Engelska (61-90), 30 hp KANDIDAT Terrorism, Religion and Race: A Comparison Between John Updike's Terrorist and Bernard MacLaverty's Cal UPPSATS Anna Bernerson Självständigt arbete, 15 hp Brännögård 2015-01-16 Table of Contents Introduction 2 Theories and sub-questions 3 Author background and book reviews 8 Literature reviews 11 Terrorist 11 Cal 13 Comparative analysis 14 Background 14 Reasons for terrorism in the novels 15 Terrorist 16 Cal 17 Influence and organisation 19 Terrorist 19 Cal 21 Stereotyping 23 Terrorist 23 Cal 26 Concluding discussion 29 Works cited 32 Introduction ”Terrorism” is a term widely used today. It and its effects are portrayed and discussed in newspapers, in movies, on TV. Seeing as it seems to be present in most media, it appears quite inevitable that terrorism has also found its way into literature. Two examples of novels dealing with terrorism are the American novel Terrorist, written by John Updike in 2006 and Bernard MacLaverty's Northern Irish novel Cal, written in 1983. The novels have their similarities. They share terrorism as a major theme, and both of them have a young man as a protagonist. However, they differ in both time and place. Updike's novel is set in a post-9/11 New Jersey, while Cal takes place in a Northern Ireland divided by The Troubles. Furthermore, Updike's main character is a dedicated Muslim, while the main character of Cal is a not as dedicated Catholic. Indeed, the novels might seem similar at first, but the differences are significant. The perspective to be used in this essay is ethnic. Various theories on terrorism, manipulation and race will be used with said perspective in mind. The aim is to, with the help of relevant theories, examine and analyse the terrorism and its connection to religion and ethnicity in the two novels, in order to compare them and find out whether they portray these things in a different way or not. The question I will be asking, and thus the purpose of this essay, is whether the terrorism and its reasons, organisation – including influence by others – and connection to religion and ethnicity in the two novels mentioned above are similar or not. It is my belief that a comparative analysis of the novels will show that the terrorism and its connection to religion and ethnicity will not be the same in Cal as in Terrorist. One of the reasons for this is that they are set in environments that differ from each other not only geographically and chronologically, but also politically. Thus it seems likely that the reasons for and organisation of the terrorism will differ as well. Another reason is that the characters in Terrorist are more diverse than the ones in Cal, both in terms of religion and ethnicity. 2 General theories dealing with reasons for terrorism, such as Kristopher K. Robison, Edward M. Crenshaw, and Craig J. Jenkins's theory on Islamist terrorism, according to which terrorism performed by Islamists is a reaction to the secular West (p. 2012), and Jeff Victoroff's rational choice theory, which suggests that terrorists are rational (p. 14), will be used to examine whether the characters of the two novels have different reasons for their terrorism or not. The next set of theories that will be used deal with influence, manipulation and brainwashing. Austin T. Turk suggests that a terrorist organisation often isolates its members in order to ensure that they only have the required knowledge (p. 276), and since this can be used as a tool of manipulation, his theory will be used to examine, and compare, the level of influence and manipulation on the two protagonists. For similar reasons, I. E. Farber, Harry F. Harlow, Louis Jolyon West and Joel Rudinow's theories on manipulation, with and without deception, will be used in the comparative analysis. Finally, racial theories, like the theory of signs, which suggests that people have a tendency to divide others into categories based on their racial differences, along with theories on imperative patriotism and the Arab American stereotype will be used. According to Steven Salaita's imperative patriotism, only those who act and look American can be truly American (p. 154), and Jack G. Shaheen suggests that Arab Americans are, by many, thought to be violent Muslims (p. 23). Furthermore, analysts Mita Banerjee and Pamela Mansutti both suggest that there is in fact a connection between religion and race in Updike's novel (p. 16, p. 108). These theories and ideas will be used to analyse the connection between terrorism, ethnicity and religion, and then to compare the two novels, whereupon a conclusion will be drawn. I believe that this conclusion will indeed confirm my thesis. Theories and sub-questions In this section of the essay I will have a closer look at the theories that will be of help when 3 analysing the two novels. As previously mentioned, an ethnic perspective will be used for my analysis and therefore the theories I will be using are connected to this perspective in one way or another. I will start with discussing the theories relevant to my first sub-question, and then go on to theories relating to my second question, and then finish with theories connected to the third sub- question. In order to find out whether my hypothesis is correct or not, I will start my comparative analysis by examining the portrayed terrorism and its reasons with the help of existing theories on the subject. This is my first sub-question. The setting and the external circumstances in the both novels are quite different – Ahmad is a Muslim living in post-9/11 America, while Cal lives in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Despite that, both novels deal with a young, male protagonist and I wish to find out whether the differences outweigh the similarities or not. There are many definitions of what terrorism is and what should and should not be considered terrorism. Jeff Goodwin goes as far as to say that ”there is no commonly accepted definition of 'terrorism'” (p. 2027). He also suggests that there are several definitions of the term, and that ”the 'deliberate use of violence in order to influence some audience' is common to most […] definitions” (p. 2028). Furthermore, Goodwin suggests that certain groups ”view terrorism, for the most part, as a political strategy” (p. 2029). This might mean that they would not consider themselves terrorists. The most comprehensive definition, however, seems to belong to Jack P. Gibbs. According to him, ”[t]errorism is illegal violence or threatened violence directed against human or non-human objects” (Gibbs, p. 330). This definition includes both violent acts and the threat to perform them, as well as both human beings and objects, which would include, for example, buildings, animals and landscape. Robbery – which is present in Cal – for example, would include violence or threats against humans and ”violent” actions against non-human objects, while blowing up a tunnel full of commuters – which is the plan in Terrorist – would consist of violence towards both humans and 4 non-human objects. In other words, Gibbs' definition covers the terrorism in both novels. There are also several theories about the reasons for performing terrorism. There is, for example, right-wing terrorism, left-wing terrorism, eco-terrorism, national terrorism, and religious terrorism. While the terrorism in Cal is political, the theory most relevant to Terrorist, since Ahmad is a Muslim and Islam seems to be his reason for doing what he does, is one discussed by Robison et al. According to this theory, ”Islamist terrorism is […] rooted in the social strains created by modernization, the competition between Islam and other religions, and the growth of secular government” (Robison et al, p. 2009). The reasons for this kind of terrorism are based on a perceived threat against the religion and its followers' culture and way of living. America, with its invasion of the Middle East and its capitalism, could very well be seen as threatening enough for someone to turn to terrorism in order to protect their religion and culture. The aim is to find out whether this theory is applicable to Updike's representation of Muslims; if it is modernisation, other religions, and secularisation that are the reasons for the terrorism. According to Victoroff's rational choice theory, the terrorists in question know what they are doing; their decisions are rational and calculated (p. 14). There are several other theories on why someone becomes a terrorist, but since neither Ahmad nor Cal fits any of those – they do fit Victoroff's theory, however, since they have their reasons for doing what they are doing, both of them – I will not examine those theories any further. In order to find possible differences between the two novels, I will go on to my second sub- questions, and examine to what extent the portrayed terrorism seems to be organised, as well as the influence by others on the two protagonists. I will do this with the help of relevant theories dealing with terrorist organisation, influence and manipulation. Since the terrorist act in Terrorist is a major event – it does indeed take some planning to be able to blow up a tunnel during rush hour – it seems likely that the ones behind this plan would want to recruit people that will not back out, or expose them. In Cal, however, the terrorism is not one single, well-planned act; it consists of smaller, less 5 planned attacks such as robberies. Therefore, I want to examine whether the characters in Terrorist work harder and use different kinds of manipulation and influence on Ahmad than Cal's fellow terrorists do on him.