Both aliens and terrorists seem to be moved by envy and hatred. Bush explains: “Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber--a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other” (par. 23). As in Independence Day, where the heroes defeat the aliens by they holding themselves strictly to patriotic and traditional values, Bush has a recommendation to the Nation: “I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them” (par. 38).

Eventually, Bush also aspires to become the leader of a the global force, following the steps of President Whitmore in Independence Day:

This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. (par. 35)

Conclusion: From Movies To Back To Reality

“We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good.”
George W. Bush (20 September 2001)

This paper outlined the hegemonic function of intertextuality. As the case of September 11th has shown, intertextuality may in fact be utilized to spread the dominant value system, to establish ideological marked interpretation frames, and eventually to manipulate consensus. McQuail (2000) also notes that "hegemony tends to define unacceptable opposition to the status quo as dissident or deviant." (p. 97). This process of delegimization of alternative interpretation is also observable. In the case of September 11th, mainstream mass media clearly opted to establish intertextual references to an ideological marked work like Independence Day instead of another, more problematic and politically complex movie like Fight Club. In the same fashion, a passage of Bush’s address, which has been quoted in many mass media outlets, reads: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (2001, September 20, par. 29). With this rhetorical move, in an ambiguous and forced “bipolar alternative,” every voice, which discusses the moral validity of the deliberation of the political elites, will be interchangeably categorized as “pro-terrorists,” or “pro-Taliban,” or “anti-patriotic.”

Denzin (1991) observes that the political and economical crisis in the 80ies (Wall Street’s crash, Grenada, the Panama drug scandal) made being patriotic “the most important identity an American could hold” (p. 6). Bush’s call to patriotic values has been well received among American audience, in a variety of ways, as the vast display of “stars and stripes” flags and “God bless America” bumper stickers evidences. A strong affection for one’s nation is not in itself something negative. However, this consensus based on patriotism should not mute or divest of legitimization the “minority voices,” which try to find solutions other than a war supported by a reaffirmation of patriotic values. Instead, part of American public opinion is aware that reasons other than a supposed “envy” for the American democracy could have triggered the conflict.

Of course, interpretations other than the official one often lead to criticize the dominant political position. For instance, Chomsky (2001) points out in a recent book the political responsibilities of the American administration in the rise of conflictuality in the Middle East, which eventually led to strong Anti-American sentiments and to terrorist attack against American targets.