Response to Sontag Article

Question 1: Do Sontag's perspective on 9/11 stand out among the many opinions and perspectives directed at the US government's reaction to the incident?

Question 2: When Sontag is recounting the details of her physical return to the site of the attack is she refuting her argument?

Question: Sontag mentions the notion that the US government's agenda is one of "psychotherapy." Were this to be accurate, is the government justified in acting this way?

Response to question 3:

This part of the article was extremely interesting to me. The idea that the US government 's agenda in responding to the public reaction was one of psychotherapy is essentially her thesis. She feels that the way our country is assessing this situation in the eye of the public is meant to therapeutically calm the nation. This seems to be one of those arguments that isn't realized at first but then afterward realized as abhorrently accurate. Is this usually how our nation responds to tragedy? Is it the government's goal to make us feel better? Should they be making us feel better about things that happen?

My stance on the issue is that, to some degree, the government should be indirectly providing consolation for disasters like 9/11. However, and in lining up with Sontag's argument, this consolation shouldn't be a vague dismissal like "our nation is strong." This makes me feel as though the nation is telling me "don't worry about it, we'll take care of it." For the most part, this might make us feel comfortable. We trust our nation's power. We trust our defense. If they tell me everything's going to be ok, I have an obligatory inclination to believe them. Not to mention, the nation is in a vulnerable state of mourning. In this state of mind, that may be precisely what the people want to hear from our government. "Give us some time to grieve over the catastrophe while you take care of the problem."Sontag is one of the few who was not initially and emotionally afflicted the way the rest of the people were by the incident. This predisposed advantage gave her the opportunity to rationally react to the public figures' comments on the attack, therefore, allowing her to see this as "manipulative" and "deceptive." The question this raises is: had she been in New York at the time of the attack, would she have felt this way?

Sontag says so herself. When she returned to the site of the attack her "initial focus on the rhetoric surrounding the event" were seen by her as less "relevant." I feel there is a possibility that, had she been in New York on 9/11, she would have been receptive to the way the government assessed the situation. Not being in New York at the time gave her the advantage. That still leaves the important question though. Is the government justified in doing it that way?

I don't think so. I mean yes, it's hard to go up to someone who just received personally dreadful news regarding losses and say things that pertain to anything other than consolation. A grieving person is dramatically less receptive to anything else but consolation. But what do police detectives say to parents who report missing children or to parents who's kids have been murdered by an unknown suspect? They tell them "We are going to do everything we can to find the person who did this," not "we're strong. It'll be ok." So, aligning with Sontag's argument, the nation, indeed, should be regarding incidents with the foundational truth behind these terrorist attacks. They want to attack our system, not just retaliate against our invasive technique with foreign policy. Our style of life and liberty is offensive and infringing on the middle east. Therefore, our way of life is under attack. Shouldn't we be made more aware of this as an unfortunate truth? And, subsequently, shouldn't we be told how we will combat this abhorrence? 

To conclude, I don't think the government was wrong in being "therapeutic" in response to 9/11. According to the article, even Sontag found it hard to think of her initial reaction as important among the devastation of the "foul-smelling graveyard." The issue is how the government disclosed why they feel it happened (as far they want us know). We should be informed of the actual weight of this issue as a threat to our "modernity" and "capitalism." I'm glad Sontag wasn't in New York at the time. It was the only that way that she was able to reveal a less biased perspective on a matter that calls for inevitable reconsideration.