Resultados de la ficha de observación directa:

Neologisms are the final element in the intellectuals’ representations of ‘Wahhabism’ I abstract for closer analysis. In Fifty Years Among the New Words, John Algeo writes

A community is known by the language it keeps, and its words chronicle the times. Every aspect of the life of a people is reflected in the words they use to talk about themselves and the world around them. As their world changes - through invention, discovery, revolution, evolution or personal transformation - so does their language. Like the growth rings of a tree, our vocabulary bears witness to our past.59

Algeo highlighted the way that vocabulary is a major indicator when tracking changes in culture and language and that new words or neologisms are useful tools for

understanding how culture is evolving. He is commenting on our experiencing of great shifts in how we live and how we talk about the world. We are always

introducing new words into our lexicon to describe new concepts and at the same time old words are continually falling out of use as we assign them less cultural

significance.

‘Neologism’ is the name we give these newly coined words, terms or phrases that are not yet prevalent in mainstream language. The word comes from the greek néo-

meaning ‘new’ and logos meaning ‘speech or utterance’. David Crystal, John Ayto, John Algeo and Adele Algeo all offer similar descriptions regarding the formation of neologisms.60 These descriptions include the creating, borrowing, combining,

shortening, blending and shifting of words. We can see some of these processes at work when we look at neologisms like ‘Islamofascism’ which is the combining of the words ‘Islam’ and ‘fascism,’ and the adding of an ‘o’.

Neologisms like ‘Islamofascism’ encourage a new interpretation or understanding of something and are often attributable to a particular person, period or event. This term

59 _{John Algeo and Adele Algeo, Fifty Years Among the New Words: A Dictionary of neologisms 1941-}

1991 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 1.

60 _{John Algeo, “Vocabulary,” in The Cambridge history of the English language, vol.4, ed. R. M.}

Hogg, S. Romaine, R. W. Burchfield & N. F. Blake (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); John Algeo, “Where do all the new words come from?” American Speech 55, no.4 (1980), 264-277; David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English language, 2nd _{ed. (Cambridge:}

Cambridge University Press, 2003); John Ayto, Twentieth Century Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

for example, which I will later describe in greater detail when analysing the neo- conservative intellectuals’ representations of ‘Wahhabism,’ was first used in 1990 by Scottish writer Malise Ruthven in the Independent newspaper.61 He used it to describe the way in which traditional Arab dictatorship used religious appeals in order to stay in positions of power. Since then prominent intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens have used it when describing “fascism with an Islamic face.”62 As we will soon see neo-conservative intellectuals like Frank Gaffney Jnr. have recently used it when describing ‘Wahhabism’ with the aim of likening the twentieth century European fascist movements with this particular interpretation of Islam.63

It should be acknowledged that different fields of study treat neologisms in different ways. What is particularly interesting is how the field of psychiatry for example has traditionally understood neologisms. If we refer to The American Heritage Medical Dictionary we can see that it has traditionally understood neologisms as newly coined

words whose meaning may be known only to the patient using it. Because of this it has often been viewed as a symptom of psychosis.64 This is interesting as we start to consider that the using of neologisms when representing ‘Wahhabism’ is a practice largely confined to neo-conservative intellectuals. Remembering it is the neo- conservatives especially those holding influential positions in the recent Bush Administration who are largely responsible for both constructing the largely

phantasmic ‘radical Islamist’ threat and for initiating and supporting the Global War on Terror. There are many who would see these acts as related to psychopathic or psychotic disorders.65 This assessment is given further weight when we consider the religious and political beliefs held by many in the neo-conservative intellectual tradition. I will explore what can be best described as the ‘delusional’ aspects of this belief system in greater detail later on.

61 _{Christopher Hitchens, “Defending Islamofascism,” Slate, October 22 2007,}

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/10/defending_islamofascism.ht ml.

62 _{Ibid., paragraph 3.}

63 _{Gaffney, “Seeing the threat for what it is.”}

64 _{“Neologism,” The American Heritage Medical Dictionary (Boston: Houghton Miffin, 2007).} 65 _{As I explained in the literature review, Stephen Schwarz strongly adheres to Sufism and can}

therefore be understood as suffering from a religious delusion. Both Clifford May and Frank Gaffney Jnr are neo-conservative intellectuals intent on causing destruction and are also influenced by delusions beliefs (sometimes religious in nature) about how the world works. I will discuss this in greater detail in the chapters dedicated to analysing and making sense of the neo-conservative intellectuals’ representations of ‘Wahhabism’.

Finally Cerulo’s Deciphering Violence is a detailed study focusing on the different ways authors, reporters and artists depict violent acts and how audiences respond to these violent representations.66 She finds that these mediators initially interpret the violent act they plan to represent as either ‘normal,’ ‘deviant,’ or ‘ambiguous’. On the basis of this moral judgement the writers then choose from a number of possibilities when representing the violent act to their audience. These possibilities include things like assigning particular characteristics to the perpetrator i.e. ‘in’ vs. ‘out-group’ status, having ‘instrumental aims,’ and a ‘clear intention,’ representing the nature of the violent act i.e. representing physical or non-physical acts of violence, and assigning the victim of violence particular characteristics i.e. emphasising their gender.

These different representations are aimed at arousing specific emotional reactions in the audience, encouraging them to make moral judgements about the violent

perpetrator. Cerulo finds the audience typically reacts in one of two ways, either they interpret the violent act as justifiable, legitimate and warranted or they understand it as unjustifiable, illegitimate and unwarranted. For example an author’s representing a violent perpetrator as having ‘instrumental aims’ or a ‘clear presence of intention’ generally arouses negative emotions in the audience and they tend to see these violent acts as unjustifiable. On the other hand violent perpetrators represented as using violence ‘in the spirit of the community’ meaning to protect or ‘benefit others’ in the community is likely to be viewed by the audience as warranted and justified.

Conclusion

I have dedicated this chapter to describing some of the ways I make sense of the social world and have approached doing my research. Key here is my dialectical imagination which includes a philosophy of internal relations and the process of abstraction. These help make the study of intellectuals’ representations of ‘Wahhabism’ a manageable task whilst also encouraging me to understand the different elements involved as processes and relations that are in a constant state of flux and which are continually affecting each other. I have also emphasised the key

66 _{Cerulo, Deciphering Violence.}

role language plays in the making of reality. This is especially important when I consider that ‘Wahhabism’ is an ‘observer-dependent’ phenomenon whose meaning differs depending on the intellectual (who has his or her own political aims, interests and prejudices) representing it. A Critical Discourse Analysis helps capture the dialectical nature of language recognising that it both makes and is made in the social world. While an intellectuals’ representation of ‘Wahhabism’ is made of many elements I have chosen to focus on the five particular elements, the structuring of violent accounts, metaphors, similes, analogies and neologisms. Now that I have clearly outlined how I will go about deconstructing different intellectuals’

representations of ‘Wahhabism’ and the different prejudices influencing this process, I will now turn my attention to deconstructing how the first group of intellectuals, the political liberals, have chosen to represent ‘Wahhabism’.