Diplomacy and terrorism in the digital age
Following Zizek, the main difference distinguishing a post-political ideological configuration from one that operates through repression or disavowal is that, in the case of the former, no symptom can return within its existing symbolic field. This is owing to the fact that the founding antagonism is rejected in toto and not just denied or disavowed. Earlier during the twentieth century, the terrorist or warlord was seen as only posing a threat to local stability, turning them into problems for local authorities rather than global diplomatic institutions. However, in the twenty-first century, the threats these figures pose constitute what we might call a non-diplomatic subjectivity, confronting and threatening to destabilize the entire globalized system of diplomacy as such.