The corpus of Daniel Pearl

Abstract

Acts of terrorism and their presence in mass media have long intrigued scholars throughout a wide range of academic disciplines. The kidnapping and execution of Daniel Pearl and the subsequent release of a videotape that made his execution public on a global scale raise substantive questions regarding the rhetorical nature of such acts and the competing nationalist discourses that make claims on the human body. This essay traces the role of Pearl's body in discourses that constitute Pakistani and American nationalist identities. Through a rhetorical analysis of the execution videotape and news reports in both countries, the role of the human body as a rhetorical resource within the mediated discourse on terrorism is elucidated.

Notes

Davin Allen Grindstaff is a visiting instructor in the Department of Communication at Georgia State University. Kevin Michael DeLuca is an Associate Professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Georgia. Correspondence to: Kevin Michael DeLuca, University of Georgia, Department of Speech Communication, 110 Terrell Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U.S. Tel: [phone]; Email: [email protected]. The authors wish to thank Celeste Condit for her support and advice during the revision process.

Terrorism is a controversial word. The kidnapping and decapitation of Daniel Pearl certainly fits both contemporary and dictionary definitions: “The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims” (The New Oxford American Dictionary, Jewell & Abate, 2001, p. 1752). In contemporary usage terrorism tends to be applied to the actions of marginal groups resisting or confronting governments. The term, however, arises from an example of state violence: the Jacobin Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Clearly, terrorism can be a practice of a nation. In describing the decapitation of Daniel Pearl as an act of terrorism, we are not accepting the current ideological practice that excludes the possibility of describing the acts of nations as terrorism.

As we discuss below, other scholars challenge this implicit privileging of symmetry, sameness, and identity when exploring the formation of national identities and cultures (Hall, 1992; Kelly, 1998; Llosa, 2001). However, we suggest that the United States, in its claims of “terrorism” continues to rely on this symmetrical‐binary conception of nationhood (Oliverio, 1998).

We are referring to Pearl as Pearl's body because we are arguing that the structure of terrorism, like war, destroys the individual's sentience and the victim is forced to speak the words of the terrorist, not his or her own beliefs.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Pakistani news articles referenced in this essay were originally published in English. When the articles originally appeared in another language, they were translated into English by FBIS, an online search engine at http://wnc.fedworld.gov

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kevin Michael DeLuca *

Davin Allen Grindstaff is a visiting instructor in the Department of Communication at Georgia State University. Kevin Michael DeLuca is an Associate Professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Georgia. Correspondence to: Kevin Michael DeLuca, University of Georgia, Department of Speech Communication, 110 Terrell Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U.S. Tel: [phone]; Email: [email protected]. The authors wish to thank Celeste Condit for her support and advice during the revision process.