Ideograph

From DigitalRhetoricCollaborative

Revision as of 20:54, 3 May 2015

An ideograph is a word or phrase with a vague definition which represents an ambiguous and vast set of ideas. This causes ideographs to be able to be used without sending a specific message while still appealing to pathos. In other words, when audiences encounter an ideograph, they aren't usually affected by it because of its definition, but because of how the ideograph makes them feel. This means ideographs can be very useful for rhetoricians because of their ambiguity. Not only can they be used as substitutes for complex ideas, but since ideographs tend to have several different connotations attached to them, they have the potential to increase the effectiveness of a rhetorician's pathos. The term was first used by Michael Calvin McGee in 1980 to describe certain words used in political discourse.^[1] While they are not limited to politics, some of the more commonly used ideographs are frequently used in political discourse. Terms such as 'liberty', 'freedom', and 'equality' all refer to an ideology, but to no specific referent. This allows ideographs to persuade with emotions without necessarily having a significant purpose or meaning.

Introduction

One of the most easily recognizable ideographs in the 21st century is 'terrorism'. Terrorism is defined as “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal,”^[3] so the word tends to invoke a strong sense of fear among audiences. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W Bush, and later President Barack Obama, persuaded audiences to back them on their policies regarding terrorism by using several different ideographs, including 'terrorism' itself. Specifically, this is noticeable in President Bush's speech in response to 9/11^[4]and in President Obama's remarks on National Security.^[5] The two presidents created an interesting pair of ideas when they used ideographs to speak about terrorism because they used the same tactics to promote their policies on terrorism, despite those policies being different from each other.

Artifact Analysis

Ideographs and Terrorism

Politicians tend to use ideographs to unite audiences for a cause through one of two emotions. Many ideographs used in politics, such as 'diplomacy', 'democracy', and 'rule of law', make audiences feel national pride. Other ideographs, like 'torture', are used to upset audiences and sometimes to frighten them. Despite these commonalities, politicians use both these types of ideographs to back different agendas regarding the discussion of terrorism. 'Terrorism' itself qualifies as an ideograph because it doesn't refer to any one specific subject, just terror in general. 'Terrorism' is a particularly important ideograph because of the especially strong emotion it evokes in audiences due to its relevance in today's society. It has twice the effect of most other ideographs because of how accessible 9/11 made the idea to audiences. 'Terrorism' reminds people of how afraid they were on 9/11 to create a special combination of both nationalism and fear. It is because of this trait that politicians often use the word to their advantage. However, depending on a politician's agenda, the purposes 'terrorism' and other ideographs are used to unite audiences for aren't always the same, even though similar tactics may be used. In the referenced addresses, Bush and Obama used many ideographs, including 'terrorism' itself, to promote their views and actions towards terrorists and to persuade audiences to join them in their opinions.

George W Bush's 'War on Terror'

To start, Bush, who spoke about terrorism in the years immediately following 2001, wanted to be aggressive with his ideographs because the memory of 9/11 was fresher in audiences' minds. Bush called for a 'War on Terror' to sound more threatening and vengeful. He wanted to convince audiences that it was the moral obligation of not just the United States, but of all nations to stop terrorists as to prevent other nations from suffering a similar tragedy.^[6] Also, in his speech, he attacked terrorists by saying, “We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war--to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.”^[7] In this quote, Bush paired the ideographs 'diplomacy', 'intelligence', and 'financial influence' with the more accessible ideas of 'law enforcement' and 'weapon of war' to convince audiences that the destruction and defeat of the 'global terror network' was of grave importance and required swift action. Bush said he was going to use every available resource to take out terrorists, and that made him appear powerful and serious.

Bush used his aggressive take on ideographs to provide audiences a sense of national pride and of sorrow. To invoke nationalism in this speech, Bush said “[Terrorists] hate what we see right here in this chamber - a democratically elected government.”^[8] The ideograph 'democracy' makes people feel prideful for living in the United States and angry at those who attacked on 9/11 because they are envious of what America stands for. He also used ideographs to provoke his audiences by upsetting them with fear. He said, “On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.”^[9] By referring to terrorists as 'enemies of freedom', Bush upset audiences by telling them that 'terrorism' would cause a loss of their 'freedom'. Also, since he referred to terrorists as 'enemies of freedom', the phrase had the added benefit of promoting national pride because of how the ideograph 'freedom' was considered by his audiences. Bush's determination to eliminate those responsible for 9/11 was infectious and his use of ideographs convinced audiences to get on the offensive against terrorists.

Barack Obama Changes the Agenda

Obama began his presidency over seven years after 9/11, and despite that, he used 'terrorism' in very similar ways to how Bush did, while still using it to achieve a different goal. Obama wanted to stop using Bush's 'War on Terror', so that meant he wouldn't try to provoke aggression. Instead of attacking terrorists with 'terrorism', Obama defended American 'rule of law' against foreign attackers who wanted to affect it. He said in his address, “I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law.”^[10] Obama said that it is important to fight terrorists who threaten the United States, but he emphasized that he wouldn't do so through means which he would consider unethical. He united audiences by telling them that if the United States continued torturing terrorists, the terorists would be further provoked and make Americans unsafe. He wanted people to be concerned with morals and safety, not attacking with getting revenge.

Obama also applied pathos to 'terrorism' to reach his goal of ending the 'War on Terror' in similar ways to how Bush promoted the 'War on Terror'. Like Bush, Obama promoted national pride in his address on terrorism when he said “Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.”^[11] Obama used the ideographs 'fidelity' and 'values' to make America sound proud and upstanding in reference to torture and terrorism, but it was primarily to explain why America needed to maintain an ethical code, to do right by its founders. He also used dejection to promote his stance on terrorism by upsetting his audience and telling them he wanted to change the ways the United States fought terrorism when he said, “I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.”^[12] This sounded particularly negative because of the connotations of the ideograph 'enhanced interrogation'^[13] so audiences became upset and saddened, but it made them want to make America look less mean-spirited, not less feeble.

Additional Resources

Internet piece about how Washington has addressed the conflict with al-Qaeda

Bellinger, John B III. "An 'armed conflict'- not unlike Bush's." politico. Politico Magazine. 16 September, 2014. Web. 1 May, 2015.

Scholarly Article analyzing Obama's use of 'terrorism'

Long, Kelly. "'Terrorism' in the Age of Obama: The Rhetorical Evolution of President Obama’s Discourse on the 'War on Terror'." Undergraduate Review 9 (2013). 87-93.

Calvin McGee's original article about ideographs

McGee, Michael Calvin. "The 'ideograph': A link between rhetoric and ideology." Quarterly Journal of Speech 66:1 (1980). 1-16.

Also, this cartoon is relevant.

References

1. ↑ McGee, Michael Calvin. "The 'ideograph': A link between rhetoric and ideology." Quarterly Journal of Speech 66:1 (1980). 1-16. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00335638009383499
2. ↑ http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/iVWq26iWCLa/Bush+Hosts+Obama+Former+Presidents+White+House/AIYYLtxH7HC/George+W+Bush
3. ↑ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
4. ↑ Bush, George W. "President Bush Addresses the Nation." washingtonpost. The Washington Post Company, 20 September, 2001. Web. 16 April, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html
5. ↑ Obama, Barack H. "Remarks by the President on National Security." whitehouse Office of the Press, 21 May, 2009. Web. 16 April, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/
6. ↑ Bellinger, John B III. "Legal Issues in the War on Terrorism, Section: 'War is an Appropriate Paradigm for the Conflict.'" U.S. Department of State. London School of Economics, 31 October, 2006. Web. 1 May, 2015 http://www.state.gov/s/l/2006/98861.htm
7. ↑ Bush, George W. "President Bush Addresses the Nation." washingtonpost. The Washington Post Company, 20 September, 2001. Web. 16 April, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html
8. ↑ Bush, George W. "President Bush Addresses the Nation." washingtonpost. The Washington Post Company, 20 September, 2001. Web. 16 April, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html
9. ↑ Bush, George W. "President Bush Addresses the Nation." washingtonpost. The Washington Post Company, 20 September, 2001. Web. 16 April, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html
10. ↑ Obama, Barack H. "Remarks by the President on National Security." whitehouse Office of the Press, 21 May, 2009. Web. 16 April, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/
11. ↑ Obama, Barack H. "Remarks by the President on National Security." whitehouse Office of the Press, 21 May, 2009. Web. 16 April, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/
12. ↑ Obama, Barack H. "Remarks by the President on National Security." whitehouse Office of the Press, 21 May, 2009. Web. 16 April, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/
13. ↑ Tran, Mark. "Q&A: Torture and 'enhanced interrogation'." guardian 18, April 2008. Web. 27 April, 2015. [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/18/usa.terrorism http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/18/usa.terrorism]