正在学习

MacGuffins, Bioweapon Labs, and the Symbolic Order

MACGUFFIN IN UKRAINE

Some commentators have noted the strange homology between Russia’s evocation of secret bioweapon labs in Ukraine and the U.S. evocation of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In both cases, these “weapons” justified a military attack. The U.S. knew Hussein did NOT have WMDs, which is why they risked the ground offensive in Iraq. If the U.S. actually believed their own claims that Iraq had WMDs, they probably would not have launched a ground assault for fear of too many casualties.

The non-existent “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” were analogous to the “MacGuffin” in Alfred Hitchcock’s films: an object, device, or event that is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant itself. Usually, the MacGuffin is revealed in the first act, and its importance wanes thereafter. (Incidentally, one of the most famous Hitchcockian MacGuffins is a potential weapon of mass destruction—the bottles with “radioactive diamonds” in Notorious!) Iraqi WMDs were an elusive entity, never empirically specified. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, United Nations inspectors were searching for WMDs in Iraq. The weapons were expected to be hidden in the most disparate and improbable places, from the (rather logical) desert to the (slightly irrational) cellars of the presidential palaces. Allegedly, the weapons were in large quantities, yet magically moved all the time. And the more all-present and all-powerful they appeared as a threat, the more they were proclaimed to be destroyed by bombing, as if the destruction of the greater part of the weapons magically heightened the destructive power of the remainder. The fact that the weapons could never be found made them all the more dangerous.

In the case of the Ukrainian war, the MacGuffins are “secret bioweapon labs” in Ukraine, funded and organized by the U.S. These labs supposedly develop poisons that cause human sicknesses, and their destruction is used as the reason for Russia’s plan to seize all of Ukraine, as opposed to just the southwestern area where there is a strong Russian minority. But again, I claim Russia positively knows there are no “secret bioweapon labs” full of dangerous poisons in Ukraine. If such labs were there, Russia would have acted with greater urgency—directly attacking these labs or trying to occupy them with elite parachute units.

To avoid a fatal misunderstanding: This does not mean that there are no bioweapons being developed in secret labs—all big countries have them, of course. And the media is right in treating these Russian accusations as a dark hint or threat that they themselves may use bioweapons. The Ukrainian war could take many worse turns, like the use of bioweapons and/or gasses that hinder the functioning of our brains, or a full digital attack on the enemy’s cyberspace.

We are also not yet in a total breakdown, where it is only “Us” and the “Other” (external and/or internal enemy), and no shared space. The autonomy of the symbolic order (which opens up the space for metaphoric substitutions in which a universal can stand for a particular) is proof that we are far from such a pure struggle. Recall a video that went viral on social media mid-March 2022 of a woman being arrested by the Russian police for holding up a small piece of paper that read “two words” (два слова in Russian) which, of course, referred to the forbidden slogan “no to war” (нет войне in Russian). At its extreme, absence itself can be “determinate,” it can refer to specific content. Russian police also arrested demonstrators who protested with blank signs. A video that received millions of views shows a woman holding a blank sign among a group of people before police officers approach her and escort her away from the crowd.37 This substitution worked because everybody knew what was prohibited in Russia: to publicly reject the war against Ukraine.

练习题

According to the passage, what is the main parallel between Russia’s claims about Ukrainian bioweapon labs and the U.S. claims about Iraqi WMDs?

A. Both were presented as weapons-related threats used to justify military attacks.

B. Both were confirmed by United Nations inspectors before the attacks began.

C. Both involved openly declared weapons programs run by small countries.

D. Both led the attacking countries to avoid ground operations entirely.

In the passage, why does the author claim the U.S. probably did not believe its own claims about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs?

A. Because the U.S. immediately invited Iraqi scientists to inspect American weapons sites.

B. Because the U.S. risked a ground offensive that it likely would have avoided if it truly feared WMD use.

C. Because the U.S. publicly admitted before the invasion that all intelligence was fabricated.

D. Because United Nations inspectors found the WMDs before the U.S. invasion began.

Which option best defines a MacGuffin as described in the passage?

A. A character who explains the political meaning of a story directly to the audience.

B. A visual symbol that must remain equally important throughout the entire narrative.

C. An object, device, or event that motivates the plot but is itself insignificant or irrelevant.

D. A secret message whose meaning can never be understood by any character.

Which statements accurately reflect the passage’s account of Iraqi WMDs as a MacGuffin-like threat? Select all that apply.

A. They were described as elusive and never empirically specified.

B. Their failure to be found paradoxically made them appear more dangerous.

C. They were said to be hidden in widely varied and sometimes improbable places.

D. Their confirmed discovery by inspectors ended their political usefulness immediately.

E. Their alleged partial destruction was treated as if it heightened the danger of what remained.

Which statements correctly describe the author’s argument about the alleged Ukrainian bioweapon labs? Select all that apply.

A. The labs function in the argument as MacGuffins for the Ukrainian war.

B. Their alleged destruction is used to justify Russia’s plan to seize all of Ukraine.

C. Russia’s lack of urgent direct attacks on such labs suggests, for the author, that Russia knows they do not exist in the claimed form.

D. The author claims that no major power has ever developed bioweapons in secret labs.

E. The author says the accusations may also be read as a dark hint that Russia itself might use bioweapons.

The passage says that because Russia accused Ukraine of having secret bioweapon labs, the author concludes that no secret bioweapon development exists anywhere.

According to the passage, the possible future escalations of the Ukrainian war include bioweapons, brain-impairing gases, and full digital attacks on cyberspace.

The arrests of protesters holding signs reading “two words” or even blank signs illustrate the passage’s claim that absence itself can carry determinate political meaning.

In Hitchcock’s sense, a ___ is an object, device, or event that motivates the plot but is insignificant or irrelevant in itself.

The passage argues that the autonomy of the ___ prevents a total collapse into a pure struggle between “Us” and the “Other.”

Explain how the passage connects the unfindability of Iraqi WMDs with their political effectiveness as a threat.

How does the example of blank protest signs connect this section to the earlier idea that one should support Russian antiwar voices rather than ignore them?

Why does the author’s discussion of U.S. WMD claims and Russian bioweapon-lab claims fit with the broader prior demand for a realist evaluation of contemporary Russia and equal critical treatment of Russia and the West?

Which interpretation best integrates the text’s comparison of Iraqi WMDs and Ukrainian “secret bioweapon labs” with its earlier call for a ruthlessly realist evaluation of Russia?

A. Both claims should be accepted at face value because military powers usually reveal their true motives openly.

B. Both claims function as war-justifying MacGuffins, so a realist evaluation should examine what actions the states actually took rather than only what they claimed.

C. The Ukrainian lab claim is more credible than the Iraqi WMD claim because Russia mentioned specific poisons.

D. The comparison shows that the symbolic order has completely collapsed into a pure friend-enemy struggle.

Which statements correctly connect the discussion of symbolic substitutions in Russian antiwar protests with the prior argument about supporting Russian antiwar voices?

A. Blank signs and the phrase “two words” could communicate opposition to the war because absence itself became determinate within the symbolic order.

B. The arrests of people holding blank signs show that Russian antiwar voices existed and were politically significant enough to be policed.

C. Supporting Russian antiwar voices is consistent with rejecting Russia’s invasion, because the prior section warns against ignoring people in Russia who oppose the war.

D. Blank signs prove that there is no shared symbolic space left and that only a pure “Us” versus “Other” struggle remains.

E. The symbolic substitutions worked because everyone knew the prohibited message was public rejection of the war against Ukraine.

The text’s critique of Russian accusations about Ukrainian bioweapon labs is compatible with its earlier insistence that supporting Ukraine and criticizing Western abuses are part of the same struggle.

In the text, the non-existent Iraqi WMDs and the alleged Ukrainian bioweapon labs are described as ___: objects or threats that motivate political action while remaining empirically elusive or narratively secondary.

登录后解锁笔记、知识点解析、AI 问答

立即登录