1. Introduction to the On-Demand Lecture Matt Bonham Professor of Political Science Maxwell School of Syracuse University Specializations: international political communications and applications of computer technology to the study of policy decision-making Matt Bonham Slide 1 Rhetoric of Terrorism

2. 1. Review of my lecture on figurative language 2. Role of figures of speech in everyday life 3. “The War on Terrorism”: Background 4. Semiotic Analysis of “Terrorism” 5. The Rhetoric of “Terrorism” 6. The War on Terrorism as Political Communication 7. Figurative Language 8. Extension of the Metaphor 9. Examples: USA, UK, Russia, and Japan Slide 2 Rhetoric of Terrorism Outline of the Lecture

3. 1. Growing acceptance of the rhetorical component of knowledge 2. Empiricist forms of social science are less dependent on the referential theory of meaning that distinguishes between literal utterances and the figurative 3. 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

4. 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

5. 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,” or 3. Suggest new more challenging equivalences, e.g., the “Axis of Evil.” Slide 5 Rhetoric of Terrorism Review

6. 1. The carefully planned and coordinated terror attack of September 11, 2001 was the bloodiest attack on the American mainland in modern times 2. 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

7. 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 agenda 2. But how does one make war on terrorism or any other “ism”? Slide 7 Rhetoric of Terrorism President Bush on September 11, 2001 Play Excerpt of the Speech

8. 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

9. 1. One of the problems is that the “ism” suffix is usually associated with an ideology, such as Marxism or communism 2. But “terrorism” is not an ideology 3. Instead, it is regarded as a method that is used against civilian targets Slide 9 Rhetoric of Terrorism Terrorism as an “Ism”

10. 1. The term is used to designate people who are doing things to others, the victims, for a wide variety of reasons 2. 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

11. 1. To help clarify this problem we can turn to the continental semiotic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure 2. 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

12. 1. For Saussure, a sign consists of a signifier and a signified 2. The relationship between the signifier and the signified is referred to as signification 3. 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

13. 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 business 4. 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”

14. 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)

15. 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

16. 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 time 3. The only aspect that is stable is the signifier, “Terrorism” Slide 16 Rhetoric of Terrorism Terrorism Al-Qaida Chechen Rebels Tamil Tigers

17. 1. The rhetoric of terrorism is being waged with weapons that are loose, diffuse, and highly flexible 2. 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

18. Slide 18 Rhetoric of Terrorism The Japanese Understanding Of the “War on Terrorism” Neither the signifier nor the signified are clear cut

19. 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 )

20. Slide Rhetoric of Terrorism

21. Slide Rhetoric of Terrorism