The first explanation that floats around the country is that the act was carried out by a bunch of hate-filled-crazies. The only cause was either anti-US fanaticism or Islamic fanaticism. This perspective is based on the belief that all reasons for the attack reside solely in the minds of irrational people. This is more or less the view we get from the immediate reporting in the press, who themselves have little to no understanding of events in the middle east that led to the attack (although to their credit, many seem to be trying to understand it in broader terms). This is the psychological view, understanding the world in terms solely of the balance or imbalance of individual people, rather than large scale historical and social trends or political policies.
The second explanation for the attack is based in the traditional perspective of nationalism; we were attacked because we are the USA. We as a nation-state stand for something "they" don't like. This was a declaration of "war" on America. Why anyone declared this "war" is simply not asked, or if it is, the assumption is that the "war" is against the USA as a country. This perspective assumes that states go to war with states. If our own behavior enters into this explanation, our behavior is seen as good and pure and true, whereas theirs is evil and malicious. "They" just don't like "us" because we are "democratic" or "America" or some other value laden word. This perspective is adopted by the Bush administration because it fits the unilateralism of the Bush team, and because it assumes there is no interaction between what we do to others and what others do to us.
Finally, there seems to be an emerging perspective that sees our own behavior as having had some consequences. In this explanation, we were attacked because of things our country has done to other people. Our policies and actions in the middle east have caused innocent civilians to be killed (Palestinians, Iraqis, etc), and brought western industrial norms to some people who do not want their fellows to adopt those norms. This explanation for the event assumes that there is interaction between us and the world, and assumes that our behavior towards others does in fact have consequences for ourselves. It also notes that our policies benefit some, while reinforcing the poverty or powerlessness of others.
The responses each propose follow from their assumptions and explanations for why this happened.
From the first perspective (the attack was carried out by non-rational people), "an eye for an eye" seems to be the guiding principle for response. Who's eye is largely irrelevant to those who see retribution as the solution. This is the perspective taken by people in the US who now attack anyone who looks vaguely "Arab", even though many of those who have been attacked are from other parts of the world. Partly because we have not been educated about the area, its history, or its people, this response is as vague as the understanding that underlies it, for we know not why we were hit, nor who to hit back. That is why some people who use this perspective to understand the attack want to go bomb civilians in Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter.
From the nationalist perspective, the only solution has been to declare "war" back. But people who adopt this perspective understand war almost solely in the traditional sense of one country against another country. That is why the administration has had to threaten other countries with either being "for us or against us", and why it threatens states "who support terrorism". They have to have some government or country to be at "war" with because they assume that we are in some kind of nation vs nation event rather than a cultural event that transcends political, legal, and military borders. From this perspective, state force is the guiding principle of action; hence, a purely military response is offered where we continue to use violence as the solution to violence. That is why we have to have Afghanistan to "attack". This perspective understands little outside the political boundaries of states and politics.
The third perspective that sees our own behavior towards others as causing others to act towards us tends to use the Golden Rule to guide its policy response. If we change what we do to others, the logic goes, they will change what they do to us. This perspective sees the act as intolerable, but understands that the people who did this intolerable act believe some of our own actions to be intolerable. This perspective sees large scale factors such as poverty and powerlessness as things that motivate people to carry out such horrible acts. This perspective thus focuses attention on United States policies and behaviors that help some and hurt others as one cause (among many) of violence in the world, including terrorist attacks against ourselves.
Most people understanding the attack from this perspective seem to believe that justice is required rather than simple retribution, and seem to be grasping for ways to bring the perpetrators to justice in a framework of world law rather than nation-state law. Kofi Annan's statements that the UN should be used to create and administer a world-wide legal institution for such crimes is an example. Suggesting that this be treated as a human rights issue is another. Trying the perpetrators for crimes against humanity is a third. The idea is to move terrorism beyond a nation-states perspective that is met with military force, and toward an internationalist perspective that uses world law to deal with the problem.
Unfortunately, the response offered by the first two perspectives will do little to lessen the chance of more terrorist attacks. An eye for an eye just creates more people who want more of our eyes, and are thus more likely to engage in more acts of terrorism. The administration is now finding out that since terrorist cells operate in secret, largely apart from traditional governments, blowing up a country will not stop them. In point of fact, bin Laden has said repeatedly that the US presence in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War (a traditional war fought by many of the present administration) is one reason the USA should be attacked. On the other hand, the problem for the third perspective is that the damage is done for now; we can not change the past that created this present, and whoever did this should in fact be brought to justice.
However, the Golden Rule perspective does offer a possible future that the other perspectives can not. It is a future based upon mutual respect and the taking of responsibility for our own behavior in order to create that mutual respect. Thus, this perspective probably offers the best long term solution - a safer world where terrorism is less likely in general, because people will not feel that terrorism is their only possible means of expression or self defense. It may also offer a better short term solution as well, if its proponents can find a way to convince the administration and the American public that there are ways to bring the perpetrators to justice without killing more innocent people.
Dr. Swearingen teaches in the Cultural Foundations program at St Edwards University in Austin TX. He can be reached at wsswear@admin.stedwards.edu.