The United States experienced an economic boom in the tide of the second World War, and as a result, these developmental plans came back into fruition in the plans of 1968-1969. “Many of the same families still dominated the RPA,” and coincidentally they, “still dreamt of a post-industrial New York anchored by a center for world trade,” (Greenberg 389). These forces were representative of a broader neoliberal mentality that had been emerging in this era; an orientation that was opposed to state regulation in markets and a “flexible global economy based in finance,” (Ruchelman 12). This would be the purpose of the construction; the WTC and the financialization of downtown Manhattan were ideological representatives of the globally-inclined Western capitalist thought. However, the key symbolic element was to be architectural.
Designers and architects followed the lead of many mid-century, modernist skyscrapers of which the buildings themselves are used as massive corporate advertisements. There were two main objectives of the WTC: to design a building that would be “visual and identifiable,” and one that would encompass “sufficient space to pay for itself,” (Ruchelman 46). To accompany the construction, a vast media campaign was launched. The following is an excerpt of the opening paragraph of a promotional booklet released by the New York Port Authority:
The World Trade Center, with its gleaming twin 110-story towers, will add a new symbol of international trade to the world-famous Manhattan skyline… The great trade center…will be recognized throughout the nation and the world as a focal point for the convenient and efficient administration of all phases of international trade, (PA 1).
This provides excellent insight into the cultural and social ambitions of the city at this time.
In 1975 however, the city went bankrupt and was “unable to cover basic operating expenses like transportation, sanitation, education and policing,” (Greenberg 392). To re-establish itself as a powerful economic force New York had to undergo a transformation into an “entrepeneur” in order to sell the image of the city as a “global brand,” (Fainstein 57). The hope was that in the process the deepening social and economic crises would begin to fade and eventually become history. Three main goals were established by council for the city; conveying the advantages of doing business in New York and stressing the city’s positive attitude towards, encouraging companies to locate and expand in New York, and attracting more tourists and conventions, (Greenberg 395). This plan yielded excellent results. The WTC was experiencing rapid economic re-growth and, “Wall Street, basking in the glow of the resurgent towers, was on the rise,” (Judd 40). The city assumed new themes within its identity. Adaptability, resourcefulness and resiliency became prevalent themes, and the WTC “was associated with the rebound of the entire city,” (Greenberg 402). Social and political ideologies were reinforced by this regeneration, predominantly those of capitalistic and materialistic orientation. Western society had faced a serious crisis and emerged even stronger from it. This instills a sense of cultural assurance, and the WTC is perfectly symbolic of this fact.
While to Americans the towers were representative of domestic values such as freedom and justice, in continents far away the World Trade Center had a different symbolic meaning to an entirely different ethnicity of people. In the Muslim world, to those with a negatively inclined view of the implications of neoliberal free markets and globalizing forces, the tower represent something more sinister. They represent, “the callous disregard of U.S. financial and commercial interests for global poverty and suffering; the militarism that backs authoritarian regimes wherever convenient…the insensitivity of U.S.-led globalization,” (Harvey 60). Inasmuch as it became an effective and successful symbol of New York’s, and by extrapolation America’s rising power, it equally grew to represent the inequalities and injustice of the massive gap between rich and poor.
The towers’ symbolism also seemingly motivated the terrorists in their choice of targets for the attacks of September 11. Osama Bin Laden, “in his internationally broadcast remarks of October 7,” celebrated the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon as simply, “the destruction of America’s greatest buildings,” and by extension, the embodiments of American power. The dramatic fashion in which it occurred, by flying planes into the giant skyscrapers, was likely an effort to instill fear in the most universally and culturally recognizable terms possible, and it was, “recorded by thousands of cameras and broadcast within minutes to screens worldwide,” (Greenberg 386). The image of the flaming towers has become of great historical significance as it has come to represent the real and comprehensible horrors of international terrorism. The fact that the World Trade Center was targeted for this monumental attack supports the notion that its cultural symbolism is transgressive of time and geographical borders.
In the months ensuing September 11, the losses incurred by New Yorkers can be expressed on two dynamic levels. The first is the emotional distress of experiencing such massive destruction of material foundations and human life; “the physical and psychological enormity of the event,” (Anderson 303). The second, though less tangible but no less profound, is “that of the Twin Towers as a symbol,” (Greenberg 386). The response, “of the Bush Administration…was based not only on a definition of U.S. interests but also on ideals which allowed that response to be framed as a struggle of good versus evil,” (Anderson 305). As a result of the events that unfolded in the wake of 9/11, the symbolic meaning of the WTC, now recognized as ‘Ground Zero,’ has completely changed. The site of the tragedy “offers a morally legible national identity by positioning the U.S. as a victim engaged in a battle against evil,” (Anker 11).
The damage to the city’s image as the decided center of global finance and culture, which I have argued is epitomized by the WTC, is manifested in Ground Zero. Mayor Bloomberg in 2003 spoke of “taking direct coordinated custody of [New York’s] imaged,” (Greenberg 410). Several recovery strategies were employed in the months following the disaster, including an effort “to re-brand the WTC site, and thereby the city as a whole,” and thereby offer economic incentives to shoppers, tourists and corporations, (Greenberg 410). The memorial has been effective in increasing tourism to Lower Manhattan. According to the Downtown Alliance, “the WTC observation deck used to attract an average of 1.8 million visitors a year, while its ruins are on pace this year to double that, drawing 3.6 million,” (Scott 22). The city was successful in attracting a wave of “patriotic tourism,” or those motivated to travel there by sympathy and respect.
However, to return to the focus of this essay: how can we make sense of the global recognition that the WTC has attained as a cultural symbol? Understandably, in the post-9/11 world New Yorkers feel a familiar sense of loss in the absence of these buildings. They represented an integral part of the city for thirty years, and the holes where great skyscrapers once stood are constant reminders of terror and death. But beyond this massive destruction to city infrastructure left an equally bad taste in the mouths of all Westerners. The events of 9/11 and subsequent public, political and military responses, indicated that “far right ideologies and religious fundamentalism,” predominantly Islamic and Hindu, were a growing force to be contended with, and that “an understanding of the intersections of cultural and political transnationalism was likely to be crucial to understanding any of these developments,” (Gillespie 19).
American values had been attacked, and the WTC is the site of this message. However this is not the extent of its cultural importance. Throughout the world, people from all continents recognize September 11th and the World Trade Center/Ground Zero as the manifestation of a long standing international conflict that has only increased in complexity since the attacks. Capitalism, the system employed by developed Western and European countries, aims to maximize profit and wealth at the expense of anyone. Materialism, or the love and desire for non-necessary luxuries, has perpetuated these capitalistic tendencies. Together these trends and social structures have resulted in (greedy?) wealth for the United States and extreme poverty in several parts of the world, mainly the global south.
International relations and cultural relevance takes place in the context of geography. These regions of the world differ from each other in the number of states they contain, and in each region’s particular mix of cultures, geographical realities (ie. Natural resources) and interests. The North includes the United States and other developed capitalist countries, while the South is comprised of, “Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia,” (Goldstein 15). The global North contains only 20% of the earth’s people, but controls 60% of its goods and services, (Goldstein 15). These inequalities are so deeply instituted in the international system that some see it as a “natural process” of uneven growth in the world economy. This immense concentration of wealth and power was made possible by capitalism and exploitation of the global South’s resources and cheap labor. But how does this relate to the World Trade Center?
As has been explained throughout this essay, the WTC was an internationally recognized symbol of free market capitalism, Neoliberalism, and most importantly, American power. The poverty and suffering of developing countries can easily be attributed to these economic systems practiced by the U.S.; the country, as the world’s foremost in economic strength and hegemonic military power, became a perfect victim for an international message, and the towers of the WTC an excellent target for the spectacle. The image of the WTC had garnered resentment among the peoples it’s values directly afflicted. The destruction of a key financial center was not as troubling as the sinister political and ideological ultimatum that had been sent. This is the truest and most implicit cultural interpretation of the towers.
The World Trade Center has diverse and multitudinous social, cultural, political, historical, economical, and most importantly, ideological implications. Over time and with the onslaught of foundation-rattling events these implications have evolved beyond the point of recognition. Since its construction, with the financial crisis of 1975, and after September 11th the dynamic of cultural significance has changed. In an equal sense, as international borders are crossed the towers have entirely different meanings. The temporal and spatial relevance of the twin towers as a symbol make it of international importance. To Americans, and those closely associated, the WTC has been representative of pride, strength, fiscal power, resiliency, resurgence, tragedy, awareness and moving forward. To the fundamentalists that flew the planes, and their culturally and politically associated groups, the towers symbolized oppression, inequality, hegemony, revenge and conflict. While there is no real way to categorize these meanings, it is undeniable that they have played an important role in the evolution and development of the contemporary world. The World Trade Center, with all its varying interpretations, is of great cultural significance to all regions of the globe. This essay has attempted to explain why.
Works Cited
Anderson, Lisa. Shock and Awe: Interpretations of the Events of September 11. Vol. 56. [Baltimore, etc.,: Johns Hopkins University Press under the editorial sponsorship of the Center of International Studies, Princeton University, etc.], 2004.
Anker, Elisabeth. Villains, Victims and Heroes: Melodrama, Media, and September 11. Vol. 55. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Fainstein, S.S. City Builders: property development in New York and London 1980-2000. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press 2001.
Gillespie, Marie. Transnational Television Audiences After September 11. Vol. 32. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Carfax, 2006.
Goldstein, Joshua. International Relations. Toronto: Pearson Longman Press 2005.
Greenberg, Miriam. The Limits of Branding: The World Trade Center, Fiscal Crisis, and the Marketing of Recovery. Vol. 27., 2003.
Hall, P. Cities of Tommorow: an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Harvey, Don. After the World Trade Center: rethinking New York. New York: Routledge Publihing 2002.
Judd, D.R. The Tourist City. New Haven: Yale University Press 1999.
Port Authority of New York-New Jersey. The World Trade Center in the Port of New York. New York Times: February 28, 1966.
Ruchelman, L.I. The World Trade Center: politics and policies of skyscraper development. Syracuse University Press, 1977.
Scott, Jared. Tourists to the rescue of a wounded city: New York finds sympathy a powerful draw. Vol. 31. New York: Oxford University Press 2002.
