Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Norwegian Institute of International Affairs Author Daniel Heradstveit

1. How We Talk about the "War on Terrorism"

Author:
Daniel Heradstveit, G. Matthew Bonham, Michiko Nakano, and Victor M.Sergeev
Publication Date:
01-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
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.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, International Relations, International Cooperation, and Terrorism

2. How We Talk about the "War on Terrorism"

Author:
Daniel Heradstveit, G. Matthew Bonham, Michiko Nakano, and Victor M.Sergeev
Publication Date:
01-2007
Content Type:
Course Pack
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
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.
Topic:
Civil Society, Terrorism, War, Communications, and Governance

3. The Rhetoric of Hegemony

Author:
Daniel Heradstveit and David C. Pugh
Publication Date:
10-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
This paper looks at the rhetorical extension of the word “terrorism” to cover what used to be called guerrilla war, separatism, civil war, armed resistance and all other forms of political violence, down to and including non-lethal sabotage and vandalism. It begins by reflecting on how political power must be buttressed by legitimacy, which in turn involves the de-legitimisation of challengers. This is often achieved by assimilating political dissent to the “criminality” that by definition governments are created to combat. When governments use the term “order” to mean their own convenience, and the converse, this can effectively evoke the individual citizen's fear of personally suffering violence, even when he is in fact more at risk from the government itself than from its critics. In much the same way, “terror” no longer means government violence against citizens (as in the 19th century), nor solely violence against civilians by dissident groups; it has recently mutated to mean any armed resistance to the party deploying the rhetoric, even in conventional military forms. The terrorist label is the ultimate delegitimising technique, which may be employed to mobilise metropolitan populations to support a globally-coordinated suppression of resistance to the new world order.
Topic:
Crime, Human Welfare, Politics, and Terrorism

4. How the Axis of Evil Metaphor Changes Iranian Images of the USA

Author:
Daniel Heradstveit and G. Matthew Bonham
Publication Date:
06-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The respondents feared an American attack, and regarded their membership in «the Axis of Evil» as a stab in the back after Iranian help in Afghanistan. This demonisation was seen overwhelmingly in terms of American geopolitical designs, ignorance and downright irrationality – an expansionist superpower that is dangerously out of control. The WTC attack initially caused a strengthening of Iranian national unity and a more coherent foreign policy, but most of the respondents regard «the Axis of Evil» as killing the nascent dialogue with the USA stone dead and coming as a godsend to the conservatives and the ultras.
Topic:
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, America, Iran, and Middle East