It is generally accepted by the citizenry that the state is a tangible entity that has authority and sovereignty and exercises control over peoples, ideas, and territories. This accepted perception was manufactured through the assent of the modern state that involved territorialization, continuity of space, and homogenization of peoples. The state became ārealā with the creation of an imagination of the citizenry based on the formation of institutions and agencies that enacted specific practices and effects. 5 The formation of state effects afforded an environment that facilitated the general acceptance of the practices of a ruling authority. More importantly, states developed communities/national identities that became sites on which practices of statecraft were actualized. As a project of the state, a national community was developed as an image over time ā an image that possessed shared values and ideals that were altered and passed through time ā and space ā an image of lived practices that existed before us and would exist after us (Paul, Ikenbury, and Hall, 2003; Anderson, 1983).
5 What is meant here is that by establishing specific effects of the state, institutions and agencies, the citizenry actually feels it can witness the state in action. The perception here is that if there are effects of a state (military, taxation, government, etc.), then there must be an actual entity that produces these effects. The state, as currently perceived, constitutes institutions and practices that legitimize its existence and that are instrumental in the creation of a national, cultural core. The cultural core is a set of stories and imaginaries that construct a metaāculture of the state. The citizenry takes ownership of this metaāculture which in turn informs their perspectives of the surrounding environment. As a result, the cultural core constructed a perceived majority and enhanced a specific identity to be processed and implemented. To witness the effects of a cultural core, incorporating historical narratives, one can turn to the development of the U.S. state.
The U.S. state is one of several examples of states whose histories can be investigated to elucidate the formation of a cultural core. However, the development of the United States is scrutinized based on its declaration that it is able to manage and coordinate public space via set rules and laws that delimit rights and situate networks of sociability and intelligibility.
The cultural core and historical narratives, coupled with the U.S.ā unequaled strength in the world, created a specific hegemony that articulated the United States as the savior of the world, purveyor of democracy, and the beacon of hope ā American exceptionalism reiterated. American exceptionalism (explicated further in Chapter 5) was taken as a birthright that maintained the United States as the only power capable of enacting democracy and maintaining world peace. American exceptionalism is based on the logic of a state that finds its foundation in the idea of legitimized democratic processes. The logic of the legitimized democratic process required a level of interdependence as individuals came together for safety and protection. The formation of a secured and protected environment transformed itself into a site for the manifestation of ideological and cultural expression of the United States as a unique and innovative state in space and through time. The United States manifested itself as the perfect union of democratic ideals from ancient civilizations and the āmodernā sentiments of security and state formation. American exceptionalism was a natural progression of a state that embodied all positive aspects and attributes and actualized a specific image of a mission to spread and defend the ideals of a secured, democratic state to facilitate other states but also to ensure an environment of security and prosperity. American exceptionalism also encompasses the ideal that the exceptional is also exempt from the rules it promotes. The inclusion/exclusion dyad is prevalent within the employment of the exceptional mission.
In the mission to ensure an environment of security and prosperity, security of the state is made logical and rational. In the rationality of the state, violence is controlled and managed by the state. Violence was no longer viewed as being uncertain and unstable as long as it was part of the statist system. In the face of terrorism, however, violence is again viewed as uncertain and unstable as terrorists attempt to take control over the statist use of violence in an illegitimate manner. The uncertainty of violence in terrorism is made relevant to the existence of the state. The state utilizes terrorismās relevance to create a ātheater of terrorā in which fear is confronted with fear, and individuals maintain the credence of the social contract in hopes of maintaining laws and liberty (Juergensmeyer, 2003: 119).
Within statist logic of violence, the state set forth specific ideas of territorial and communal sovereignty. In doing so, the state consistently put into motion a set of practices that was designed to maintain and perpetuate concepts vital to its existence. A host of activities ā economy, health, security ā are made viable to the control and operationalization of the state. Such practices invite new issues that the state is forced to address in order to maintain the image of the state as a legitimate, solidified process. The ideology of the state is to create its own raison dāĆŖtre by fixing in the minds of the citizenry all meanings of safety.
In working to solidify its control, authority, and legitimacy, the state reveals itself as a movement, always in search of new resources through which it can exercise and enact its power. In this sense, terrorism becomes a site through which the state can enact its practices of statecraft. Thus, the state as a movement can no longer be viewed in and through traditional concepts that anchor the state in historical origins.
State formation has undergone dramatic changes and contradictions within the past thirty years. Security, however, maintains its status as a site for the practice of statecraft. U.S. security began to challenge old conceptions of what āweā were trying to defend. Given the absence of a clear and present threat to vital state interest, security became the tool through which the state was legitimized in a site where:
oceans are the puddles and sovereign national frontiersā¦markings on an old map, the daily realities of interdependence everywhere contradict the idea of sovereign autonomy. (Barber, 2003: 55)
The ideas of the effects of globalization espoused by Barber are furthered by Campbell (1992), Connolly (1991), Dillon (1996), and Walker (1993), who construct a position which enables an exploration of how identity politics has fostered the current state of affairs in the global environment. They warn of the need to be critical of the power of identity politics in international relations and national security. These theorists critique a state structure that was constructed in a manner that systematically reified the state as:
an historically specific spatial ontology, a sharp delineation of here and there, a discourse that both expresses and constantly affirms the presence and absence of political life inside and outside the modern state as the only ground on which structural necessities can be understood and new realms of freedom and history can be revealed. (Walker, 1993: ix)
The artifacts of the world critiqued consistently labor to reāproduce themselves in order to maintain semblance of the historical state project ā a project that roots itself in the world of eighteenthā and nineteenthā century enlightenment philosophers of statism and progress. The current environment is not a collection of static entities among which spatiotemporal relations are reified or polarized. In the current environment, theories, philos...