles of division of this world (Bourdieu, 1996). It takes the form of a struggle over the specifically symbolic power of making people see and believe, of predicting and prescribing, of making known and recognized, which is at the same time a struggle for power over the 'public powers' (state administrations.)

The struggle to win support of the citizens is also the struggle for the distribution of power. Bush has managed to win support of 90% of the public, and thus, monopolize power. He has reinforced this by telling people they must unite, by framing this war as a war against all good people of the world. Furthermore, this framing has made it is very difficult to be against the war on terrorism. It means you are siding with them, the bad guys, the evildoers, the people who don't believe women should be educated, the people who live in caves.

Bush's vision of the social world and the principles that guide it have been accepted by the people, thus making the struggle over symbolic power very difficult, especially since deviation from unity is seen as being unpatriotic. This puts political actors who are not in Bush's political circle in a difficult position regarding the struggle for power.

System of Deviations
Political parties have a relational existence with each other. So, the stance that is taken by one party in the field is done so in relation to another political party. As a result, internal conflicts are superimposed on external conflicts (Bourdieu, 1996). If the vast majority of the people are following one party, Bush, due to his manipulation of their emotions and his promises of security, has a monopoly over power. If the message is unite, and the people accept, adhere and value that message, it is in the interest of all politicians to adopt the stance and the rhetoric that Bush is espousing. Is there room for a minority voice in this political climate? If the minority voice is not popular with over 90% of the citizenry, how is it possible that the politicians would take up that stance?

When is there room for dissent and how does that opinion or opinions become heard again? When are other stances, other voices, acceptable once again? As stated, politicians enjoying this rare monopoly of the distribution of power will try to manipulate the public, to convince them that what they are doing is for them and is in their interests. Politicians in power will try to frame politicians who disagree with them unpatriotic and emphasize that this is the time to unite against the enemy and show support for the heroes who are defending our great nation.

"For groups united by some form of collusion, it is a fundamental imperative to maintain discretion about, to keep secret, everything which concerns the intimate beliefs of the group" (Bourdieu, 1996). Bush was able to convince the public that for safety reasons, there was a need for secrecy. Since September 11, the administration made it very clear that it would like to tightly control the flow of information about the war on terrorism. "All Americans understand in time of war some information must be safeguarded, including specific military plans and certain kinds of intelligence data. The safety of American troops, and the security of spying methods, must not be compromised by the careless disclosure of sensitive classified information"(Bush, October 11, 2001).

The administration made it very clear that it was requesting that the media respect this request. Furthermore, the administration also said it would limit the information it shared with congress to select chairmen and ranking members of appropriate committees and said that, "The members need to respect the demands of secrecy."

This language framed the administration's desire for secrecy as an attempt to maintain the safety of the general public. However, it also speaks to the 'double-game' mentioned by Bourdieu and professionals struggle for power in the political field. The request for secrecy helped Bush and his administration maintain control over information (and thus, power), make it unnecessary to be transparent in their decision-making, and make it difficult for other politicians to question them and their motives. They were also able to have wide latitude politically to achieve their goals without worrying about being accountable to congress or the public. Members of congress who questioned the administration were reprimanded by members of Bush's inner circle: "This is no time to be showing any divisions, "said Kenneth M. Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Ronald Regan. "This is the time that everybody lines up shoulder to shoulder on behalf of the president, on behalf of the policy, on behalf of our fighting men and women."

When some democrats questioned the war in Afghanistan, Republicans criticized them and labeled them unpatriotic. "It's important for us to keep a united front…our united front began to fall apart, with democrats saying the future success is in doubt. Democrats went over the line."

Since politicians are reliant upon the support of non-professionals, they adjusted their responses so that the public perceived them to be patriotic and not seen as being responsible for trying to dismantle a united front and endangering the general public. Since they have been trained in the political field, they know when they should conform and adjust their roles according to the political situation. Tom Daschle toned down his questioning and responded to the republicans accusations by saying, "I feel very strongly about the issues that I raised last week. There is strong support for the troops and our efforts in Afghanistan, but I think there are questions down the road that we will want to raise…"(Bumiller, December 28, 2001).

Through socialization and the learning process, people learn to distinguish how what they say will be valued in various social contexts and settings or fields. If trained in that field, people will adapt what they say to produce expressions that are valued in that setting. Thus, individuals engage in self-censorship through the process of anticipating how their linguistic products will be received. This is based on the understanding of the environment in which one is. Using the previous example, Daschle chose to wait for a better time to continue to assert his questions.

As time progressed, however, and as many Democratic politicians became more removed from power, the Democrats re-raised questions. Once again, the Republicans accused them of being unpatriotic. "I think the time has come for us to be asking a lot more questions, " said Mr. Daschle in March. "That is the role of congress. We're a co-equal branch of government, and I don't think we ought to rubber stamp any president as we get into these very difficult decisions."

It is interesting, however, to note that Daschle and Trent Lott, Senate minority leader, framed their complaints, and ultimately their unspoken requests for power, as efforts to unite, "He needs us to work with him and help him," Mr. Lott said, "and any sign that we are losing that unity or crack in that support will be, I think, used against us overseas." (Stolberg, March 3, 2002). So, the internal power struggles in the political field were framed in language that the public has already accepted: we must remain united, and thus, words spoken by the Democrats are given a sense of legitimacy and made more difficult for Republicans to attack and discredit. Their skill enabled them to engage in the political game in a way that gives them credibility.

Slogans and mobilizing ideas

The outcome of internal struggles between specialists in the political field depends on the power that the agents and institutions can mobilize from outside the field. Essentially, ideas become political movements only when they are recognized outside the circle of professionals. As we have seen, the administration has expanded its war on terrorism to the Philippines and is engaged in training Filipino troops to fight the Abu Sayyaf, a small group of 50-60 Muslims who have had ties to Osama bin Laden in the past. So far, the American public has been supportive of this move, however, there has been speculation that if U.S. troops expand their focus to include either of the other Muslim groups that are in Mindanao, that public support here would decline. Bush also has his eyes on Iraq and has successfully demonized Saddam Hussein. However, the administration has acted more slowly on this front as mistakes could jeopardize the level of support they have been able to maintain.

A decline in public support would open up the possibility for other politicians to continue to try to mobilize the public, which in turn, would aid them in their internal political struggle and quest for power.

Conclusion
Actors in political fields, and especially President Bush, have used their positions to manipulate the people's vision of the social world post 9-11. Yes, the world and the American public have changed. We have been exposed to violence and destruction that many people in other countries experience on a normative basis, and this has changed us. However, life will continue as always for people elsewhere, unless perhaps, this global war on terrorism ends up on their leaders' domestic agenda as well. The power that the current administration has is a result of the trust that Americans have bestowed upon them and possibly the lack of critical thought that Americans have put into the situation. Until people begin to question and speak out on the war against terrorism, there will not be an active political voice in Washington that asserts this point of view. It would be political suicide for a politician to take an unpopular political stance without knowing there are constituents who support him or her. Most of this paper has been focused on what the majority thinks and how they have reacted to 9-11. It would also be interesting to look more closely at the 10% minority who do not support this war effort.

Immediately after the event, it was quite difficult to voice an opinion that was not supportive of the war. It is still pretty unpopular to speak out against the war on terrorism in the general population. However, a few events have changed the political scene and have opened up possibilities for struggles to ensue in political fields that are backed by the general population. The war in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians is one example of how the political climate can change and alter the power dynamics. Recently we have seen protests in Washington, D.C. from a number of groups that have organized efforts to mount political pressure. As citizens, it is our duty to 'mobilize' and to remain involved in and informed about politics if we want to have a voice in the actions and policies of our leaders.

Bibliography

Allen, Mike. March 12, 2002. 'Inaction Is Not an Option'; Bush Offers Military Aid In Continuing Terror War, In: The Washington Post.

Allen, Mike and Clay Chandler. March 3, 2002. Asia Urged to Extend Rights, Support U.S. War on Terror, In: The Washington Post.

Allen, Mike. November 11, 2001. Bush Says Citizens Must Help in Fighting Terror; President Cites 'New Responsibilities', In: The Washington Post.

Allen, Mike. September 04, 2001. Bush 'Concerned' About Economy; Labor Day Speeches Signal New Emphasis on Downturn's Effect, In: The Washington Post.

Archibold, Randal. September 14, 2001. A Day of Terror: Fears Ripple: Closing Down, Tightening Up, In: The New York Times.

Bahr, Robin. October 10, 2001. Reaffirm Democracy, In: The New York Times.

Becker, Elizabeth. November 10, 2001. A Nation Challenged: Hearts and Minds -- A special report. In the War on Terrorism, A Battle to Shape Opinion, In: The Washington Post.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1992. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity.

Bumiller, Elisabeth. March 29, 2002. A Nation Challenged: Bush Vows to Aid Other Countries in War on Terror, In: The New York Times.

Bumiller, Elisabeth. December 28, 2001. A Nation Challenged: The White House. Bush Says He Is Saddened by Deaths but Undeterred, In: The New York Times.

Bumiller, Elisabeth. September 19, 2001. The Nation: Seeing Is Believing; America as Reflected in Its Leader, In: The New York Times.

Bush, George W. March 4, 2002. Mideast Turmoil; Excerpts From President Bush's Remarks on Terrorism and the Mideast, In: The New York Times.

Bush, George W. January 20, 2002. President Bush's State of the Union Address to Congress and the Nation, In: The New York Times.

Bush, George W. November 19, 2001 The President's Proclamation: President Bush's Thanksgiving Day proclamation: Thanksgiving 2001, In: New York Times.

Bush, George W. November 11, 2001 The President's Speech: 'We will Prevail' in War on Terrorism, In: New York Times.

Bush, George W. October 2001. A Nation Challenged: Excerpts From the President's Remarks on the War on Terrorism, In: New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com

Coser, Lewis. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: The Free Press.

DePalma, Anthony. October 9, 2001. Fear and Vigilance as Security Plans Are Reviewed, In: The New York Times.

Dewar, Helen. September 11, 2001. Daunting Task Greets Congress on Return; Lawmakers Face a Load of Familiar Issues -- and Less Money to Deal With Them, In: The Washington Post.

Freire, Paulo. 1998. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing.

Gordon, Michael R. October 6, 2001. A Nation Challenged: Military Analysis; A New Kind Of War Plan, In: New York Times.

Haberman, Clyde. October 13, 2001. A Nation Challenged: A Focus on Bioterrorism, a Show of Military Might, In: The New York Times.

Harris, John F. and Dana Milbank. September 19, 2001. For Bush, New Emergencies Ushered in a New Agenda, In: The Washington Post.

McFadden, Robert D. September 22, 2001. After the Attacks: A Shaken Nation Struggles to Regain Its Equilibrium, but Remains on Edge, In: The New York Times.

Milbank, Dana and Bradley Graham. January 7, 2002. With Crisis, More Fluid Style at White House; Faster Decision-Making Has Flip Side: Confusion, In: The Washington Post.

Montgomery, David. October 17, 2001. Working Through The Madness; Scanning the Skies, Looking for Powder, Getting On With Life, In: The Washington Post.

Perle, Richard. December 28, 2001. The U.S. Must Strike at Saddam Hussein, In: New York Times.

Sanger, David E. and Don Van Natta Jr. September 15, 2001. In Four Days, a National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency, In: The New York Times.

Shanker, Thom. March 14, 2002. A Nation Challenged: Addressing Worries, Pentagon Says It Can Fight Wider War, In: The New York Times.

Shankar, Thom and Steven Lee Myers. October 8, 2001. A Nation Challenged: Rumsfeld Sees Long Battle; Says Bombs Aren't Enough, In: The New York Times.

Stanley, Pamela. September 19, 2001. Fighting Back, While Preserving Our Values, In: New York Times.

Stille, Alexander. September 22, 2001. Suddenly, Americans Trust Uncle Sam, In: The Washington Post.

Stolberg, Sherly Gay. March 5, 2002. A Nation Challenged: Congress: Daschle Wants President to Tell Congress More About His Plans for War, In: The New York Times.

Tucker, Neely. November 3, 2001. All Around, a Chill in the Air; FBI Warnings, Persistent Rumors Add to Area's Safety Concerns, In: The Washington Post.

Weber, Max. 1964. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: The Free Press, A Division of MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. Talcott Parsons (ed).