Global anomie in the Cold War: Tom Clancy´s Patriot Games

This article exposes Cold War dynamics in the novel Patriot Games by the American writer Tom Clancy, published in 1987. The analysis is based on the concept of anomie developed by classical sociology, especially by Émile Durkheim and Jean-Marie Guyau, among other representatives, and aims to point out how the democratic and international framework of Western capitalism is suspended in the fight against terrorism carried out in the Global South.  

Product derived from the research project "La anomia en la novela de crímenes" funded by the Committee for the Development of Research, CODI, and carried out with the support of the Literary Studies Group Strategy of Sustainability, GEL 2018-2019.

Prof. Dr. Gustavo Forero Quintero

Filol. Hisp. Esteban Arango

(Universidad de Antioquia-Colombia)

The Cold War (1947-1991) can be defined as a historical period of global anomie, that is, a period in which there is an absence of the rule of law. Since it started in 1945, an ideological struggle divided the world in two poles: the United States - the center of capitalist power - and the Soviet Union -the engine of communist revolution-, two superpowers whose confrontation led to a situation of general anomie. Yet, this suspension of the rule of law was not only a consequence of the ideological struggle; paradoxically, it also had a legal base: the Yalta Declaration, a conference in the Crimean peninsula, in which the two superpowers made up plans for a new world order, imposing borders at their discretion. The repartition of China is a good reminder of the decisions taken in the Yalta Conference, whose declaration states that: “The commercial port of Dairen shall be internationalized, the pre-eminent interests of the Soviet Union in this port being safeguarded, and the lease of Port Arthur as a naval base of the U.S.S.R. restored” (Commager 492). Consequently, the Cold War was a mere arrangement, decided by a handful of superpowers, as the american sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein has pointed out: “It kept the zones economically separate and allowed them to shout at each other loudly in order to keep their own side in order, but never to make any truly substantial changes in the arrangement” (par. 6). However “there were people who didn´t agree with Yalta. They were located in the Third World and there were at least four significant defeats of imperialism that occurred in the Third World” (par.10). In China, Mao Zedong´s  Red Army disobeyed the orders of Joseph Stalin and invaded Shanghai, an area under Western control: “the Communist Party defied Stalin and marched on Kuomintang-controlled Shanghai in 1948, thus getting China out from under U.S influence on the mainland” (par.10). Algeria ceased to be a French "model colony" between 1954 and 1962, when the power of France was questioned overseas. In Cuba a revolutionary government was established in 1959, attacked since then by the United States; and in Vietnam, France and the United States were defeated in 1954 and 1975, respectively. According to Ricardo Esquivel (2001): "For the hegemonic powers the end of the Cold War, far from a new order, meant chaos" (16)[1]. Not only western imperialism was defied by the Third World, but soviet imperialism as well.

The military strategy of the Cold War discloses the situation of general anomie, since the defeats in the Third World were replaced with a dirty war, that is, "a war that is not fought in a conventional way observing the rules of war, but is a clandestine war involving assassinations, etc." (Collins). These actions in the military strategy of the Cold War are called covert operations. As Tom Engelhardt has pointed out: “the battlefield was inherited by covert organizations whose quasi-wars in Guatemala, Iran, Laos, Cuba and elsewhere were to be pursued in secret” (80); a practice that undermined law and order in the First World countries:

This meant that someday the "dirty" war would come home in the form of FBI Cointelpro operations against black groups, CIA operations against antiwar dissidents, and Nixon administration operations against the Democratic Party (81).

Thus, the Cold War led to a dirty war by virtue of which everything was possible above any law.

Global anomie in the Cold War

The facts mentioned in the former paragraph makes it necessary to establish the characteristics of what can be called the global anomie derived from the Cold War. Although the concept of anomie is usually related to situations of national misgovernment, whether due to the lack of laws or its lack of application in a given territory, the definition of this concept has changed according to the ideologies at stake during the last few years of the twentieth century. Supranational frames such as treaties, agreements among nations related to health, welfare, work, climate change, environmental sustainability and, in very broad terms, the reference of an international law allows to speak of this kind of global anomie. In “Noviembre, de Jorge Galán, y los límites de la justicia” (Gustavo Forero 2018), the author of this article exposed how the decisions of a national entity such as the National Court of Spain had an effect on the international community. The killings of six Jesuit priests, a woman and a girl in San Salvador in 1989 at the hands of the local Armed Forces is an attack on the international order and defines a new spectrum of social anomie. The concept can be extended, without any problem, to the international field, thus expanding the idea exposed in La anomia en la novela de crímenes en Colombia (Gustavo Forero 2013) y en La novela de crímenes en América Latina: un espacio de anomia social (Gustavo Forero 2017). Indeed, such a methodological proposal prolongs the very evolution of the definition proposed in the 19th century.

           The negative perspective of social anomie predominant in the West in the 19th century was formulated by Émile Durkheim, who defined the concept of anomie as "état d'anarchie", that is, as an state of anarchy, the outcome of an inadequate division of labor, which destroys organic solidarity among individuals. This idea was expressed by the French author in The Division of Labor in Society (1933): “If the division of labour does not produce solidarity in all these cases, it is because the relations of the organs are not regulated because they are in a state of anomy” (368). Consequently, individuals experience psychological confusion: “Everyday he repeats the same movements with monotonous regularity, but without being interested in them, and without understanding them” (371). From this pessimistic point of view such a negative vision of anomie must be solved as soon as possible with the production of effective norms and sanctions. This perspective was developed, among others, by Robert K. Merton, who defines anomie as a type of deviant social behavior in which the individual rationally decides to ignore the legitimate means to achieve the goals set by society. Such behavior emerges when cultural purposes and institutional means are not adequately balanced, for two reasons: In the first place, because there are no institutional or regulatory means that allow the full realization of the cultural goals of individuals: “There may develop a very heavy, at times virtually exclusive, stress upon the value of particular goals, involving comparatively little concern with the institutionally prescribed means of striving towards these goals” (201); and, secondly, because of the ritualization of institutional cultural practices, and its immediate consequence: the reluctance to societal change, thus blocking any life project that goes beyond what is established: “The original purposes are forgotten and close adherence to institutionally prescribed conduct becomes a matter of ritual [...] Since the range of alternative behaviors permitted by the culture is severely limited, there is little basis for adapting to new conditions” (201). According to Merton when these conditions are present the result is anomie because individuals resort to extralegal means and not the means institutionally established, to achieve their ends: “It is my central hypothesis that aberrant behavior may be regarded sociologically as a symptom of dissociation between culturally prescribed aspirations and socially structured avenues for realizing these aspirations” (201).

           This pessimistic perspective of the problem and the division in two spheres has gradually transformed in a positive vision of social anomie, thus marking a transition towards a society where justice and individual rights are respected. From this point of view, Piotr Kropotkin and Jean Marie Guyau are precursors of the contemporary assumption of anomie as a positive situation, with a more balanced system. In Anarchist Morality (1897) Kropotkin raises the question: “Why should I follow the principles of this hypocritical morality? […] Why should any morality be obligatory?” (4). As for Guyau, he considers that free human action will be the moral of the future. In The non-religion of the future, a sociological study (1897), he states that: “we have proposed as the moral ideal what we have called moral anomy –the absence of any fixed moral rule” (374).

            With similar guidelines, the Actor-Network-Theory states that there are causal interrelations between humans and technology that characterize the optimistic environment of positive anomie. Indeed, according to Peter-Paul Verbeek (2005), like the majority of phenomenologies whose object of study is “the relation between human beings and their world” (110), the Actor Network deals with this type of relationship, but includes another actor between the subject and the world: technology. Thus, reality is a construction of a network of actants shaped not only by humans, but also by technological objects. In this way, every material fact, every change in the conditions of life, is the result of the interaction between men and artifacts: “Things and artifacts, too, can become actors and thus deserve to be studied on a par with humans. Technologies do not merely arise from an interaction, but also play an active role in it” (Verbeek, 102). In this sense, anomie in the Cold War would be the outcome of the interaction between humans and the technology involved in that process, such as space satellites and military equipment. The holistic research of the evolution of the concept of anomie would allow us to understand, even today, its consequences and evaluate it from a literary point of view. If for some the chaos of a world without law demands repressive international regulations, for others it constitutes proof of the positive imminence of a better new world order.

The Techno Thriller

The positive perspective of social anomie has important echoes in the 21st century, through literary styles such as the Techno-Thriller, with repercussions on the world order and the subject of social anomie. The genre was created by Tom Clancy (1947-2013), an agent of an insurance company that became a celebrity thanks to his first novel The Hunt for Red October (1984), a book in which he approached the antagonism between Western capitalism and Soviet communism during the Cold War period. The novel was praised by the conservative president Ronald Reagan and as a result Clancy became “a favorite of the republican establishment” (Cohen par. 5).

           The most important aspect about the Techno Thriller is its emphasis on the description of military operations in which technology plays a leading role, as conceived by the Actor-Network-Theory. In this sense, the genre recreates the interaction between humans and artifacts with such precision that it has been called "a hybrid of rugged individualism and high technology" (Cohen par. 4), an aspect that is present in the use of all kinds of technological equipments, from night vision to high precision bombs, which appear again and again in this type of narrative.  Even in the plot which, according to the researcher on the subject Nader Elhefnawy (2009) usually privileges two types of structure, this fascination for technology is manifested: on the one hand, the attempt to neutralize or seize advanced technology on the part of a rival appears as a topic: “In the first, one side or the other in the (usually Cold War related) conflict at the heart of the plot develops a key technology, which its rival wants to capture or neutralize” (Par. 3). On the other hand, the aggression of a hostile rival that drags the forces of order into an international conflict appears as another privileged topic: “In the second type, an aggressive move by the Bad Guys forces the Good to wage large-scale combat to stop them” (2-3), but in both cases, the interaction between technology and humans is at the center of the narrative.

   As for the precedents of the genre, the most important is the spy novel. However, unlike this type of novels, in which the operations are usually performed by a spy or group of spies, in the Techno Thriller such operations involve a multitude of intelligence agencies and bureaucrats who work for the secret service. Thus, their vision is in touch with the reality of the 21st century, in which such activities have undergone a professionalization and a division of labor that distances them from the classic imagery of the isolated spy: “intelligence became a purview of large, permanent (often multiple) bureaucracies staffed by salaried employees (only a very few of them “spies” in the traditional sense), in control of giant budgets and ultra- sophisticated equipment  (like networks of listening posts and spy satellites)” (Par. 14). And although previously written works showed these characteristics –an example being From Russia with love (1957) by Ian Fleming—, the genre only emerged until the publication of Tom Clancy´s novels, according to Elhefnawy. The reason for this is that in Clancy´s novels the conflict does not revolve around a character or set of characters as in the spy novel; on the contrary, Clancy´s Techno Thrillers are an epic about the "human and technical machinery" of the two great superpowers of the moment, the Soviet Union and the United States: “the approach was exemplified by Clancy, his books notable in presenting not the story of a single character or group of characters, but a sweeping, intricate, even “epic” picture of the human and technical machinery of the American (and Soviet) national security state” (Par. 18)

This epic dimension reveals the influence of another literary genre on the Techno Thriller, one that Elhefnawy calls the invasion novel, a genre that was born in the 19th century with the novel The Battle of Dorking (1871), written by George Chesney. The novel stands out by its apocalyptic vision linked to a total war. This vision, intensified in the authors of the twentieth century, witnesses of the Second World War and the nuclear age, has among its representatives authors like George Orwell, Ray Bradbury and Robert Heinlein, among others.

Finally, it is worth mentioning one last trait of the Techno Thriller that sets it apart from its predecessors, according to Elhefnawy: the conservative ideology in which the genre is inscribed, a trait that relates it to the novel of the Victorian period. Indeed, characters tend to be stereotypes of the traditional American citizen, as seen in the character of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan, a trait that has led to the rehabilitation of the American armed forces, whose image suffered greatly during the Cold War, especially since the Vietnam war: “Indeed, many an observer has argued that they played a role in the “rehabilitation” of the public image of the U.S. military (and indeed, of the resort to force) after Vietnam” (Par. 33).

The ideological differences typical of the Cold War have a singular interpretation in techno thrillers. The struggle between capitalism and communism and the global role of the Third World show how the synergies that exist between a positive social anomie, the limits of individualism and the role of modern technologies in contemporary systems are being outlined. The novels of Clancy, Red Storm Rising (1986) Patriot Games (1987), The Cardinal of the Kremlin (1988) and The Sum of All Fears (1991), among others, are a literary representation of the above.

Ideological struggle in Tom Clancy's Patriot Games

In Patriot Games (1987), military tactics and the predominant role of technology are evident. The novel depicts the conflict between the British government and a fictitious terrorist group, the Ulster Liberation Army, ULA, a dissident branch of the Irish Republican Army, IRA. The story revolves around Jack Ryan, a historian and teacher at a US Navy university, who witnesses a "terrorist" attack against the English crown prince in London, whose life and that of his family he saves. Thus, the plot exposes the different plans of the ULA against Jack Ryan for his responsibility in the failed attempt. Accordingly, a great deal of the story takes place in the United States, where the terrorist group arranges a terrorist attack against Ryan and his family, and secondly, against the English crown prince and his wife, in an official visit to the US, some months after the first attack. These events unfold along with other actions carried out by the French and American secret services, whose use of satellite images lead to the capture and extrajudicial execution of some members of the French terrorist group Action Directe; a military action whose success persuade the French and American secret services to launch a similar operative against the ULA, but the mission fails. The novel concludes with the persecution of the terrorists by the US Navy, the main character and the crown prince, who capture the ULA members, after escaping a kidnapping attempt.

        The Cold War ideological struggle between capitalism and communism is fundamental in the novel. Ideologically, from the beginning the characters have different visions about reality that induce them to act accordingly. A literary representation of the above is the ideological struggle around the main character, Jack Ryan, and the ULA leader, Kevin O'Donell, who during much of the narrative adopt diametrically opposed positions.

        The main character, Jack Ryan, is a man with a conservative mind: he shares the values of the system he lives in, and is willing to risk his life to defend such values. This is what can be inferred from the scene in which the British police interrogate Ryan at the hospital, after his intervention in the attack against the Crown Prince. During the interrogation Ryan acknowledges that it was the ideological affiliation of the attackers, identified as members of the IRA by him, which angered him and prompted him to act, killing one and wounding another:

-“Why?” It was Owens this time, very quiet.

-“Good question. I don´t know, I really don´t”. Ryan was silent for half a minute. “It made me mad. Everyone I´ve met over here so far has been pretty nice, and all of a sudden I see these two cocksuckers committing murder right the hell in front of me”.

- “Did you guess who they were?” Taylor asked.

-“Doesn´t take much imagination, does it? That pissed me off too. I guess that´s it –anger (30).

Thus, the anomie exposed by the main character is based on purely ideological motives that intensify as the story unfolds. To some extent, the cause of this anomie should be sought, not in an inadequate division of labor, but in the tendency of human beings to follow their nature; as Durkheim points out: “Normally, man finds happiness in realizing his nature” (376). Such a tendency can also be found in the following scene, in which Ryan is visited by the English monarchs. In this scene, Ryan reaffirms his ideological position, for he admits that the reason behind his intervention in the attack against the Crown Prince and his family is his rejection of the radical Irish groups who appeal to ideology to justify their crimes: “Today the most famous Irishmen in the world are the maniacs who leave bombs in parked cars, or assassins who kill people to make some sort of political point.  I don´t like that” (40).

 Ryan´s hatred towards radical groups is not unjustified. It is based on the general belief that the majority of its members are upper class intellectuals who still believe in communism, in a time when not even Chinese communists believe in that anymore. This idea emerges when the English police interrogate Ryan at the hospital:

   -“The case is clear cut”, Owens said. “We have three photographs from our Japanese friend that show this lad holding his gun behind the car, and nine good eyewitnesses. There will be no mucking around with this lad”.

   -“And I´ll be there to see it”, Ryan observed.

   -“Of course. You will be our most important witness, Doctor. A formality, but a necessary one. And no claim of lunacy like the chap who tried to kill your President. This boy is a university graduate, with honors, and he comes from a good family.”

  - Ryan shook his head.  “Ain´t that a hell of a thing? But most of the really bad ones are, aren´t they?”.

  - “You know about terrorists?” Ashley asked

  - “Just things I´ve read”. Ryan answered quickly. That was a mistake, Jack. Cover it. “Officer Wilson said the ULA were Maoists.”

  - “Correct,” Taylor said.

  - “That really is crazy. Hell, even the Chinese aren´t Maoists anymore, at least the last time I checked they weren´t” (37).

Although Jack Ryan is vaguely aware of the ideological motives behind his actions, he still doubts that the homicide of a human being can be ideologically justified. When he learns that one of the terrorists has died due to his intervention in the attack against the Crown Prince, his reaction is a feeling of confusion: “A man is dead because of you Jack. All the way dead. He had his instincts, too, didn´t he? But yours worked better –so why doesn´t that make you feel good?” (Text in italics 31). Hence, the anomic condition of the main character reveals itself in the fact that he cannot find any logic in that act; as Durkheim points out: “if he does not know whither the operations he performs are tending, if he relates them to no end, he can only continue to work through routine” (371).

In this aspect, Jack Ryan and Kevin O’Donnell, the leader of the ULA, are two poles apart. Indeed, unlike Ryan, O’Donnell is a revolutionary who hates the system. This ideological perspective can be found at the beginning of the novel, when O’Donnell is watching the televised interview of Jack Ryan. In this scene O'Donnell does not hide his hatred for the system, as can be inferred from his reaction to Ryan's words: “What did they know of life in Ulster, of the imperialist oppression, the way all Ireland was still enslaved to the decaying British Empire, which was, in turn, enslaved to the American one?” (68).
 O’Donnell’s hatred towards Anglo-Saxon imperialism has an explanation. It is based on his belief that western democratic systems are destined to disappear; an evolution that, in O’Donnell’s eyes, is inevitable, according to his scientific knowledge of historical development:

So vulnerable this society –all societies were when you had the proper resources… and a competent tailor. So shallow they were. So lacking in political awareness. One must know who one´s enemy´s are, O’Donnell told himself at least ten times everyday. Not a liberal “democratic” society, though. Enemies were people to be dealt with, compromised with, to be civilized, brought into the fold, co-opted.

   Fools, self-destructive, ignorant fools who earned their own destruction.

Someday they would all disappear, just as one of those ships slid beneath the horizon. History was a science, an inevitable process. O’Donnell was sure of that (67)

That is the reason why, unlike Jack Ryan, O’Donnell does not hesitate to justify a crime based on ideological premises: because he believes that his ideas have a scientific base. In fact, the terrorist leader concludes that murder only can be justified by ideological motives: “What was the point of killing something that could not harm you or your cause, something that had no ideology?” (67)

Thus, while Jack Ryan refuses to believe that a homicide can be ideologically justified, Kevin O’Donnell, the leader of the ULA, is convinced of the opposite. Both perspectives are presented in a dialectical relationship. This is not the only example of dialectical tension present in the novel, but it is fundamental because this ideological struggle between the main character and the terrorists is the cause of the following violent actions. Together, these actions set in motion an unstoppable process that worsens the situation of anomie, of which neither Jack Ryan nor his enemies manage to escape in time.

Global anomie and terrorism

Terrorism is a transversal axis of the novel Patriot Games and constitutes an anomic practice of both irregular groups and of so-called democratic states; according to Ricardo Esquivel:

To qualify as terrorism, an act must be politically motivated, must be directed against noncombatant targets and use extreme violence (air piracy, kidnapping, murder, car bombs). The political objectives of terrorism might differ among groups and can be based on nationalism, separatism, religious freedom, specific issues or some other political objective [...] However, terrorism can be authored by the US and its allies; an example is Sunni fundamentalism implemented by the CIA (1983) in Afghanistan and used against Iran (32-33)[2].

          In Patriot Games, ideological struggle becomes the triggering factor of global anomie.  Ideology is the force behind the Ulster Liberation Army terrorist practices, and it is the motive behind the attack of the ULA against the Crown Prince, in which Jack Ryan intervenes. Likewise, ideology is the reason behind the terrorist organization decision to target Jack Ryan: not only because of his intervention in the attack but also because of his condition as an American. In O’Donnell’s eyes, the United States is not only the imperial crown to which the "decadent" British government is subject, as mentioned before, but also a place where the IRA militants (Provos), despised by  O’Donnell, have a strong support: “Americans. The Provo fools still like to talk it up with your kind, telling their lies and pretending that they represent Ireland. What do you Yanks know about anything? Oh, but we can´t afford to offend the Americans, the Provos still said” (67). The global scope of the events and the characters of the novel are an example of the global anomie mentioned before.

           That is the reason why Kevin O’Donnell plans a mission to free the ULA terrorist captured after the failed attempt on the crown prince: because he wants to export revolutionary violence to America. Sean Miller, O’Donnell’s favorite, is in charge of planning and organizing the attack against Jack Ryan and his family in the United States: “Miller smiled for a moment. He refilled his own glass this time as the other two talked on. His own mind began assembling a plan” (189). But the plan is only partially successful, because Miller does not manage to kill Jack Ryan; However, Ryan´s daughter and wife are injured in a car after being machine-gunned from a Van: “a foot-long tongue of flame spit out from the side of the van. The windshield of the Porsche went cloudy and the car served sideways, straightened out, then slammed into the bridge´s concrete work at over fifty miles per hour” (264). In this way, the terrorist practices of the ULA, previously limited to the European space, —“No Irish terrorist group had ever operated in the United States” (184)— extends to the American continent, expanding the scope of social anomie. Besides, the ULA not only attacks Jack Ryan, the terrorists undertake another attack on American soil, during the visit of the British Crown Prince to the United States, after the assault on Jack Ryan´s family: “O’Donnell paused, holding up the letter Cooley had delivered. It would seem that His Royal Highness will be visiting America next summer. The Treasure Houses Exhibit was such a success that they are going to stage another one” (328).

          In this context, the terrorist group is not the only one to retaliate against those it considers its ideological enemies. Jack Ryan, a victim of the ULA, is conscious of the damage inflicted on his wife and daughter, and decides to avenge it: “He kissed Sally´s bruised forehead before leaving. Jack felt better now, better about almost everything. But one item remained. The people who had done this to his little girl” (310). It is then when the terrorist practices of the ULA open the door to global anomie.

          In fact, this type of global anomie is present in the novel from the beginning, as can be inferred from the main character, Jack Ryan, whose behavior does not always follow the rules. However, Ryan´s behavior is not exclusive. After the attack on the crown prince, David Ashley, an agent of the British Home Office, is summoned to a meeting by IRA staff. The meeting takes place in Dublin, in a restaurant where Ashley meets Mr. Murphy, a member of the intelligence body of the IRA, who informs him that this organization had no responsability in the attack against the prince. Moreover, he proposes to assassinate the person responsible, that is, Kevin O’Donnell, the leader of the ULA, if the British secret service shares with the IRA the intelligence information of its whereabouts; a proposal accepted by agent Ashley:

[…] If we find Kevin again, Mr. Ashley, we´ll do your work for you, and leave the body for your SAS assassins to collect. Would that be fair enough now? We cannot exactly tout the enemy, but he´s on our list, too, and if you manage to find the lad, and you don´t wish to bring him in yourselves, we´ll handle the job for you –assuming, of course, that you don´t interfere with the lads who do the work. Can we agree on that?”

- “I´ll pass that along,” Ashley said. “If I could approve it myself, I would. Mr. Murphy, I think we can believe you on this”.

- “Thank you, Mr. Ashley.  That wasn´t so painful, was it?”

Dinner was excellent (62).

Nevertheless, O’Donnell’s whereabouts are never discovered, and the proposal remains only as a possibility that does not materialize during the course of the novel. However, since world anomy is the characteristic trait of the Cold War, dirty war practices are not confined to a specific region. In this sense, the anomic confusion of David Ashley and of the British secret service is not exclusive to the members of this institution. In fact, the French and American secret services also manifest the same disposition to violate the law in the fight against its adversaries. The best example is the CIA, an institution that not only tolerates but also promotes this type of behavior among its agents. One of them is Jack Ryan, whose behavior undergoes a profound transformation due to the intelligence material he discovers by chance.

Indeed, among the material collected, Ryan finds a photograph whose discovery creates the conditions for an illegal operation in the international field: a satellite photograph of a training camp in Libya, in which a female figure appears: “Camp 11-5-20, he saw, showed a girl in one photo” (325). Once this material is selected, the agents discover that the woman in the photo is a member of the French terrorist group Action-Directe: “(R)emember the satellite photo of the girl in the bikini? The French think they´ve ID´d her: Francoise Theroux. Long, dark hair, a striking figure, and she was thought to be out of the country when the photo was made. That confirms that the camp belongs to Action-Directe” (338). This discovery is shared with the French secret services, who carry out an antiterrorist operation to bring the criminals to justice, apparently; the truth is that they are extra judicially executed. At least that is what Ryan concludes when CIA agents show him the video of the operation carried out by the French: “it had been a perfect covert operation. And if that much effort had gone into making it so, then there was little reason to suspect that the Action-Directe people would ever face a jury” (373). As a matter of fact, Jack Ryan is quite right about the fate of the French terrorists, as his superior, Marty Cantor, points out days later, when they meet to analyze a second photograph and Cantor tells Ryan that the French have been executed: “(T)he ones who got picked up are no longer with us. They were given trials by military tribunal and executed two weeks ago” (402).

This news, as expected, has its consequences on Ryan´s personality. As mentioned before, Jack Ryan rejects the idea that a homicide can be ideologically justified. But after his admission to the CIA and the extrajudicial execution of the French, he changes his mind. According to Ryan, democratic frameworks are inefficient to combat terrorism: “Terrorists could fight a war and be protected by the democratic processes of their enemy. If those processes were obviated, the terrorists would win additional political support, but so long as those processes were not obviated, it was extremely difficult for them to lose” (377). Therefore, Ryan concludes that the fight against terrorism can only be carried out outside the democratic frameworks, although this is not the right step: “The CIA had given data on terrorist to someone else, and action had been taken as a result. What he had seen earlier, therefore, was a step in the right direction, even if it wasn´t necessarily the right kind of step” (378). In other words, the character ends up justifying the anomie of the system as a necessary element in the fight against terrorism, a reaction that his superiors in the CIA already expected: “It´s about time he found out what the game´s really like. Everybody has to learn that” (378)[3].

This is the reason behind Jack Ryan´s apathy when his superior, Marty Cantor, informs him that a similar operation is going to be carried out against the ULA, whose training camp they discover in Libya:

- “ […] the boss just cleared you for something. There´s an op laid on for Camp -18”.

-“ What kind?”

-“The kind you watched before. Is that still bothering you?

- “No, not really”. What bothers me is that it doesn´t bother me, Ryan thought. Maybe it should… Not with these guys, I don´t. When? (414)

Hence, the ideological frontiers erected between the main character and his enemies begin to blur, since both sides coincide in one aspect: in their conviction that the ends justify the means, for both of them consider that criminal behavior can be ideologically justified. Such is the reason behind Jack Ryan´s assault on Sean Miller, the mastermind behind the attack on his family. Fortunately, Ryan´s assault is blocked by Sergeant Breckenridge: “I know what you´re thinking, what he did to your little girl, but it isn´t worth what you´d have to go through” (498). Thus, the novel unveils the global anomie behind the façade of American democratic order.  It even goes far beyond, paradoxically, for the novel shows how the latter is the necessary condition for the former to originate.

Conclusion

Patriot Games is, therefore, a novel that recreates the global anomie of the Cold War period. The book exposes the reasons behind this social anomie: in the first place, the ideological struggle between Third World revolutionary groups and the First World powers; secondly, the unifying discourse of terrorism, whose influence shapes world politics; and in the third place technology, whose role in international affairs is fundamental. Indeed, in Patriot Games ideological struggle is the engine of terrorist violence, exercised through all kinds of technological devices, from lethal weapons to satellites used by the dominant centers to spy and control the global south. In this sense, world anomie is no longer the result of an inadequate division of labor as Durkheim proposed or the result of a lack of correspondence between cultural goals and the existing institutional means to achieve such goals. Anomie in Patriot Games is of a different kind. According to the novel, the anomic behavior of the world order (identified with the illusion of modern democracies), is the result of the interaction between ideology, individuals and technological devices, a vision that resembles the Actor Network´s theory.

           However, unlike Latin American crime novels, which also recreate social anomie, in Patriot Games there is an alleged legal sanction at the end of the story, the terrorists of the ULA are punished. In this aspect, Patriot Games remains faithful to the American tradition of noir literature due to its confidence in the legal system to solve the problems associated with crime. The best example is Sergeant Breckenridge, who does not allow Jack Ryan to extrajudicially execute Sean Miller, based on his belief that law will be more implacable: “you have committed murder in a place that has a gas chamber. You can die by the numbers over here, people. Think about it” (498); but who best expresses this confidence in the legal system, paradoxically, is the main character, Jack Ryan, who at the end of the book says that the system works if there is enough good will: “You have a pretty good system over there. You just have to make it work for everybody, and do it well enough that they believe” (500). 

           From this literary perspective, the Cold War was a geopolitical framework that Western nations used to internally create the appearance of a democratic order, in a profoundly unequal and anomic world, with the aim of advancing an imperial agenda in the periphery. At least, that is the message implied, for despite the anomic context described, in the end the main character ends up celebrating the virtues of the American democratic system; a model that is not applied in the Third World, as can be inferred from the fact that the French and American secret services on two occasions violate the sovereignty of an African country to eliminate the terrorists of Action Directe and the ULA.

            Therefore, from the perspective of the Global South, in which Latin America is inscribed, Patriot Games is a book that recreates the logic of neocolonialism. In this sense, the novel recreates colonial practices in the Third World, as exposed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Doris Wieser (2018) who mentions these practices to analyze several novels of Latin American crimes. This condition can be described as an order in which "international laws are not applied by the North when it operates in the South". Thus, from a peripheral perspective, the value of the novel lies in its ability to clearly expose this situation, despite its exacerbated patriotism and propaganda about the virtues of American democracy.

Works cited

Clancy, Tom. Patriot Games. U.S: G.P. Putnam´s sons, 1987

Cohen, Rich. “Tom Clancy: Master of War”. Rolling Stones. (1994), Digital. 29 Sept.2019 https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/tom-clancy-master-of-war-19941201

Commager, Henry Steele. Documents of American History. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1962

“Dirty war”. Collins English Dictionary, web 01 Oct. 2019, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dirty-war

Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960

Elhefnawy, Nader. “The rise and fall of the military Techno Thriller”. Internet Review of Science Fiction, 2009, Digital. 23 Oct. 2018 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3192419

Engelhardt, Tom. The End of Victory Culture. Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation. New York: BasicBooks, 1995.

Esquivel, Ricardo. Colombia indefensa. Bogotá: Planeta, 2001

Forero Quintero, Gustavo. La anomia en la novela de crímenes en Colombia. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores, 2012.

---. La novela de crímenes en América Latina. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre, 2017.

---. Justicia y paz en la novela de crímenes.  Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores, 2018.

---. “La anomia del terrorismo en las novelas de crímenes Cruz de olvido, de Carlos Cortés, Los minutos negros, de Martín Solares, y Abril rojo, de Santiago Roncagliolo”. Estudios N. 43. Universidad Simón Bolívar de Caracas (http://www.revistaestudios.ll.usb.ve/sites/default/files/Estudios%2043/Gustavo%20Forero.pdf).

---. “El papel de las fuerzas armadas en el conflicto armado del Perú: Abril rojo, de Santiago Roncagliolo”. En Forero Quintero, Gustavo (Ed). Trece formas de entender la novela negra. Bogotá: Planeta, 2012, pp. 255-292.

Guyau, Jean Marie. The non-religion of the future, a sociological study. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1897

Kropotkin, Pëtr. “Anarchist Morality”. The anarchist Library, 1897, Digital22 Mar.2018https://archive.org/stream/al_Petr_Kropotkin_Anarchist_Morality_a4/Petr_Kropotkin__Anarchist_Morality_a4#page/n23/mode/2up

Merton, K. Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: the Free Press, 1968

Renmin Ribao. “Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism” Ed. Paul Saba. Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line, Digital. 17 Oct. 2018 https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/theory-3-worlds/index.htm

 Sauvy, Alfred. “Trois Mondes, Une Planete”. L´Observateur, 1952, Digital. 17Oct.2018 http://www.homme-moderne.org/societe/demo/sauvy/3mondes.html

Verbeek, Peter-Paul. What things do? Philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005

Wallerstein, Immanuel. “US Weakness and the struggle for hegemony”. Monthly Review. (2003), Digital. 22 Mar.2018 https://monthlyreview.org/2003/07/01/u-s-weakness-and-the-struggle-for-hegemony/

Wieser, Doris. “Repensando la justicia y la impunidad: colonialidad, pensamiento abismal y colonialismo interno en la novela negra hispanoamericana”. Justicia y paz en la novela de crímenes. Ed. Gustavo Forero Quintero. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre, 2018. 25-45. Impreso.

Zedong, Mao. “On the question of the differentiation of the three worlds”. Marxists.org, 1974, Digital. 17Oct.2018 http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv10n1/mao.htm

[1] The english text is a translation by the authors: “Para las potencias hegemónicas el fin de la Guerra Fría, lejos de un nuevo orden, significó el caos”

[2] The english text is a translation by the authors: “Para calificarse de terrorista, un acto debe ser políticamente motivado, ser dirigido contra objetivos no combatientes y usar violencia extranormal (aeropiratería, secuestro, asesinato, carros bomba). Los objetivos políticos del terrorismo pueden ser variadísimos entre grupos y pueden basarse en nacionalismo, separatismo, libertad religiosa, temas específicos o algún otro objetivo político […] Sin embargo, el terrorismo puede tener autoría de EE.UU y sus aliados; por ejemplo, el fundamentalismo Sunni implementado por la CÍA (1983) en Afganistán y usado contra Irán”  (32-33).

[3] It is interesting to compare the representation of anomie derived from the terrorism policy of Patriot Games with similar cases in Latin America analyzed by Forero in "The anomie of terrorism in the crime novels Cruz de olvido, by Carlos Cortés, Los minutos negros by Martín Solares, and Abril rojo by Santiago Roncagliolo "(2016) and "The Role of the Armed Forces in the Armed Conflict of Peru: April Red, by Santiago Roncagliolo" (2012). In these novels, there is also the use of the concept of terrorism to the detriment of some social groups.