Culture of fear is a term that refers to corrupting democratic society by creating laws to fight terror (Styles & Lynch, 1994), or the perceived prevalence of fear and anxiety in public discourse and relationships, and how this may affect the way people interact with one another as individuals and as democratic agents. Among those who share this perception there are a variety of different claims as to the sources and consequences of the trend they seek to describe.
Contents |
Different social commentators have offered different Culture of Fear theses, each with a distinctive emphasis. They may be categorised along a spectrum, from those who consider the phenomenon to be consciously directed - a deliberate policy of scaremongering - to those who treat it as arising spontaneously out of historical developments, as a reflexive response to other changes in human society.
The manufacturing of a Culture of Fear is presented in the ideas of linguist Noam Chomsky, sociologist Barry Glassner, politicians, such as Tony Benn[1][2], and political filmmakers, such as Adam Curtis and Michael Moore. Reporters such as Judith Miller are sometimes accused of being involved in the manufacture of a culture of fear, though others such as Rachel Maddow work to point out false fears deliberately engendered by others. The motives offered for deliberate programs of scaremongering vary, but can hinge on the potential for increased social control that a mistrustful and mutually fearing population might offer to those in power, or may be done for pure greed or to destabilize normal democratic power when used by oppositions. In these accounts, fears are carefully and repeatedly created and fed by those who wish to create fear, often through the manipulation of words, facts, news, sources or data, in order to induce certain personal behaviors, justify governmental actions or policies (at home or abroad), keep people consuming, elect demagogic politicians, or distract the public's attention from allegedly more urgent issues like foreign policy, poverty, social security, unemployment, crime, pollution, or individual rights. Such commentators suggest that we consider a range of cultural processes as deliberate techniques for scaremongering. For example:
The writer Jennie Bristow believes that the culture of fear that emerged following the September 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks were not so much emergent fears but rather top-down manufactured ones by politicians and reflected by an uncritical media. She also believes that the fears engendered, although irrational, allowed patriotism to emerge which eventually led to military adventurism in places not even connected to either 9/11 or the anthrax attacks.
The culture of fear is not a spontaneous reaction by the public to a truly dangerous world. The worldwide anthrax panic sparked by a handful of anthrax-related deaths in America shortly after 9/11 was not caused by a genuine and widespread mortal danger facing US and European citizens. Our propensity to panic about everything from child abductions to mobile phones does not come from the fact that modern life contains more risks than ever before - on the level of everyday reality, the opposite is the case... The culture of fear comes from the top down. It comes from society's leaders, and their inability to lead... The USA was propelled outwards and backwards, to attacking its safe-bet rogue state. In doing so, it revealed its weakness, prompting other nations to pick, parasitically, at America's weakness for their own short-term gains. These antics have been played out to the public, whose disenchantment with politics and immersion in the culture of fear makes them cynical and scared about any attempt by political leaders to exercise anything that looks like power. And the media, rumour-heavy and analysis-lite, has faithfully reflected the depth of confusion that characterises the current times.[4]
At the other end of the spectrum, a Culture of Fear is presented as a sensibility that emerges from every corner of contemporary society, spontaneously. Frank Furedi, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent (UK), who also founded the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain, exemplifies this end of the spectrum with his books, Culture of Fear: Risk-taking and the Morality of Low Expectations (1997) and Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right (2005). Furedi's account locates the source of the phenomenon in what he characterises a 'failure of historical imagination', a symptom of what he identifies as the exhaustion of 20th century systems of political meaning.
It was my experience of the 1995 contraceptive Pill panic that motivated me to write Culture of Fear. I carried out a global study of national reactions to the panic, and it quickly became clear that the differential responses were culturally informed. Some societies, like Britain and Germany, responded in a confused, panic-like fashion - while countries like France, Belgium and Hong Kong adopted a more calm and measured approach.[5]
By Furedi's account, a universal sense of fearfulness pre-exists and underpins the expression of fears by media and politicians. While media and politicians might amplify and exploit this sensibility, their activities are not decisive in its cultural production. Furedi levels the charge at various 'anti-establishment' voices that they are at least as complicit in the exploitation of fears (ecological catastrophe, for example) as the 'establishment' that is more commonly held to benefit from the culture of fear.
Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argues that the use of the term War on Terror was intended to generate a culture of fear deliberately because it "obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue".[6]
The writer Victor Klemperer described the Nazis' use of language to create fear in his 1947 book LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii: The language of the Third Reich: A Philologist's notebook.. George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four describes a government that uses language to control its citizenry, using an invented language known as Newspeak.
The phrase "moral panic" has been used to describe a widespread, irrational scare brought about by a lack of scientific or general education among the public, intrinsic human biases in the assessment of risk, a lack of rational thinking, misinformation, and giving too much weight to rumor.
Language is a powerful and often subliminal tool to condition the development, internalization and habituation of fear. The association or words and ideas with negative sentiments is an effective means of promoting a culture of fear. It echoes the Nazi use of language to infiltrate the minds of a population, as described in Klemperer's 1947 book.[7]
This upturning of language as a means of mind control seeped further into public consciousness when George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was published, with its version known as Newspeak.[8]
Michel Foucault the French philosopher has written extensively about the power of language on thought, in his book The Order of Things, the French title being Les Mots et les choses, French for Words and Things. and the book that was a result of critique on that book, "The Archaeology of Knowledge". According to Foucault knowledge isn't primarily the result of rational thinking, but arises from the structure of Discourse[9][10]
In more recent times in the U.S., publicly-funded health care is often labelled as socialized medicine by its opponents to give the concept an air of socialism.[11][12][13][14]
More recently, participants in the debate over man-made climate change have used terms such as "catastrophic", "chaotic", "irreversible", or "rapid" alongside the term "climate change". The use of such generalized terms to describe climate data can stir emotions and create fear. Using such terms can, paradoxically, make the implementation of political solutions more challenging, as members of the public feel helplessness and disempowerment.[15]
|
|