Even more prominent is the characterization of the attackers as "madmen" (or similar terms such as fanatics, zealots, lunatics), a discourse that locates the attackers' motivations in "excessive" religious belief, a faith so fervent that it makes individuals "irrational." Essentially, this analysis shifts the attackers into the realm of the insane and therefore outside of society itself: they are "barbarians" (Bush) with whom you can't reason, and thus "civilized" peoples (Powell) must oppose them.

Although closely associated with Islamic fundamentalists in American thinking, the theme of religious fanaticism is in fact used to explain a lot of social groups whose behavior appears to be motivated by "abnormal" religious belief: anti-abortion activists, suicide cults, Pentecostal congregations, etc. Interestingly, the narrow bounds placed by the mainstream on "rational" religious behavior marginalizes what has traditionally been one of the strongest themes of both Christianity and Islam: the idea of religious ecstasy, an altered state often likened to intoxication.

Bill Kirkpatrick is a Ph.D. candidate in Media and Cultural Studies at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Questions to Consider

• If we call the attackers madmen, does that make it easier to ignore or dismiss any cultural or political motivations they might have that would help us understand the root causes of terrorism?
• If we decide that we cannot "reason" with certain groups, does that leave violence as the only option, or are there other alternative ways of dealing with non-mainstream social groups?
• Finally, how does the characterization of certain religiously-motivated behaviors as "mad" affect the various roles of religion that are possible in our society?

Back to definitions