Slide 1
description
Transcript of Slide 1
Introduction to the On-Demand Lecture
Matt BonhamProfessor of Political Science
Maxwell School of Syracuse University
Specializations: international political communications and applications of computer technology to the study of
policy decision-making Slide 1
Rhetoric of Terrorism
1. Review of my lecture on figurative language2. Role of figures of speech in everyday life3. “The War on Terrorism”: Background4. Semiotic Analysis of “Terrorism”5. The Rhetoric of “Terrorism”6. The War on Terrorism as Political Communication7. Figurative Language8. Extension of the Metaphor9. Examples: USA, UK, Russia, and Japan
Slide 2
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Outline of the Lecture
1. Growing acceptance of the rhetorical component of knowledge2. Empiricist forms of social science are less dependent on the referential theory of meaning that distinguishes between literal utterances and the figurative3. Alternative philosophies of social science (phenomenology and constructivism) construe knowing as “active meaning.”4. Figures of speech are not just adornments but contribute to the cognitive dimension of meaning
Slide 3
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Review
Example: Address by President Bush on September 11th
“Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.”
The literal meaning: “Terrorists can not harm America”Slide 4
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Review
1. Figures of speech are familiar and easily recognized.2. Evoke the recognition of equivalences to which we are committed, e.g., the “war on terror,” or3. Suggest new more challenging equivalences, e.g., the “Axis of Evil.”
Slide 5
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Review
1. The carefully planned and coordinated terror attack of September 11, 2001 was the bloodiest attack on the American mainland in modern times2. Live TV coverage where CNN had the standing title of “America under attack” enabled the whole world to witness the unprecedented catastrophe Slide 6
Rhetoric of Terrorism
The “War on Terrorism: Background
President George W. Bush said among other things: “Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts… These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”
1. This is how President Bush put the “war on terrorism” on the international agenda2. But how does one make war on terrorism or any other “ism”?
Slide 7
Rhetoric of Terrorism
President Bush on September 11, 2001Play Excerpt of the Speech
1. A major problem for the coalition fighting terrorism is how to define what they are fighting against.
2. If there is no agreement on the term, oppressive regimes will add their own separatists, insurgents, and dissidents to the list of “international terrorists”
Slide 8
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Defining Terrorism
1. One of the problems is that the “ism” suffix is usually associated with an ideology, such as Marxism or communism2. But “terrorism” is not an ideology3. Instead, it is regarded as a method that is used against civilian targets
Slide 9
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Terrorism as an “Ism”
1. The term is used to designate people who are doing things to others, the victims, for a wide variety of reasons2. Here both the perpetrators and the victims are important in the definition. 3.The perpetrators are members of non-governmental organizations and the victims are civilians
Slide 10
Rhetoric of Terrorism
1. To help clarify this problem we can turn to the continental semiotic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure2. Saussure was born in Geneva in 1857. His contribution, Course of Linguistic General, was published after his death in 1916
Slide 11
Rhetoric of Terrorism
A Semiotic Approach
1. For Saussure, a sign consists of a signifier and a signified2. The relationship between the signifier and the signified is referred to as signification3. This is represented in the Saussurean diagram by the arrows 4. The horizontal line marking the two elements of the sign is referred to as the bar
Slide 12
Rhetoric of Terrorism
A Semiotic Approach
1. The word 'Open' (when it is invested with meaning by someone who encounters it on a shop doorway) is a sign consisting of the following:2. A signifier, the word “open” 3. A signified concept—that the shop is “open” for business4. A sign must have both a signifier and a signified. You cannot have a totally meaningless signifier or a completely formless signified
Slide 13
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Example: “Open”
1. The same signifier (the word “open”) could stand for a different signified (and thus be a different sign), if it were on a push-button inside an elevator (“push to open door”) 2. Similarly, many signifiers could stand for the concept “open” (for instance, on top of a packing carton, a small outline of a box with an open flap for “open this end”)— again, with each unique pairing constituting a different sign
Slide 14
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Example: Open (continued)
1. In the case of terrorism, the signifier, “terrorism” is used widely by many including the governments of the USA, Russia, and Sri Lanka 2. But the signified, the perpetrators and what they do are quite different: Al-Qaida, the Chechens, and the Tamil Tigers
Slide 15
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Terrorism
1. Because the designation of signified depends upon the speaker, the concept of terrorism is seems to be subjective and fluid.2. The signified switches radically both by context and over time3. The only aspect that is stable is the signifier, “Terrorism”
Slide 16
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Terrorism
Al-Qaida Chechen Rebels
Tamil Tigers
1. The rhetoric of terrorism is being waged with weapons that are loose, diffuse, and highly flexible2. The signifier is clear-cut, but the signified is not.3. Thus, the “war on terrorism” is largely a rhetorical instrument—a form of political communication that packs an emotional punch
Slide 17
Rhetoric of Terrorism
The War on Terrorism As Political Communication
Slide 18
Rhetoric of Terrorism
The Japanese Understanding Of the “War on Terrorism”
Neither the signifier nor the signified are clear cut
Slide 19
Rhetoric of Terrorism
The Japanese Understanding
“Fight against terrorism” ( テロリズムとの戦い )
“War on terrorism” (対テロ戦争)
“Terror” or “Terrorism” ( テロリズムとの闘い )
Slide
Rhetoric of Terrorism
Slide
Rhetoric of Terrorism