(political) infection: a gooey mess

As we all learned in Grade 12 biology, infection is the colonization of a host by a parasite. The desperate parasite, biological clock a-ticking, tries to exploit the host organism's resources in order to reproduce, while the host (if it is a mammal) innately swells into a gooey mess as it tries to kick the parasite's ass (ask my parents for proof of the mammalian gooey mess phase in their pictures of me from our family vacation this past winter. yucky).


This fall, at a conference in Brighton called 9/11: Rethinking Reality, Inge Mutsaers is discussing the post-9/11 US discourse of "infected politics." Mutsaers reminds us that it is common under modernity for biology to be politicized (new reproductive technologies are one obvious [arguably eugenicist] example), but since 9/11, there has been a biologicization of politics. That is, terrorism is conceptualized as viral -- an infection that will plague its host organism(s) (in this case, "Western" nations) and reproduce (at the expense of our immune system's gooey resources).


This idea is argued by cultural zombie theorists: the post-9/11 surge of apocalyptic zombie films reflects a cultural fear that the enemy of Western democracy is irrational, violent, gender ambiguous and void of conscience (see Razack's "Muslim irrationality"). Therefore, the enemy is more horrific and terrifying than ever - an imminent and constant threat to "freedom" and survival that cannot be tamed. Interesting stuff.


I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that this biologicization of politics is a post-9/11 (or merely terrorist) phenomenon. Queer movers know that modern discursive constructions of "homosexuality" include disease-words that make queerness sound contagious. And if I remember the script of The Crucible accurately, pre-moderns thought witch-dome had parasitic properties too. The linking of human fear to perceived contagions is age-old.


Perhaps what is most interesting about the putative post-9/11 examples of biology language for politics is that biotechnological advances now show what is and is not parasitic, yet we use the language anyway, and on a more macro war-of-the-worlds scale. For example, in his spine-tinglingly horrible War on Terror Address to Congress immediately following the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US is "not immune" from attacks on US soil. As if there is an anti-terrorism booster, Mr. President?


I think it is useful to consider what about biological language is so preferred by politicians so that the messy political narrations that are produced under such rhetoric can be challenged. Is biological jargon appealing for its allusion to scientific legitimacy? Is it preferred for its relatability? Is it highly strategic propaganda? Or is it simply colourful metaphor? I tend to assume it is an intentional way of associating disease and dying of the human body with threats against Western liberalism. Who isn't afraid of getting cancer? Terrorists: our nation's most dangerous and elusive carcinogen. Effective fear-maker.


Looking forward to Mutsaers presentation! Stay tuned!