24
Shapes Our Cultural Experiences During the Age of Terrorism
The FOX drama 24 premiered in 2001 shortly after
the events of 9/11. Although obviously conceived before those attacks,
and featuring “terrorists” who were not anti-American per
say but merely foreigners seeking personal revenge against CTU agent
Jack Bauer and presidential candidate David Palmer, the series was still
able to tap into a national zeitgeist that first season which continued
throughout the decade.
Jack
Bauer for President: Terrorism and Politics in 24 (BenBella Books,
2008) explores both the ensuing popularity of 24 as well as
its influence and importance in the post-9/11 world. Through a series
of essays, the book debates the positive and negative aspects of the
series, including its appeal to both ends of the political spectrum.
The essays—which range in title from “Can a Leftist Love
24?” to “Jack Bauer Is the Dirty Harry for the
Age of Terrorism”—are not necessarily reviews of the show
itself, but thoughts and opinions on how 24 relates to the
cultural and political climate of the United States.
While the
show’s use of torture, as often employed by central character
Jack Bauer, is the primary focus of a number of essays, other writers
utilize 24 as the starting point for discussions on espionage,
why people lie, the lack of African American roles on popular television
shows and real-life examples of terrorist attacks that mirror those
seen on the show. Some, however, go further by exploring the importance
24 has played in society during the early stages of the Twenty-First
Century.
Jeanne
Cavelos, for instance, discusses how the series acted as a form of behavioral
therapy for the post-traumatic stress disorder that affected millions
of Americans following 9/11. Dubbing it “the Jack Bauer School
of Therapy,” Cavelos argues that 24 helped the country
deal with the trauma of that event by allowing it to witness other terrorist
attacks in a non-stressful setting. Because those attacks are fictional,
one can watch them detached from reality, without fear and in a more
relaxed state, thus allowing for better mental processing of the actual,
horrific events.
Cavelos
also contends that the show offers the opportunity to “role-play”—to
identify with the various characters and even consider how one would
react in their situations—as yet another way of coping with terrorism.
This is not simply about pretending to be Jack Bauer; how many of us,
after all, could realistically expect to be him? No, this simulation
is played out through the lesser, but equally important, characters
of Chloe O’Brien, Bill Buchanan, Curtis Manning and Edgar Stiles.
Lorie Byrd,
meanwhile, compares Jack Bauer to one of Clint Eastwood’s signature
characters, Harry Callahan, another law enforcement official who regularly
disobeyed his superiors and cared little for the rights of criminals.
Byrd argues that what made Dirty Harry so appealing was that he first
appeared during a period of the 1970s that exhibited a growing increase
in crime; it also followed numerous Supreme Court cases of the 1960s
that granted suspected criminals more rights than they had in the past.
People believed these rulings hampered the police’s ability to
catch the bad guys, thus making Harry Callahan’s actions appear
heroic.
24,
on the other hand, came along at a time when it wasn’t crime but
terrorism that was on people’s minds. As a debate erupted in this
country about how far government should go to protect the rights of
suspected terrorists—and whether those rights would hamper the
ability to prevent terrorist attacks—along came Jack Bauer, disobeying
authority and saving the day. Byrd believes that the nation needed Jack
Bauer as a way to relieve the frustration over that debate, just like
it needed Dirty Harry in the 1970s.
In “Simulating
Terror,” Aaron Thomas Nelson points out that 24 appeals
to individuals from across the political spectrum, including both supporters
and opponents of the Bush Doctrine. Nelson argues that this apparent
contradiction is because the series intentionally plays to both sides
of the political field. Supporters point to Jack Bauer’s “the-ends-justify-the-means”
mentality, which mirrors their belief that one must do whatever it takes
to stop terrorism. But the Bush Doctrine is also based on the premise
that the terrorists are foreigners determined to destroy our way of
life. 24 contradicts that conclusion because the threats against
the country are not orchestrated by foreign radicals, but by influential
Americans who are using the attacks in order to pursue their own agendas.
24 thus questions the validity of the principal the Bush Doctrine
is based on, while likewise justifying the solution to terrorism it
advocates.
Eric Green
offers similar rationales regarding why liberals enjoy 24 that
are comparable to both Lorie Byrd’s and Aaron Thomas Nelson’s
observations. “Jack Bauer can do what you could never dream of,”
he writes. “And get away with it. And that feels liberating.”
Personal morals and beliefs prevent many of us from ever acting like
Jack Bauer or Harry Callahan, in other words, but it’s still fun
to pretend that we could nonetheless. Green likewise agrees with Nelson
that 24 is not really a celebration of the Bush Administration
but a reflection of its failure instead. “Bauer and CTU win the
battles that Bush and the Republicans have not,” he suggests.
“If The West Wing offered the fantasy of the Clinton
Administration without Monica Lewinsky, 24 offers the fantasy
of the Bush Administration without, well, the Bush Administration.”
Despite
such observations, however, Eric Green considers 24 as borderline
dangerous when it comes to the topic of torture. As a civil rights activist
from California, he believes the use of torture in any form is irreprehensible,
and by continually showcasing it the way 24 does only opens
a debate that in his mind should remain closed. Ironically, this is
in direct contrast to famed civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz, who
advocates legalizing non-lethal torture in extreme circumstances. The
differences don’t stop there, however, as Dershowitz emphatically
believes the topic should also be openly discussed, especially in a
free society like the one we live in.
“Regular
viewers of 24 are keenly aware of the choice Jack Bauer generally
makes,” Dershowitz writes. “His job is to save innocent
lives, not to strike appropriate balances between security and liberty.
That choice must be made, in a democracy, by the people. 24—along
with other controversial ‘speech’—helps to inform
that choice.”
24
is that rare television series that not only entertains, but both reflects
and defines the times in which we live. By showcasing our fears, challenging
our ethical beliefs and personifying our heroic fantasies, it also plays
a role in our cultural experiences. And as Jack Bauer for President
makes obvious, it even adds to the political debate, shaping both society
and the country in the process.
