Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Post 9-11 is a phrase that by all rights should merely refer to a literal time period. During it's
inception, perhaps it did, “Will a new department be created in the government post-9/11?”, “When
will the congress re-convene, post-9/11?”. Since then, however, it has acquired several meanings, none
Rudolph Giuliani was infamous for his near-constant use of 'post-9/11' when referring to his
tenure as mayor of NYC during his short-lived presidential campaign. In this context it seems to signify
a series of events which took place after the 9/11 attacks, perhaps the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security or the invasion of Afghanistan. Though in this example it was used for personal
gain, it still was similar to it's original, literal meaning and in that aspect may have held use for
speakers. Unfortunately this was merely the beginning of the evolution of the term.
Bill O'Reilly frequently criticizes news stories from a perspective which he specifically refers to
as post-9/11. It would seem to denote here an added sense of perspective and a manner through which
one can process information. Perhaps even a context in which to consider developing events. Maybe
when examining facts directly connected to the 9/11 attacks this would hold meaning and have use, but
the truth is, it is has been stretched to so many issues (the war in Iraq, Holocaust denial in Iran, the
Valerie Plame incident) that it holds no meaning for, that no meaning is left for it in this context.
Easily the most common use of the term is as an excuse of sorts, refusing to push boundaries in
a 'post-9/11 climate'. From this, it appears to imply that what was acceptable before 9/11, no longer is
today. In this sense perhaps it refers to a political atmosphere which stems from the 9/11 attacks.
Though it is true that screenings at the airport are still intrusive, is our current world truly that
dependent on a nearly-decade old attack? Our president is different, most of our congress is different,
the war in Iraq has been effectively ended with a withdrawal date from Afghanistan already passed into
law. So can this meaning still be considered to hold any tangible value? Or are we merely propagating
the fear which resulted from such an unforeseen attack? And if so, and if we let this fear control us in
ways detrimental to ourselves (i.e. rushing into wars with insufficient information), is it not to our
The simple problem with these three definitions is their lack of cohesiveness; in order for a term
to carry any inherent value, it must have a meaning. Take for example the f-word. Though in it's roots it
does have meaning, it has become so widely-used that it may now be utilized as any part of speech, in
the same sentence it could be a verb, a noun, an adjective, an adverb and even hyperbole. Because of
this, the word holds virtually no meaning except for it's natural shock-value. This is incredibly similar
to the phrase post-9/11, though it cannot be used as anything but an adjective or time period, as shown
above it is completely devoid of any cohesive meaning and instead has value only as a taboo, a line not
to be crossed. It dares those who oppose it to violate the sanctity of the deadliest attack against America
In light of this, can we truly say that post-9/11 is term which holds any real value (besides
literal)? And if it does not, and if it's use has begun to harm our society, why do we continue to use it?