terrorist under the same category of a DemonLover. This can only come from aprivileged, bourgeois, morally superior position that, as I pointed out heremany times, can have disregard for history in the name of ones self-centeredmoral values. This position allows oneto not engage with issues as they play out in the world and instead to live inan alienated, privileged comfort zone[58]. The day-to-day struggle for survival ofmillions of peoples and communities throughout the world, the suffering andpowerlessness, is reproduced exactly through the attitude of disengagement andmoral arrogance of privileged communities that expresses itself, for example,in the following portrayal of terrorism: The terrorist is a logical incarnation ofpatriarchal politics in a technological world. The myth [of the hero] and arrayingoneself in its power is the message. ...theold battle of death between fathers and sons. These are beautiful words, and there lies theirrational power. But they are beautifulwords that tell a unified story that undermines any understanding of worldconflicts as they happen now or in the past. These words aspire to an ultimate, total knowledge that by its verynature excludes other possibilities of history, or story. In this lies its power of seduction andsafety: the alignement of oneself, through rationalization, with Reality, ina static, paralized manner. In sayingthis, we are not looking for AN alternative, but rather trying to open up spaceso that many others stories, histories, might be told, the histories of Colombians,Palestinians, Chileans, Indonesians, Brazilians, and many others that had someday to fight terror with terror. Doctrine has allowed state power to go on unquestioned. Michel Foucault explains brilliantly what theprocess of making fields of doctrine always already entails:Doctrinelinks individuals to certain types of utterance while consequently barring themfrom all others. Doctrine effects a dualsubjection, that of speaking subjects to a discourse, and that of discourse tothe group, at least virtually, of speakers.[59] The author, RobinMorgan, believes she can save the world by naming the overall framework of whatterrorism essentially is. It is no surprise then that she asserts thatshe is doing metaphysical feminism. Byproviding essentialist, metaphysical notions of what terrorism is, she evades history, context,culture, in the favoring of a doctrinal metanarrative. She provides an overall framework throughwhich we are supposed to understand thisthing called terrorism, and this isan understanding that reminds us that whenever we hear the word terrorismbeing used, that we should run to annihilate that evil, the Demon Lover any Christian fundamentalism here? Sheplays into the hands of the powerful States, which are always hungry forjustifications for atrocities against whatever they call terror. Again, I do not wish to condone acts ofterrorism, but only to point out that to disregard history and specific socialprocesses that lead a community to terrorism is exactly what reproduces and, ina very direct way, condones it. Certainly, patriarchy is a very relevant matter to be taken into accountin discussing these issues, and issues of politics in general. Nevertheless, to go from there to thepositing of an archetypal Demon Lover is what condones terrorism as something inevitable in human life. Instead of looking at specific areas ofconflict and acting to resolve them, the psychologism