Spectatorship and the war on terror:creating consensus through global audiences

This paper considers the staging of violence, atrocities, and sexuality in the conduct of the war on terror. The piece discusses the manner in which the terms of the war on terror appear to shut down possible debate and examines the rhetorical and representational strategies that cause this. The paper argues that the war on terror includes a cultural project that seeks to create a consenting global audience. This cultural project appears more diffuse and less immediately instrumental than the military and diplomatic activities of this global battle. The piece argues that it is through the circulation of open secrets and accounts of torture and abuse that a global audience is constructed as both witness and participant in the practices and objectives of the war and that this positioning is designed to corral audience understanding into the suggested narratives of the proponents of the war. Este documento considera el escenario de la violencia, las atrocidades y la sexualidad en la conducta de la guerra contra el terror. El artículo plantea la manera en que los términos de la guerra contra el terror parecen suspender un posible debate y examina las estrategias retóricas y representativas que causaron esto. El documento plantea que la guerra contra el terror incluye un proyecto cultural que busca crear una audiencia global de común acuerdo. Este proyecto cultural parece más difuso y menos útil en el momento, que las actividades militares y diplomáticas de esta batalla global. El artículo sostiene que es mediante la circulación de secretos abiertos y de informes sobre la tortura y el abuso, que se forma una audiencia global tanto testigos como participantes de las prácticas y los objetivos de la guerra y que esa posición está designada a encerrar el conocimiento de la audiencia dentro de los relatos sugeridos por los proponentes de guerra.

Who gives a damn about intellectually disabled people and their families? Care-less spaces personified in the case of LB

On 5 October 2015 the inquest into Connor Sparrowhawk’s death began. A young autistic man, aged 18, died in the bath on 4 July 2013. He had a seizure. The rolling tweets from @LBInquest are harrowing to say the least. Unimaginable torture for Sara and Richard (his mother and step-father), as well as his siblings and others caring. Comments from the inquest such as ‘I felt that Connor should be checked on every 5 or 10 minutes when he was in the bath because of his epilepsy’ and ‘ensuring someone was outside the door when he was bathing was basic nursing care’ sound all the alarm bells for lack of care, because allegedly this did not happen. Clearly there was no one person looking out for him when he needed it the most. On 16 October 2015 the inquest jury found Connor’s death was contributed by neglect. This article will explore the absence of care in a care-less system.