The War on Terrorism as Political Communication
Considering different cultural codes and world views, the research demonstrates how the metaphor “War on Terrorism”is highly counterproductive for communication on the global level.Deltakere G. Matthew Bonham, Syracuse University
The research discusses the difficulties of defining terrorism, because, unlike Marxism or capitalism, terrorism is not an ideology. Instead the term may be used to designate actions that are used by members of non-governmental organizations against civilian targets. In the case of the war on terrorism, the signifier, terrorism, is used widely by many, including the governments of the United States, Russia, and Sri Lanka. However, the signified, the perpetrators and what they do, are quite different: Al-Qaida, the Chechens, and the Tamil Tigers. Because the designation of the signified depends upon the speaker, the concept of terrorism seems to be subjective and fluid. The signified switches radically both by context and over time, while the only aspect that is stable is the signifier, terrorism. The proposal goes on to illustrate differences in the perception of terrorism by doing a cognitive analysis of this sign, using examples from speeches of G8 leaders from countries like France, Germany, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the USA. Finally, the proposed research analyzes the war on terrorism as an ontological metaphor. The proposal concludes by arguing that although figures of speech contribute to the cognitive dimension of meaning by helping us to recognize the equivalence to which we are committed and suggesting new equivalences, metaphors like the war on terrorism raise problems and do little to increase our understanding. Considering different cultural codes and world views, this type of metaphor is highly counterproductive for communication on the global level.
Finansiering
Syracuse University, New York
Publikasjoner
- Heradstveit, Daniel , D.C. Pugh
(2005). The Rhetoric of Hegemony,
i Yearbook of Sociology , vol 10 nr. 2
.s. 1-34. [url] - Heradstveit, Daniel , G. Matthew Bonham
(2007). What the Axis of Evil Metaphor Did to Iran,
i The Middle East Journal, vol. 61, nr. 3
.Washington DC,Middle East Institute.s. 421-440. [url] - Heradstveit, Daniel , G. Matthew Bonham, Michiko Nakano, Victor M.Sergeev (2007). How We Talk about the “War on Terrorism”: Comparative Research on Japan, Russia, and the United States. NUPI-notat: 729. 14 sider. Paperet drøfter vanskelighetene med å kommunisere ”Krigen mot terrorisme” på det globale nivå