Dea Closson Entry. 4 (Taussig)

In his essay “Culture of Terror- Space of Death” Michael Taussig begins by explaining the concept of “space of death.” He explains the “space of death” as “crucial to the creation of meaning and consciousness,” as “preeminently a space of transformation: through the experience of death, life; through fear, loss of self and conformity to a new reality; or through evil, good.” It is through this concept of “space of death” that he explains why, through the discussion of Roger Casement’s Putumayo report, both the rubber company tortured the Putumayo Indians and why Casement wrote his report of the atrocities committed.

It seems to me that the “space of death,” the fear of the savage in this case, led the members of the British rubber companies in the New World to loose their “civilized” ways and conform to a practice and terror, of barbarism. This, because they were afraid of the Indians, they were afraid of the jungle. It was this fear that transformed these western men into new world barbarians capable of murder or worse.

It could also be said that the “space of death” led Roger Casement to write and send his report on these human travesties going on in the New World. It could be that through this evil Casement brought good, that his report was a way of transforming this “space of death” that had been created in the New World. The rubber companies combated their fear of death brought on by the “savages” and the jungle by becoming merciless killers, and Casement combated his fear of societal breakdown by report.  But why write a report about these tragedies? This could be answered by taking a Foucaultian approach; if truth is power then exposing these barbarians for their true faults has the power to change the way they operate. This thinking is especially relevant today as the report is the center of many governmental and intellectual fields and has been used repeatedly to change society.

Take for example whistleblower Edward Snowden. He used the report as a tool to expose the US and UK governments on their potentially illegal covert surveillance tactics. When Snowden gave confidential files to the Guardian and Washington Post he started a debate over the limits of government surveillance. His reasoning for doing so was to make overt a covert operation that he believed was of detriment to American society. He wanted to show American’s and the world that it’s government had potentially stepped over the line in its attempts to protect. This situation is much like the situation in Putumayo, but in this case the US government is like the rubber companies and the Snowden is like Casement. One can easily see how the US government rationalizes its intelligence gathering campaign as protection of it’s citizens, but because of 9/11 and the intense fear of another terrorist attack the government has lost itself in its campaign against terror. Snowden ousted this overzealous and potentially harmful program as he saw a way to change society, to make evil good.

It is through this lens of the “space of death” that we can see the innate reasoning behind many of manners in which counter-discourses take shape. This “space of death” along with Foucault’s view of truth as power is the driving force behind the counter discourse of the report. It is not evident why reports are incorporated into so many of the major operational proceedings we see today.