Jacobs University/University of Bremen. Institute for ..... Bush, George W. (2001): Remarks by the President Upon Arrival at the White House. Executive Office of ...
1
Jacobs University/University of Bremen Institute for Intercultural and International Studies MA International relations: Global Governance and Social Theory Social Theory and International Relations Dr. Roy Karadag
Term Paper:
Western Perception of the Orient “Other” Ideoscapes and Mediascapes of Iraq and the “War on Terror”
Submitted by: Valeriya Kamenova Bremen, 02.08.2013
2
Content
1.
Introduction
2.
Theoretical Considerations
3.
Case Study: “The War on Terror” and Iraq 3.1 Ideoscapes 3.2 Mediascapes
4.
Conclusion Bibliography
3
1. Introduction Social change is a key phenomenon discussed and analyzed by different social theorists, who usually rely on one aspect of human life to explain the occurring event. The social change of twenty-first century, however, cannot be explained one-dimensionally because it is caused by globalization, and globalization according to Giddens (1999) and Robertson (1992) has multiple dimensions: it involves processes of economic integration, international relations between states, and emerging global consciousness. No individual cultural, economic, social, and political ties and relationships remain isolated and unaffected by globalization. The globalized world is assumed to move toward a multicultural society with growing cross-cultural understanding. People are influenced by the global flows of information, and more or less they start learning about each other. If the assumption about globalization is on the right track, then we are left with a very interesting and controversial question that haunts our society: why is there fear of terrorism and Islam in the Western world and why the people from the “East” seem to be more barbaric, uneducated, and prone to violence in the eyes of the West? If Said’s “Orientalism” seems to be thriving and even becoming stronger in a globalized world, the cause for this phenomenon should be sought in globalization itself. This paper aims at investigating why the West perceives the Orient the same way as it was before the globalization process. I argue that there is direct link between two global flows – ideoscapes and mediascapes – and the Western image of the Orient, and in order to show the relationship, I will examine the case study of Iraq and the War on Terror.
2. Theoretical Considerations Before investigating the proposed problem, a better understanding of globalization is necessary. Therefore, this study will use the analysis and explanation of globalization from Anthony Giddens and Arjun Appadurai. Their work is widely accepted and re-used by many scholars, as they discuss an aspect of globalization which relates to the Western perception of the Orient. Giddens (1999) introduces two schools of thought that try to delineate globalization – the skeptics and the radicals. While the first school views globalization as an exaggerated phenomenon and “a continuation of the past to the present”, the radical school sees the reality
4
in the phenomenon and its undeniable impact on every sphere of human action (Giddens 1999: 9). The radicals, however, perceive the disadvantages of globalization: the dominating economic and political interests from the West resist the change and therefore, are able to control the globalized process and impose their own agendas. Giddens (1999) argues that globalization creates a cosmopolitan society, but at the same time he openly discusses how globalization may serve only the West, as Coca-Cola, McDonalds and CNN dominate the global order. The dissemination of culture and ideologies is greatly influenced by a specific part of the world; hence, globalization “creates a world of winners and losers” (Giddens 1999: 15), of rich and poor, and of subjective images dictated by the West. Globalization is creating a new type of society – global society – that, setting aside the advantages, is still dominated by Western-created agendas and images. Overall, Giddens’ view on the globalizing process is positive, but he hints on the possible negative sides. For this study, however, more focus will be put on the theoretical framework of Appadurai, who introduces the idea of interaction of global flows, particularly the ideoscapes and mediascapes that will be analyzed in the case study of Iraq and the War on Terror. Appadurai views the globalized world as “a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order, which cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models.” (1996: 32) The “outdated” dependency theory he refers to is replaced by global flows; however, it does not mean that the “core” has lost its power to use the global flows to its own interest. Imagination plays an essential role in globalization, as Appadurai describes it as “central to all forms of agency” and a key component of the “fundamental disjunctures between economy, culture, and politics” (1996: 31). Appadurai (1996) builds on Anderson’s theory of “imagined worlds” (2006) by proposing an interconnected framework of global flows or “scapes”: ethnoscapes, financescapes, technoscapes, ideoscapes, and mediascapes. These scapes are “the building blocks of imagined worlds…the multiple worlds which are constituted by the historically situated imaginations of persons and groups spread around the globe” (Appadurai 1996: 33). It is important to note that these scapes are perspective constructs, as the people interpret them within their own historical context. Therefore, there will be multiple ways of imagining the world and different subjective imagined worlds. Two particular global flows – ideoscapes and mediascapes – are relevant to understanding how the West constructs the image of the Orient. Appadurai describes ideoscapes as direct political images, “composed of elements of the Enlightenment worldview…including ‘freedom’, ‘rights’, ‘sovereignty’… and ‘democracy’” (1996: 33). The
5
“Enlightenment world-view” is shaped differently for each country and society, depending on the particular geo-political, ethnic, and social environment. However, for the study of Orientalism, I will focus on the originally-proposed terms of “Enlightenment world-view”. The mediacapes are “image-centered, narrative-based accounts of strips of reality” (Appadurai 1996: 33). The mediascapes that the people are exposed to stimulate agency and feed an “imagined world” to its audience, directly affecting the way people react to events in and outside of their community. What the images portray is dependent on both the angle chosen by the producers and the economic and socio-political interests of the audience. Imagination is taking place on an individual level, but people also share collective imagination, which creates new social realities (Appadurai 1996). One such reality is the Western image of the East. When investigating the Western perception of the East in the globalizing process, Giddens’ assumption of negative consequences and Appadurai’s definition of ideoscapes and mediascapes will be kept in mind. However, it is also important to acknowledge how the West has experienced the East throughout history by analyzing Edward Said’s “Orientalism”. Said (1979) poses the question why we have preconceived notion of people, their actions, and beliefs, even if we may not have encountered them before. The Western world has created an academic discipline that studies the Orient and the “Others”. The problem with the study of Orientalism is that it perceives the relationship between the East and the West as an imagined and geographic separation: the Orient is seen as barbaric, lower, undeveloped place which should be guided and dominated by the West (Said, 1979). Therefore, Said (1979) argues that Orientalism is not an objective, disinterested and esoteric academic field, but it rather exists to serve political and ideological interests. Said describes Orientalism in three different lights: first, as an academic description, which involves “anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient” (1979: 2). The academic field, however, can be shaped by both academic and non-academic people, who contribute with vocabulary, scholarship, images, doctrines and bureaucracies. Second, Orientalism helps define the Western self-image. The construction of identity always involves establishing opposites and “others” (Said, 1979). Therefore, Orientalism is an epistemological and ontological distinction between the East and the West. The study of the Orient led the West to see “exotic” cultures as static in both time and place, which gave Europe a sense of its own cultural and intellectual superiority.
6
The last definition of Orientalism is a European-Atlantic style for “dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient” (Said 1979: 3). The Orient is no longer “a free subject of thought and action” (Said 1979: 3) because it is controlled by instituted discourse, guarding ideological and political interests. Knowledge about the Orient became the way of domination and exercising authority over the Orient. Because of the vast information collected by the end of the 19th century, Orientalism has started to settle as valid knowledge and description of the Orient (Said 1979). A basic “latent” idea, as Said calls it, emerged representing the East as undeveloped, lazy, lower, and violent. However, in the 20th century, the latent universal idea of the Orient started changing as the West lost its imperial and superior role toward the “modern” East. Governments turned to expert to reconstruct a new image of the Orient: “here, the role of the specially trained and equipped expert took on an added dimension – the Orientalist could be regarded as the special agent of Western power as it attempted policy vis-à-vis the Orient.” (Said 1979: 223) It could be assumed that the knowledge about the Orient became more dependent on the interest of governments and private companies of maintaining or creating latent ideas about the Orient (Said 1979). Orientalist stereotypes and historical myopia are two key topics that Said discusses in his books. He hints that Eurocentrism is as relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Considering the argument of many scholars that globalization moves the world toward crosscultural understanding and homogenization, Said’s “Orientalism” should not have so much power in shaping the image of the East. Furthermore, a distinction between East and West, North and South, should not be a topic in political, social, and economic conversations in the globalization process. However, the reality of the 21st century speaks about striking differences between the West and the Orient and shows that the practice of creating and imposing images on what is supposed to be the “Orient” is thriving. It is not far-fetched to assume that globalization strengthens Orientalism and the Western perception of an inferior, dangerous, and barbaric Eastern society. Appadurai’s global flows of media and ideology may be the causal mechanism of today’s image of the Orient.
7
3. Case Study: Iraq and the War on Terror
3.1 Ideoscapes: Since the September 11 attacks, the ideoscapes and mediascapes from the West, particularly from the USA, have produced popular images that exaggerate the differences between “us” and “them”. American political discourse has increased its tendency to juxtapose terrorism with the Middle East (Watts 2007). Thus, the terms “Arab”, “Muslim”, and “Middle East” do not denote ethnic people, believers, and geographical regions, but bring about images of barbarism, danger, and violence. The media have played a central role in constructing and perpetuating these images. They have led to distorted perceptions of the “Other” and sustained a culture of fear that helps to justify discrimination and hegemonic actions. However, by itself media would not have great impact if they did not follow the lines of political ideology, supported by academic scholars. Edward Said is often cited as a scholar who destroys the myth of the “evil” Arab and the lack of sense in the Orientalist discipline. But before Said’s “Orientalism”, another book has constructed the image of the Arab and still has influence over the American ideoscapes. Raphael Patai’s “The Arab Mind” (2002) is one of the most controversial scholarly works on the Arabs and the one greatly criticized and denoted by the academic circles. However, Patai was an often cited author in the pro-War Washington conservative and military circles (Hersh, 2004). His study on Arab “psychology” and “mentality” portrays the civilizational and cultural superiority of the West, and therefore rationalizes Western domination. Patai’s study became the “bible of the neocons on Arab behavior”, emphasizing that “the Arabs understand only force…and their biggest weakness…is shame and humiliation” (Hersh 2004). Arab “self-esteem” and “self-respect” depend on courage, honor in death, sexual honor of women, hospitability and generosity, as all of these characteristics are defined as syndromes (Patai 2002). Therefore, Patai implies that the Arab mind is disease-ridden and abnormal, and its permanent condition is caused by the inferiority of its culture. The study identifies another abnormality of the Arabs that is adopted in the military circles: the “sexual repression-frustration-aggression syndrome of the Arab personality” (Patai 2002: 128). Patai does not propagate the classical Orientalist image of the Arab as a sensual sheik with various sexual desires. Instead, he compares the Arab with a sexually-innocent child: “the average Arab, unless he happens to live in a larger town where prostitutes are available…has no
8
sexual experience until he marries.” (Patai 2002: 130) Following the imagined structure the scholar has created, the military circles have incorporate sexual humiliation in the Abu Ghraib prison tortures. Evidence proving that “The Arab Mind” played a significant role in the military circle was the new edition of the book from 2002, which included an introduction by Col. Norvell B. De Atkine, director of Middle East Studies at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School. Atkine emphasized the importance of the book in his teaching: “It is essential reading. At the institution where I teach military officers, the book forms the basis of my cultural instruction” (Patai 2002). Besides the portrayal of Arab sexuality, a centerpiece is also the section on the “Sinister West”. Patai discusses the Arab tendency to blame others for their problems with the political systems, quality of life and economics. The Arab media and intellectuals talk against colonialism, imperialism, and Zionism, and therefore provide culprits like the USA for every corrupt event in the Middle East (Patai 2002). It should be noted that the tortures in Abu Ghraib and the inhumane treatment of Iraqi people were not prescribed in the “Arab Mind”. However, the book gave intellectual respectability – reinforcing the Occidentalist and Orientalist stereotypes and providing cover for the US policy of administering torture in Iraq. Patai’s work is a vivid example of Said’s argument that scholarship itself had become a means of serving and legitimizing imperial dominance over the Oriental other (Said 1979). “The Arab Mind”, despite being first published in 1975, forms one of the dominating ideoscapes on the Arab and Muslim people since September 11 attacks. Another influential ideology which shaped the Western perspective on the Orient is former US President George Bush’s discourse. After the 9/11 events, the presidential rhetoric used specific phrases and allusions to construct an enemy image. The Presidential propaganda not only portrayed the dominant ideology, but also tried to disseminate it to other nations for support: “Every nation has to make a decision. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” (Bush 2001) I will focus on several speeches by the president which created an essential anti-Arab and anti-Muslim ideoscape. The first presidential statement to the nation on September 11, 2001 laid the foundation of the “evil enemy” image. The concept of good versus evil and “us” versus “them” was introduced: “Our freedom came under attack…America was targeted because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world…” and “today our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature…” (Bush 2001). Three features of the
9
ideoscape were present – zero-sum thinking, stereotyping, and de-individualization: “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” (Bush 2001) During the second speech of September 16, 2001, the terms “evildoers”, “evil folks” and “barbarism” have entered the political language: “We are a nation that cannot be cowed by evildoers…We’ve never seen this kind of evil before.” (Bush 2001) On September 20, before a joint meeting of Congress, the term “evil doers” is no longer used, as Bush has already identified a specific group – the Taliban – responsible for the attacks. The enemy’s face is completely constructed. The Taliban are dehumanized and described as animalistic and brutal: “the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places.” (Bush 2001) Upon answering the question “Why do they hate us?”, Bush implied that “they” do not share the same feeling of national pride and love: “They hate us because Americans show a deep commitment to one another...and for the country.” (Bush 2001) The constructed image of the Taliban is that of animals, lacking human feelings like sympathy and love. Bush has even extended the evil paradigm by comparing it with Nazism and fascism: “They are the heirs of all murderous ideologies of the 20th century…they follow the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism.” (Bush 2001) The ideoscape of Bush’s discourse has already shaped the enemy as the violent, dehumanized beast that hides in caves and dark places. However, the Western perspective of the “enemy” is not yet intertwined with the Middle East and the ordinary Arabs and Muslims. This process starts after September 2002 when the American government begins implanting Iraq into its rhetoric. The 2002 State of Union speech is first to address the “axis of evil” – Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, which are portrayed as interconnected alliance with the goal to spread terrorism. Bush puts nations into binary categories of good and evil, of us and them (Bush 2002). In the 2003 State of Union speech, Bush outlines the USA as an oppressor of tyrannical regimes and supporter of democracy, sacrificing “for the liberty of strangers”. Several times he links Sadam Hussein with terrorist organizations: “a brutal dictator…with ties to terrorism…will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the US.” (Bush 2003) American politics scholars Amy Gershkoff and Shana Kushner (2005) have done an extensive research on how the Bush Administration rhetoric successfully linked Iraq with the 9/11 attacks and the war on terrorism. Their study is important to this paper as it reveals how an ideoscape constructed the violent and dangerous image of Iraq and had a tremendous
10
influence on public attitudes. They have analyzed speeches from September 2002 to May 2003 in which the topics of terrorism and Iraq were intertwined. Of thirteen speeches, twelve referred to terror and Iraq in the same paragraph, giving the impression that Iraq is a logical extension of terrorism discussion (Gershkoff & Kushner 2005). Such an example is the 2002 Speech to the UN: Bush began with remembrance of the 9/11 attacks, continued with a discussion of the war in Afghanistan and the threat to world peace from terrorists, and at the end focused on Iraq, which was thus rhetorically linked with terrorism. Another construction Gershkoff and Kushner have found is the juxtaposition of Iraq with 9/11. Seven out of thirteen speeches placed 9/11 and Iraq in the same paragraph, while Bush three times proposed a hypothetical situation of 9/11 terrorists armed with WMDs from Iraq (Gershkoff & Kushner 2005). The combination of both terrorism and 9/11 attacks with Iraq provided the logical basis for attacking Iraq. The results of their study show clearly how the ideoscape created a “viable” image of a violent and terrorist Iraq. Since the start of the Bush rhetoric, support for the war did not go under 55% (Gershkoff & Kushner 2005). 40% of the Americans felt that the opposition to the war should not hold protests because it may hurt the war effort; 55% supported the war even without UN authorization; and 82% would support the war even if there is no WMD found in Iraq (Gershkoff & Kushner, 2005).
3.2 Mediascapes: “If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppression.” (Malcolm X) Global media and Internet have brought war and violence into people’s homes. The attack on the World Trade Center in New York was the most spectacular terrorist event, as 24/7 media repeated the image of the plane ramming into the Twin Towers, and the agony and vulnerability on the faces of the New Yorkers (Turner 2010). Since the 9/11 attacks, media have constantly linked terrorists and civilians of particular religion, culture and ethnicity to countries associated with terrorism. The end result is the construction and reproduction of a one-dimensional perspective on the “War on Terror”. Sub-human and non-human images of people from the Orient are generated – all Muslims become Arabs, and all Arabs – terrorists, with no consideration of historical, cultural, and ethnic accuracy. The “Face of Terror” is not only that of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, but of all men with Middle Eastern features (Hamada 2001).
11
As mentioned in the previous sub-chapter, the ideology of Bush administration has already shaped a particular image of the Oriental Other; however, in order for these ideoscapes to be disseminated and reinforced, the media have an essential role. Newspapers and journalists do not aim at providing a multi-dimensional perspective on the Middle East and Iraq, but at perpetuating existing stereotypes and misperceptions. Furthermore, the media do not specify on the background of the event, presuming that the audience already has some knowledge. Thus, often people are left with vague understanding of the historical, cultural and political contexts of the story (Steuter & Wills 2009). The media failed to provide contextual understanding of Islam, Muslims and Arabs, as they were focused only on the attacks, and not their causes. There was no discussion how the US government activities may have contributed to the Muslim resentment and the background for the terrorist attacks. For instance, the relationship between the US government and the Taliban and the support for mujahedeen forces were not shown (Allan & Zelize 2011). Only the frame of good versus evil, created by the Bush administration, was reproduced. The Western perspective of the Orient does not confine only to the image of violence, bombs, and evil terrorists, as constructed by the White House ideoscapes and reaffirmed by the news reports. The media are quite innovative in shaping the image of the Middle Easterner by introducing a symbolic landscape. The most common symbol since the start of the “War on Terror” was the animal, in its many biological types (rat, vermin, snake, spider, etc.). News headlines often represented the terrorists as rats, hiding in holes and burrows – “Raid Zaps Iraqi Rat”, “Suspected Al-Qaeda Nest”, “The Vermin Have Struck Again”, “War in Iraq: a US Walkover in Beast’s Heartland” (Steuter & Wills 2009). These metaphors cultivate a sense of threat and emphasize the presence of sneaky animals, invading our safe homes. News reports are also dominated by phrases implying pursuit of an animal: “hunt for terrorists”, “caught in a trap”. Constantly repeated, these phrases shape the conceptual framework by which people understand the “War on Terror” and legitimize the persecution and extermination of “Arab-Muslim” terrorists. The image of the rat used by both Daily News (2007) and NY Post (2002) stirs up a feeling of disgust in the readers, because they bring filth, disease and destruction, and they have sly and untrustworthy nature: “Troops Grab 50 in Raid on Afghan Rat’s Nest” and “Rats in a Trap: How Feds Snared Fort Dix Terror Plotters”. Another unwanted vermin that the West associates with the East is the snake. The snake creates primal fear, because it is treacherous and it will attack without reasoning, just like the terrorists were presented by the
12
Bush ideology (Steuter & Wills 2009). These associations are repeatedly used in news headlines in US and Australia: “Brave Brit Smashes Viper’s Nest” (NY Post 2001) and “Snake with a Taste in Scandinavian Models – Hussein’s Greed” (The Daily Telegraph 2003). A very interesting comment relating to the symbols of the vermin is the article written by the Indian government official Bahukutumbi Raman. In it, he recommends to the US to leave the search for Bin Laden to Pakistan because “one must use a cockroach to catch a cockroach” (Raman 2004). Millions of people, eager to get informed about the War in Iraq and to develop their own ideas about it, receive repetitive images of “hunted beast” metaphors. These mediascapes prefabricate the perspectives we should create on our own. When media label suspected terrorists and entire populations in the Middle East as vermin and beasts, it brings up a range of negative cultural associations (Steuter & Wills 2009). The West starts perceiving the East as an unwanted dangerous animal which should be captured and exterminated. It may not be surprising that with such strong consistency of low-animal metaphors, there are photos of Abu Ghraib prisoners, treated as animals – beaten up like dogs and ridden like donkeys (Amnesty International 2004). While the Western mediascapes depict the men of the Middle East as wild, dangerous and filthy animals, they pose another image on Muslim and Arab women, again inferior and oppressed. Media coverage on body practices like the wearing of hijab and burqa have become politically charged symbols of subjugation and backwardness and their removal equals liberation and Westernization. An obsession with the topic of the veil is evident in New York Times articles. For example, an opinion article, describing the US government campaign against the Taliban’s treatment of women, portrays the Arabs as “insecure” in their masculinity because they “threaten to pull out women’s fingernails for wearing nail polish” (Dowd 2001). Here, the image of inferiority and de-humanization dominates, as women are referred to “chattel” and “swaddled breeders under house arrest” (Dowd 2001). Often, the phrase “Muslim women” is followed by a description of headscarves, veils, and hijab, even when news reports do not relate to Muslim women. Another NY Times article, talking about car markets in Iran, begins with a depiction of “swathed from headscarf to socks in black woman” (MacFarquhar 2002). Such an introduction possibly aims for readers’ attention, but the final result is the construction of a misinformed image of ignorant and repressed women whose culture forced them into servitude.
13
4. Conclusion: When the West thinks of the Orient “others”, their image is often of fundamentalists in faraway lands, untouched by civilization and in the grip of their passions. This perspective has been formed by the Orientalist discipline since the 17th century; however, it is unrealistic to assume that academic discourse will have ever-lasting effect on a majority of Westerners who may not harbor interest in the study of Orientalism. According to Giddens, globalization is the intensification of worldwide social relations, which connect distant localities (Giddens 1999); therefore, the possibility of misconceptions and one-dimensional images of different cultural, geographical, and ethnic groups should be non-existent due to the global exchange of cultures and information. However, two of those global cultural flows, ideoscapes and mediascapes, pass on images that bring controversy and unrealistic representation of the Oriental “Other”. Ideology and media, mainly from the US, have the ability to convince a majority of Westerners that the Middle East is an enemy. What this study has found through its analysis of Bush speeches and media coverage between 9/11 attacks and the War in Iraq is wellsummarized by Azis Al-Azmeh: “a tendency for the Islamic or Arab society to be exaggerated in the popular imagination…” (2009: 72) The ideoscapes and mediascapes have shaped the Western perspective of the Orient as following: the “Other” is a warrior, terrorist, and fundamentalist, who is naturally predisposed of anarchy, tribalism, and religious wars.
14
Bibliography 1. Al-Azmeh, Aziz (2009): Islams and Modernities. Verso. 2. Amnesty International (2004): “Human Dignity Denied: Torture and Accountability in the ‘War on Terror’”. In: Amnesty International, October 27. Retrieved: July 20, 2013 http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/145/2004 3. Anderson, Benedict (2006): Imagined Communities. Verso. 4. Appadurai, Arjun (1996): Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press. 5. Bush, George W. (2001): “President Bush addressing the nation”. The Boston Globe, September 11. Retrieved July 9, 2013 http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/_Today_our_v ery_freedom_came_under_attack_+.shtml 6. Bush, George W. (2001): Remarks by the President Upon Arrival at the White House. Executive Office of the President, September 16. Retrieved July 10, 2013 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html 7. Bush, George W. (2001): “Transcript of President Bush's address to a joint session of Congress”. CNN, September 20. Retrieved July 9, 2013 http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/ 8. Bush, George W. (2002): President delivers State of Union Address. Executive Office of the President, January 29. Retrieved July 10, 2013 http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html 9. Bush, George W. (2003): “State of Union Address”. Washington Post, January 28. Retrieved July 10, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html 10. Dowd, Maureen (2001): “Liberties: Cleopatra and Osama”. In: New York Times, November 18. Retrieved July 20, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/18/opinion/liberties-cleopatra-and-osama.html 11. Gershkoff, Amy and Kushner, Shana (2005): Shaping Public Opinion: The 9/11-Iraq Connection in the Bush Administration's Rhetoric. In: Perspectives on Politics, 3, 525537. American Political Science Association. 12. Giddens, Anthony (1999): Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. Profile Books. 13. Hamada, Basyouni Ibrahim (2001): The Arab Image in the Minds of Western Imagemakers. In: Journal of International Communication, 7(1), 7-35. 14. Hersh, Seymour M (2004): “The Gray Zone: How a Secret Pentagon Program Came to Abu Ghraib”. The New Yorker, May 24. Retrieved July 10, 2013 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/24/040524fa_fact 15. MacFarquhar, Neil (2002): “On Iran’s Roads, a Break from Boxy and Clunky”. In: New York Times, March 17. Retrieved July 20, 2013
15
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/world/on-iran-s-roads-a-break-from-boxy-andclunky.html 16. Patai, Raphael (2002): The Arab Mind. Hatherleigh Press. 17. Raman, Bahukutumbi (2004): “Use a Cockroach to Catch a Cockroach”. In: South Asia Analysis Group, March 18. Retrieved August 1, 2013 http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/paper953 18. Robertson, Roland (1992): Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. SAGE Publications Ltd. 19. Said, Edward W. (1979): Orientalism. Vintage Books. 20. Steuter, Erin & Wills, Deborah (2009): At War with Metaphor: Media, Propaganda, and Racism in the War on Terror. Lexington Books. 21. Turner, Bryan S. and Khondker Habibul H. (2010): Globalization East and West. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 22. Watts, Michael (2007): Revolutionary Islam: Geography of Modern Terror. In: Gregory, D. and Pred, A (ed.) :Violent Geographies: Fear, Terror, and Political Violence, eds. D. Gregory and A. Pred. New York: Routledge, 175-203.
