Abstract
With the inequities present around the world, the nature of terrorism is both puzzling and ruinous. What remains irrefutable about terrorism is how its connotation translates into its accepted definition. Political rhetoric often utilizes “terrorism” to create a narrative, often to justify the use of state violence to preserve “national security.” This research investigates to what extent the definition of terrorism has been altered to serve as a mask for naked self-interest by the US state and political elites. Emphasis will be placed on spikes of anti-terrorism rhetoric in US foreign policy since the 1980’s. Three case studies display the evolving “definition” of terrorism – the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. To understand the evolutionary process, explanations analyze whether they were influenced by personal motivations, mindsets, or whether it was the perpetuation of preexisting institutions. The importance of this study surrounds the relationship between the changing linguistics of terrorism, those who engage in it, and how it fuels conflict. With rhetorical manipulation as a key part of U.S. foreign policy, there may be evidence of its use to reconstruct America’s identity and also to strengthen global democratic practices. This may further political policies in the short-term, this does not benefit the state in the long-term. Without cohesive comprehension when it comes to terrorism, there is limited success that counter-terrorism operations will have. Without acknowledging a concrete definition of terrorism, there is a limit to the success that military force will have in dealing with foreign threats.
Faculty Sponsors
Dr. G. Nelson Bass
Project Type
Event
Location
Alvin Sherman Library
Start Date
4-8-2016 1:00 PM
End Date
4-8-2016 5:30 PM
The Linguistics of Terrorism
Alvin Sherman Library
With the inequities present around the world, the nature of terrorism is both puzzling and ruinous. What remains irrefutable about terrorism is how its connotation translates into its accepted definition. Political rhetoric often utilizes “terrorism” to create a narrative, often to justify the use of state violence to preserve “national security.” This research investigates to what extent the definition of terrorism has been altered to serve as a mask for naked self-interest by the US state and political elites. Emphasis will be placed on spikes of anti-terrorism rhetoric in US foreign policy since the 1980’s. Three case studies display the evolving “definition” of terrorism – the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. To understand the evolutionary process, explanations analyze whether they were influenced by personal motivations, mindsets, or whether it was the perpetuation of preexisting institutions. The importance of this study surrounds the relationship between the changing linguistics of terrorism, those who engage in it, and how it fuels conflict. With rhetorical manipulation as a key part of U.S. foreign policy, there may be evidence of its use to reconstruct America’s identity and also to strengthen global democratic practices. This may further political policies in the short-term, this does not benefit the state in the long-term. Without cohesive comprehension when it comes to terrorism, there is limited success that counter-terrorism operations will have. Without acknowledging a concrete definition of terrorism, there is a limit to the success that military force will have in dealing with foreign threats.
