On November 27th, François Hollande and its government gave a national homage to the victims of November 13th attacks in Paris. A certain number of analysts, scholars, and journalists have claimed, sometimes in an oversimplifying manner, that the events, killing 130 individuals and wounding 413 others, were the “French 9/11”. Clearly, this claim needs to be qualified on various levels: not only were they caused by a different terrorist organisation, Daesh, but they also occurred in a different context. Yet, it seems informative to study closer the similarities and differences of the discursive reactions to those events between the Bush administration in 2001 and Hollande’s in 2015. If both Presidents mention an “enemy” and express the opposition
…show more content…
Language is not a neutral alignment of words; it translates a whole vision of a world. More specifically, in the mouth of politicians, language is even an exercise of power. The use of the language relating to “good vs. evil” having been intensified post 9/11, we shall wonder in what ways has the religious dichotomy instrumentalized by the Bush administration contributed to shape the war on terror.
This paper will argue that this theological vision has been used as a strategic tool for Bush administration as to normalise and justify the counter-terrorism campaign.
In order to demonstrate our thesis, we will argue that writing and speaking about 9/11 and the war on terror, axed around the rhetoric of “good vs. evil”, has been a strategic construction undertaken by the US which had the objective of building an “Other” and the idea of a “Just war” as to gain support for its foreign policy. We will then show that the rhetoric of “good vs. evil” has participated in the aim in depoliticizing the war on terror, therefore normalising numerous excesses of …show more content…
evil” discourse per se, we shall first define the notion of discourse and explain its importance into the analysis of the war on terror. A discourse is a “particular way of talking about and understanding the world that gives meaning to experiences from a particular perspective” (Jorgensen and Philips 2002:157, cited in Jackson, 2005), which is not limited to language so far as it also includes discursive practises. (Hodgson 2000:62). As a matter of fact, discourse, including language is subjective so far as it not only describes the world, but also reflects a certain understanding of it, as it “shapes our understanding of the world around us” (Collins and Glover 2002:4). In fact, not only does language and discourse reflect the world we perceive, but also in return make the world. As a matter of fact, discourse hence has a reality-making effect (Jackson, 2005:21). Language affecting perceptions, cognitions, and emotions, there is a direct link between its power and politics as it influences social processes and structures. And still, there have been for years few analyses of the influence of the discourse post 9/11, studies of the war on terror generally focusing on the geo-political aspects of the action, bypassing the rhetorical dimension that goes along with it. Yet, it appears that the concept of evil, which is recurrent in the Bush administration public declarations, is informative as to the understanding of the
Language is not a neutral alignment of words; it translates a whole vision of a world. More specifically, in the mouth of politicians, language is even an exercise of power. The use of the language relating to “good vs. evil” having been intensified post 9/11, we shall wonder in what ways has the religious dichotomy instrumentalized by the Bush administration contributed to shape the war on terror.
This paper will argue that this theological vision has been used as a strategic tool for Bush administration as to normalise and justify the counter-terrorism campaign.
In order to demonstrate our thesis, we will argue that writing and speaking about 9/11 and the war on terror, axed around the rhetoric of “good vs. evil”, has been a strategic construction undertaken by the US which had the objective of building an “Other” and the idea of a “Just war” as to gain support for its foreign policy. We will then show that the rhetoric of “good vs. evil” has participated in the aim in depoliticizing the war on terror, therefore normalising numerous excesses of …show more content…
evil” discourse per se, we shall first define the notion of discourse and explain its importance into the analysis of the war on terror. A discourse is a “particular way of talking about and understanding the world that gives meaning to experiences from a particular perspective” (Jorgensen and Philips 2002:157, cited in Jackson, 2005), which is not limited to language so far as it also includes discursive practises. (Hodgson 2000:62). As a matter of fact, discourse, including language is subjective so far as it not only describes the world, but also reflects a certain understanding of it, as it “shapes our understanding of the world around us” (Collins and Glover 2002:4). In fact, not only does language and discourse reflect the world we perceive, but also in return make the world. As a matter of fact, discourse hence has a reality-making effect (Jackson, 2005:21). Language affecting perceptions, cognitions, and emotions, there is a direct link between its power and politics as it influences social processes and structures. And still, there have been for years few analyses of the influence of the discourse post 9/11, studies of the war on terror generally focusing on the geo-political aspects of the action, bypassing the rhetorical dimension that goes along with it. Yet, it appears that the concept of evil, which is recurrent in the Bush administration public declarations, is informative as to the understanding of the