Fragmented thoughts on "The Age of the World Target: Atomic Bombs, Alterity, and Area Studies"

As I sit here reading Rey Chow’s article while marking up the PDF and typing on my computer—the fifth personal computer that I’ve owned in the last twelve years—I’m reminded that the origin of the personal computer is the IBM 701, which was developed as part of the Korean War effort.  This article thoughtfully highlighted our uncritical reception of warfare—a sort of resigned acceptance of it as a daily fact of life always happening in the background, as a backdrop to daily life—in a compelling way.  It does make one think about the extent to which military logic is at work in all levels of daily life in the U.S.

The idea of synecdoche also resonated throughout this article.  The asymmetry of the “above and below” war, and the idea of the target both led me to think of her explanation of seeing the world as a picture as a form of synecdoche in which the world is experienced as a part rather than a whole. By using this discussion to problematize area studies, Chow raises significant questions about the logic of area studies and the type of knowledge that it produces.  Following Said and Harootunian, Chow advances the argument that area studies reproduces dominant epistemologies at the expense of an arena where "genuinely alternative form of knowledge production might have been possible" (42).  

I have to say that the final paragraph left me seriously considering her question: “why, then, when the United States is perceived to be threatened and weakened by incompetent leadership, should bombing not be the technique of choice for correcting the United States itself?”  The idea of turning the logic that the United States uses on others against itself is, in a way, a very simple question.  Yet, because of the U.S.'s dominance throughout the world, the question feels more extreme than it seems like it should.  Given the audacity of her question, is she advocating revolutionary violence or simply being provocative?  In a more general sense, I'm also wondering if the idea of turning the logic of violence in on itself within the United States because of “incompetent leadership” is questionable since it seems like most political leadership is incompetent by nature?