Lectures at MGIMO University

Matt Bonham

Links to Resources

Bonham, Sergeev, and Parshin, "The Limited Test Ban Agreement: Emergence of New Knowledge Structures," International Studies Quarterly (1997) 41, 215-240.

Figurative Language (On Demand Lecture: 13 min and 35 sec)

Coding Exercise: State of the Union Address by President Bush on 29 January 2002. Excerpt | Uncoded | Coded

Research: The "War on Terrorism"

"The 'Axis of Evil' Metaphor and the Restructuring of Iranian Views toward the US," (with Daniel Heradstveit): Word | PowerPoint

"What the Axis of Evil Metaphor Did to Iran," (with Daniel Heradstveit): Article PDF | PowerPoint

"How We Talk about the 'War on Terrorism': Comparative Research on Japan, Russia, and the United States" (with Daniel Heradstveit, Michiko Nakano, and Victor Sergeev) Paper MSWord | PowerPoint

Multi-Point Videoconference: Non-Military Approaches to the War on Terrorism [March 2005]

How We Talk about the "War on Terrorism"

Matt Bonham

Introduction

This series of lectures focuses on how our political leaders talk about the “war on terrorism.” Before beginning this exercise, we will introduce some analytical tools that have relevance for the analysis of foreign policy: the rational actor approach, cognitive mapping, and linguistic analysis. These tools will be illustrated by case studies and excerpts from videos. After this introduction, we will use these tools to discuss how we talk about terrorism.

"Terrorism" is difficult to define, 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.”

We will also analyze the “war on terrorism” as an ontological metaphor. We conclude 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.

Here are the lecture notes for these presentations:

Lecture 1 The Rational Actor Model: The "Gold Standard"
[27 November 16.00-17.30 in room 3038]

The Fog of War. A Film by Errol Morris. "Rationality Will
Not Save Us" (Chapter 6)

Lecture 2 Alternatives to the Rational Actor: Cognitive
Dynamics [28 November 16.00-17.30 in room 3019]

                     The Fog of War. A Film by Errol Morris. "Belief and Seeing
                 Are Often Both Wrong" (Chapter 18) and "Be Prepared to
                 Examine Your Reasoning" (Chapter 21)

Lecture 3 Cognitive Maps and "Ontological Pre
Understandings [29 November 16.00-17.30 in room
2128]

             The Fog of War. A Film by Errol Morris. "Empathize with
                 your Enemy" (Chapter 4) and "In Order to Do
                 Good, You May Have to Engage in Evil" (Chapter 23)

Lecture 4 Linguistic Analysis: How We Talk about the
"War on Terrorism" [30 November 16.00-17.30 in
room 3038]

              The Fog of War. A Film by Errol Morris. "Never Say
                 Never" (Chapter 25) and 'You Can't Change Human Nature
                 (Chapter 27)

Office Hours 1 December 9.30-10.30 in a room to be announced