Homeland Defence and the Re/Territorialization of the State

It is constantly stated that the world has changed in some fundamental fashion because of the events of 11 September. That this is a generally unsupported contention does little to mitigate the effect of the discourse. On the contrary, the continued articulation of the argument reconstitutes the world we live in, and thus, serves to bring about the change that supposedly occurred with the terrorist attacks. It is my intention, in writing this paper, to put forth that the ‘common sense’ arguments that have emerged to support the homeland defence initiative within the United States, and the apparent move by Canada to support this drive, are not contingent on 11 September, and that the logic underpinning Canadian participation is not reducible to economic or military ‘facts.’ In order to illustrate the manner in which the discourse of homeland defence has emerged, this paper will argue three main points: that the territoriality of the state has not been fading; that globalization is not about de-territorialization; and that homeland defence, which was alive and well before 11 September, has only been accelerated, not altered in any profound way. These three points will allow me to assert that the Canadian desire to join into homeland defence has nothing to do with making Canadian society more safe or to protect its economy, but is rather about a need to be inside the ‘democratic’ house which is clearly delineated and ascribed by the homeland perimeter.