"I'm not a thief. I'm a terrorist."--Caroline Farrell, "Dollhouse"

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:00


Joss Whedon's Dollhouse only has two more episodes to go, alas, but it's not going down without a fight.  Last night's episode, "Getting Closer" had so much going on, it was enough to fill half a 22-episode season of a lesser show, but I really just want to talk about one rather amazing thing that happened: The lead character (sort of) in an American TV show self-identified as a terrorist.

Let me say that again:  The lead character in an American TV show self-identified as a terrorist.

It wasn't entirely accurate, of course.  But in a sense, that only makes it better.

The last two weeks since the Christmas/underpants bomber episode have seen the utter and complete collapse into meaninglessness of "terrorist" discourse.  As Rachel Maddow noted, Rudy ("A noun, a verb and 9/11") Guiliani has effectively destroyed his political career once and for all in the process of trying to make 9/11 disappear, and that's pretty much the symbolic crown of the mountain range of stupid that's been trotted out in the past two weeks.

In essence, the post-underpants GOP attacks on Obama can be summarized thus: "You can't fight terrorism, because you're not scared!  And you're not scaring us and the American people!"  You're not screaming "terrorism" every other word, just like Osama bin Laden wants!

And so now that "terrorism" has been made utterly meaningless as the final reductio absurdum of those who flew so high for more than half a decade based on their own spectacular failures, it's only fitting that a fictional character from Joss Whedon's fevered imagination should turn the ultimate linguistic trick, and--quite impossibly--turn "terrorist" into a Good Thing.  

Paul Rosenberg :: "I'm not a thief. I'm a terrorist."--Caroline Farrell, "Dollhouse"
One has to ask, what does it mean that this could happen?

In the episode, Caroline (the young woman whose personality is erased to create the "doll" Echo) appears in flashback sneaking into a facility with a security guard she's seducing, when she suddenly turns on him and handcuffs him.  It's classic Joss Whedon, a scene that doubles the very first scene in Buffy, The Vampire Slayer (the series, not the movie).  When the security guard bewails his own foolishness for letting a thief into the facility he's supposed to be guarding, Caroline reassures him, "I'm not a thief, I'm a terrorist."

She's not, of course.  Her goal is not to terrorize anyone, even those who run the facility, but to expose their deepest, darkest secrets (which even she cannot yet imagine) to the blinding light of day.  In short, she's not a terrorist, she's a whistle-blower.  And yet, by a sheer act of will, if nothing else, she fuses to the two different concepts into one.

There are so many layers of meaning here, it would take a decent academic paper to sort them all out.  But the bottom line is that January 8, 2010 marks the end of the spell that "terrorism" has cast over America.  The rhetoric is utterly exhausted, utterly bankrupt, utterly devoid of meaning.  The attempt to use "terrorism" to turn off people's minds has failed, once and for all.

We are all terrorists now.  Every single one of us who thinks for themselves.  Every single one of us who questions, "Why?"


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
By that definition, (4.00 / 2)
I've been a terrorist all my life, though not a very successful one. As someone -- probably a lot of people -- once observed, In America you can say anything you want. When you try to act on it, though, it stops becoming your problem, and becomes one for the authorities.

For folks who want to know things, and want everyone else to know them too, there's safety in numbers. The problem, of course, is how to generate those numbers. Without some assistance from objective conditions which impinge significantly on people's perceptions of the status quo, it's hard to see how that can come to pass. Even real terrorists, with real bombs, have rarely been able to manage it.

Perhaps it's a mixture of will and time -- and more time than will at that -- which can do the trick. Unfortunately, I won't last long enough to find out.


Personally, (4.00 / 2)
I prefer subversive to terrorist, but we rarely get to name ourselves.

[ Parent ]
Ack - how did I miss that Buffy parallel? (4.00 / 1)
I'm very disappointed with myself for that.

Of course, a whistle-blower is truly terrorizing for institutions that rely on hiding the truth in order to maintain themselves.  And there are no shortages of such institutions.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


Er, she DID blow up a building (0.00 / 0)
And that was likely one of her intentions from the get-go.  She didn't expect people to be inside, but still, that's not something every free-thinking person would do.

And She Tried To Stop It When She Found People Inside (0.00 / 0)
Up until everyone lost their mind, it was fairly well understood that property damage isn't terrorism.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That's news to me (0.00 / 0)
Terrorism is a violent act used as a means of coercion.  So causing major destruction to someone's property isn't an act of terrorism?  If Tea Party Activists blew up Harry Reid's house, that's okay as long as no one was inside?

Great that Caroline cared about stopping the bombs once she found out people were inside... but she might have figured that in such a large building, there would be at least one person there besides her and Bennett, like a security guard or something.


[ Parent ]
Whedon's use of the term "terrorist" in that context (0.00 / 0)
reinforces the central dogma of the military mind-set that seeks to affix the label "terrorist" to groups and individuals as if it were a political ideology.

Terrrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Whedon's use of the word does nothing to undermine that basic misuse of the word in today's world. Rather, it supports and extends that concept.

"Terrorism, as a tactic, can and has been employed a a "good thing". It does not take a TV show on FAUX to make that connection.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


What Paul is suggesting is, the way I read this, (4.00 / 1)
is that the terrorising tactic of calling someone a terrorist has and/or is losing it's potency as a tactic. So while yes perhaps Whedon's counter-tactic does not neutralize the the mis-understanding by ordinary people of the differences between tactics and strategies and ideologies it still does neutralize the terrorizing effect that the users of the work "terrorist" desire.

Jeff Wegerson

[ Parent ]
That effect is so minimal as to be almost non-existent (0.00 / 0)
I consider the source, the Fox Network. If everything the "left" claims about how biased and rightwing the news division is accurate, then it is well within the world view of FOX to reiterate the basic concept that terrorism is an idealogy, which the scene described by Rosenberg does.

Do you have any evidence that this is true:

that the terrorising tactic of calling someone a terrorist has and/or is losing it's potency as a tactic.

Listen to the rhetoric used about the crotch bomber - especially from the right - and tell me that they aren't pushing the line that terrorism is the idealogy of Al Qaida. Whedon reinforces rather than contradicts that usage.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
I don't deal in evidence ;-) (0.00 / 0)
I deal, in this instance certainly, in gut feelings. And since you can't refute my feelings, not that you would even be interested, they are useless to this discussion so there is no point in my expanding on them or repeating them.

Did you really think that I might have some evidence to support my assertions? I tend to think not. So, I am puzzled by your request.

I have not heard any rhetoric about the crotch bomber and have read very little either. Especially from the authoritarians. But that too is irrelevant since I agree with you that they are likely "pushing the line that terrorism is the idealogy (sic) of Al Qaida". Well I can't say that I've ever actually heard or read them use exactly that phraseology but certainly that is the effect they desire no matter their exact language.

Jeff Wegerson


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox