Encountering the stranger: Ontological security and the Boston Marathon bombing
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836716653160 |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
2017, Vol. 52(1) 126 –143
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836716653160
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Encountering the stranger:
Ontological security and the
Boston Marathon bombing
ML deRaismes Combes
Abstract
Since 9/11, the rise of Islamist extremism has taken hold of the national imagination as the
greatest threat facing the USA. The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing seemed to add a new
chapter to the War on Terror with the ‘introduction’ of homegrown terrorists who wantonly
kill innocent Americans, just as the 19 hijackers did. They are evil. Yet, the narrative of the
Tsarnaevs that emerged shortly after the attack crafted a far more ambiguous relationship to
these threatening bodies. What allows for such ambiguity, given the Tsarnaevs’ murderous acts?
In this article, I look at how identity demarcation was used directly after the bombing as a form
of securitization, paying particular attention to the role of the stranger. Contributing to both
identity and ontological security theory, I argue that analyzing the discursive (re)presentation
of the liminal and its mediation between inclusion and exclusion best captures the multifaceted
nature of security, which includes both ontological and material well-being. I show that the
particular manner in which the stranger shows up in the portrayal of the Boston attack helps
steer American identity practice(s) down specific paths of meaning-making that are not as clear-
cut as ‘righteous Self’ versus ‘evil Other.’
Keywords
9/11, Boston Marathon bombing, identity, liminality, ontological security, terrorism
Introduction
Fourteen years have passed since the World Trade Center Twin Towers came down,
and with them the perception of the USA as invulnerable and free from fear. Since
then, the phenomenon of domestic extremism has acquired new significance within the
context of the War on Terror. In 2009 alone, 18 jihadists were indicted or killed for
plotting attacks within the USA, up from one in 2001.1 On the surface, such attempts
Corresponding author:
ML deRaismes Combes, School of International Service, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave.,
NW, Washington, DC 20016 USA.
Email: deRaismes@gmail.com
653160CAC0010.1177/0010836716653160Cooperation and ConflictCombes
research-article2016
Article
Combes 127
resonate with the sentiment so poignant after 9/11: we are no longer safe in our own
homes; danger lurks in the shadows around us. Without a doubt, the brothers who per-
petrated the Boston Marathon bombing of March 2013 could easily assume this mantle
of ‘terrorist Other’– radicalized, disaffected, foreign, evil. It is an Other that provokes
a certain kind of insecurity, which is both deeply physical and powerfully psychologi-
cal. Yet, the portrayal of the Tsarnaevs as unequivocally evil is not the one that emerged
in media coverage at the time of the bombing. In its stead is an identity narrative that
crafts a far more ambiguous relationship to these threatening bodies, bodies that are at
once like us yet not like us.2 What allows for such ambiguity, given the Tsarnaevs’
heinous acts?
The answer to this question presents itself in the widely publicized designation of
the brothers as ‘homegrown terrorists.’ ‘Homegrown’ almost by definition refers to the
Self, while ‘terrorist’ – particularly in the context of the War on Terror – has come to
define the Other.3 Combining the two yields a paradoxical site of analysis involving
actors that are neither one nor the other yet both at the same time. Exploring this limi-
nality, which Rumelili (2012) defines as the place ‘where the discursive order breaks
down and the inevitable instability of meaning is exposed’ (p. 500), unearths identity
practice not captured in the existing security literature that so often focuses on exoge-
nous physical threats.
This article contributes to theories of identity and to the growing body of work on
ontological security by reasserting the importance of liminality in both creating and
securing the Self. In particular, the conceptual lens offered by the stranger compensates
for the predominantly black and white nature of identity studies in international relations
(IR) by blurring (but not erasing) the distinctions Self/Other and friend/enemy, so that
identity is seen much more as a relationship always in the process of negotiation. Locating
the liminal within security narratives also acknowledges the distinct role played by anxi-
ety in the ongoing production of Self by revealing how ontological security practices
manifest in particular moments of physical insecurity. This not only helps bridge insights
from both literatures, but it also gives greater analytical purchase than either can on its
own in examining how different emotive forms of power (fear and anxiety) get exerted
in securitized discourse.
In this article, I first draw out the idea of identity practice as constituting the Self
through boundary-making; secondly, I explore the ontological security implications sur-
rounding the question of who belongs; and, thirdly, I highlight the role played by the
stranger in that process, arguing that elite and mainstream representations of strangeness
are an important facet of threat articulation. Finally, I illustrate the different Selves of
different security discourses by comparing the dominant narrative of 9/11 with the
media’s primary telling of the Boston Marathon bombing. Delving into the latter and
contrasting the Boston narrative’s two distinct phases shows that the particular manner in
which the perpetrators are represented helps steer our own identity practice(s) down
specific paths of meaning-making that cannot adequately be explained by either the
friend/enemy binary or the distinction between physical and ontological security. Indeed,
the ambiguity arising from the presence of ‘strangeness’ exposes the importance of the
process of negotiating between these various poles. Together, this provides new insights
into the experiential character of security in the post-9/11 era.
To continue reading
Request your trial