1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

This study of the politics of representation illustrates the Bush Administration’s use of a religious mode of representation to make sense of the 9/11 events, to legitimize military actions against the Taliban, Afghanistan, and terrorism in general. The religious mode of representation is enabled by the construction and application of what we call the “War on Terrorism script,” which is grounded in the institution of “American civil religion.” We demonstrate the unique power of this mode of representation to create a coherent account at a time of national crisis, to establish connections between the 9/11 perpetrators, the Taliban, and the Afghanistan government. By comparing the Bush Administration’s discourse with those voiced by dissenters and critics using intellectual, rational, and legal representations and modes of argumentation in the post-9/11 contexts, we demonstrate how the institutionalization of a particular mode of speaking influence a particular mode of thinking and a particular mode of acting. We also argue that the convention governing political discourse have significant implications in determining the legitimacy of definitions and interpretations of political situations as well as of political actions.

© 2006 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.16.1.01cha
2006-01-01
2024-12-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.16.1.01cha
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbuKhalil, As‘ad
    (2002) Bin Laden, Islam, and America’s new “War on Terrorism.”New York: Seven Stories Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman, Seth
    (2001) Network of insiders: TV news relied mainly on officials to discuss policy. EXTRA! November/December 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). www.fair.org/extra/0111/network-study.html (accessed2 August 2004).
  3. Bellah, Robert N
    ([1966] 1968) Civil religion in America. In William G. McLoughlin and Robert N. Bellah (eds.), Religion in America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 3-23.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (1980a) Introduction. In Robert N. Bellah and Philip E. Hammond (eds.), Varieties of Civil Religion. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, pp. vii-xv.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (1980b) Religion and the legitimation of the American republic. In Robert N. Bellah and Philip E. Hammond (eds.), Varieties of Civil Religion. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, pp. 3-23.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Burke, Kenneth
    (1989) On Symbols and Society. Edited by Joseph R. Gusfield . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Calhoun, Craig , Paul Price , and Ashley Timmer
    (eds.) (2002) Understanding September 11. New York: The New Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chilton, Paul
    (ed.) (1985) Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak today. London and Dover, New Hampshire: Frances Printer.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chilton, Paul A
    (2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chilton, Paul , and Christina Schäffner
    (1997) Discourse and politics. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction volume 2. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 206-230.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky, Noam
    (2002) Understanding power: The indispensable Chomsky. Edited by Peter R. Mitchell and John Scholeffel . New York: New Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chouliaraki, Lilie
    (2004) Watching September 11: The politics of pity. Discourse and Society15.2-3: 185-198. doi: 10.1177/0957926504041016
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041016 [Google Scholar]
  13. Coles, Roberta L
    (2002a) Manifest destiny adapted for 1990s’ war discourse: Mission and destiny intertwined. Sociology of Religion 63.4: 403-426. doi: 10.2307/3712300
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3712300 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2002b) War and the contest over national identity. The Sociological Review 50.40: 586-609. doi: 10.1111/1467‑954X.00400
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00400 [Google Scholar]
  15. Craige, Betty Jean
    (1996) American patriotism in a global society. New York: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dolny, Michael
    (2002) Think tanks in a time of crisis: FAIR’s 2001 survey of the media’s institutional experts. EXTRA! March/April 2002, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). www.fair.org/extra/0203/think_tanks.html (accessed 2 August 2004).
  17. Dixon, Wheeler Winston
    (ed.) (2004) Film and television after 9/11. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Drew, Paul , and John Heritage
    (1992) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Durkheim, Emile
    ([1912] 1995) The elementary forms of religious life. Translated by Karen E. Fields . New York: The Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Edwards, John
    (2004) After the fall. Discourse and Society15.2-3: 155-184. doi: 10.1177/0957926504041015
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041015 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fairclough, Norman
    (1995) Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Foucault, Michel
    (1972) The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Garfinkel, Harold
    (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Glaser, Barney G. , and Anselm L. Strauss
    (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodwin, Charles
    (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96.3: 606-633. doi: 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gumperz, John J
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  27. Holquist, Michael
    (1983) The politics of representation. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 5.1: 2-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Juergensmeyer, Mark
    (2002) Religious terror and global war. In Craig Calhoun , Paul Price , and Ashley Timmer (eds.), Understanding September 11. New York: The New Press, pp. 27-40.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Keane, Webb
    (1997) Religious language. Annual Review of Anthropology26: 47-71. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.47
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kellner, Douglas
    (2003) From 9/11 to Terror War: The dangers of the Bush legacy. Lanhan, Maryland and Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, George
    (2004) Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chealsea Green Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Leudar, Ivan , Victoria Marsland , and Jiri Nekvapil
    (2004) On membership categorization: ‘Us’, ‘them’ and ‘doing violence’ in political discourse. Discourse and Society15.2-3: 243-266. doi: 10.1177/0957926504041019
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041019 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lincoln, Bruce
    (2002) Holy terrors: Thinking about religion after September 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226481944.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226481944.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Maynard, Douglas W. , and Steven E. Clayman
    (1991) The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology17: 385-418. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.002125
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.002125 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mehan, Hugh
    (1979) Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
     https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1997) The discourse of the illegal immigration debate: A case study in the politics of representation. Discourse and Society 8.2: 249-270. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008002006
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002006 [Google Scholar]
  37. ([1993] 2000) Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of representation. In Bradley A.U. Levinson , Kathyrn M. Borman , Margaret Eisenhart , Michele Foster , Amy E. Fox , and Margaret Sutton (eds.), Schooling the Symbolic Animal: Social and Cultural Dimensions of Education. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 259-279.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Mehan, Hugh , Charles E. Nathanson , and James M. Skelly
    (1990) Nuclear discourse in the 1980s: The unraveling conventions of the Cold War. Discourse and Society1.2: 133-165. doi: 10.1177/0957926590001002002
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926590001002002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mehan, Hugh , and James Skelly
    (1988) Reykjavik: The breach and repair of the pure war script. Multilingua7.1/2: 35-66. doi: 10.1515/mult.1988.7.1‑2.35
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1988.7.1-2.35 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mehan, Hugh , and John Willis
    (1988) MEND: A nurturing voice in the nuclear arms debate. Social Problems35.4: 363-383. doi: 10.2307/800592
     https://doi.org/10.2307/800592 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mehan, Hugh B. , and Sarah A. Roberts
    (2001) Thinking the nation: Representations of nations and the Pacific Rim in Latin American and Asian textbooks. Narrative Inquiry11.1: 195-217. doi: 10.1075/ni.11.1.08meh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.11.1.08meh [Google Scholar]
  42. Nathanson, Charles E
    (1988) The social construction of the Soviet threat. Alternatives13: 443-83. doi: 10.1177/030437548801300402
     https://doi.org/10.1177/030437548801300402 [Google Scholar]
  43. Perrow, Charles
    (1999) Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Pierard, Richard V. , and Robert D. Linder
    (1988) Civil religion and the presidency. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Pollner, Melvin
    (1987) Mundane reason: Reality in everyday and sociological discourse. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Robinson, W.S
    (1951) The logical structure of analytic induction. American Sociological Review16: 812-818. doi: 10.2307/2087508
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2087508 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schank, Roger C. , and Robert P. Abelson
    (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Schudson, Michael
    (1989) How culture works: Perspectives from media studies on the efficacy of symbols. Theory and Society18: 153-180. doi: 10.1007/BF00160753
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160753 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schutz, Alfred
    (1962) Collected papers, vol. I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Shapiro, Michael
    (1988) The politics of representation. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. U.S. House
    (2001)  Authorizing use of United States armed forces against those responsible for recent attacks against the United States . H.J.Res. 64. 107th Congress, 1st Session(14 September 2001). Congressional Record147(120): H5638-H5681.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Van Belle, William , and Paul Claes
    (1985) The logic of deterrence: A semiotic and psychoanalytic approach. In Paul Chilton (ed.), Language and the nuclear arms debate: Nukespeak today. London, UK and Dover, New Hampshire: Frances Printer, pp. 91-102.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Dijk , Teun A
    (1980) Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Vaughan, Diane
    (1996) The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Virilio, Paul , and Sylvere Lotringer
    ([1983] 1997) Pure war: Revised edition. Translated by Mark Polizzotti . New York: Semiotext(e).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Weick, Karl E
    (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.16.1.01cha
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Discourse strategies; Politics of representation; The discourse of war and peace

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error