How We Talk about the "War on Terrorism" : Comparative Research on Japan, Russia, and the United States
Working paper
Permanent lenke
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2395764Utgivelsesdato
2007Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
Originalversjon
Working Paper, NUPI nr 728. NUPI, 2007Sammendrag
This paper focuses on how leaders in Western countries talk about the “war on terrorism.”
The paper 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. However, the signified,
the perpetrators and what they do, are quite different. 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 paper goes on to analyze the “war on terrorism” as an ontological
metaphor. The paper 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.
Beskrivelse
-