In this paper I argue that an interesting way to investigate the impact of events is to do a ‘follow the event’: tracing the various imperatives for change that people attach to it in the years afterwards. I apply this approach through a discourse analysis of the discursive associations to the term ‘9/11’ in newspaper articles in the United States, France and the Netherlands. The analysis shows how the same happening can evoke varying imperatives for change in different social contexts. In the United States, 9/11 is an attack on the own territory’s safety, which incites ensuring safety both internally (creating the Patriot Act) as well as internationally (invading Afghanistan and Iraq). In France, it is essentially an attack on another (Western) country, with little consequences for domestic policies. And in the Netherlands, 9/11 becomes an assault of Muslims on progressive lifestyles, which fosters the implementation of assimilationist integration policies.
