Formulation of the Claim
September is not an event with a single meaning; rather, it is an occurrence whose significations change according to the position from which it is read, while at the same time revealing the persistence of violence across divergent historical contexts.
Explanation
Arkoun understands the major event as a moment that imposes a plurality of meanings, none of which cancels out the others. The shock of the attacks in Western consciousness does not preclude reading them within a longer history of tension, conflict, and violence, nor does it make them reducible to a direct and final explanation.
From here comes the importance of rejecting the superficial reading that confines September to an immediate reaction or to a political slogan. Meaning, for Arkoun, is formed by the position of the recipient and by his historical memory; therefore, the event cannot be properly understood from a single angle.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom falls within the broader argument that calls for moving beyond a monolithic interpretation of major events. It connects the reading of September with Arkoun’s thesis on the need for a multi-level understanding, whereby the event is not separated from the historical and semantic structure that gives it its weight. In this sense, the atom shows how the event becomes an entry point for understanding the durability of violence, rather than being satisfied with the emotion of the moment.
Limits of the Claim
The atom does not mean justifying violence or lessening the impact of the attacks, nor does it reduce the history of conflict to a single comprehensive explanation. It only establishes that the event cannot be read outside the multiplicity of its contexts and significations.