Rhetoric and/as Terrorism: Notes on September 11

Abstract

This article analyzes the complex interplay between rhetoric and terrorism in the aftermath of September 11. The paper explores how language can both perpetuate and mitigate violence, drawing on insights from a workshop that included journalists, academics, and diplomats. The author contends that rhetoric operates as an event horizon, mediating between the event itself and its representations. This study examines two definitions of rhetoric: first, as representation or recollection, and second, as language used for persuasion and action, termed the 'weaponized signifier.' The article argues that post-September 11 discourse often mirrors the violence it seeks to condemn, failing to make distinctions and thus constituting rhetorical terrorism. Key findings include the identification of specific rhetorical strategies such as allegory, prosopopoeia, and Manichaeism in political discourse. The paper demonstrates how these strategies contribute to a language of paranoia and fear, ultimately blurring boundaries between concepts and entities. This work investigates the ethical implications of rhetoric in times of crisis, highlighting the dual nature of language as both problem and potential remedy.

(The abstract and keywords were prepared retrospectively for indexing purposes using AI-assisted tools and editorial review, based on the original article. They did not appear in the original publication.)