TOW # 26 "The -Ism Schism: How Much Wallop Can a Simple Word Pack?" -Nunberg (essay)

The –Ism Schism: How Much Wallop Can a Simple Word Pack?, is an essay written by Geoffrey Nunberg, a senior researcher and linguistics professor at Stanford University. In this essay he examines origins of the word “terror” and its uses. Through the use of famous testimony, and historical context/allusions is able to show how the language changes used to describe terrorism reflect a greater change in society as well as foreshadows the longevity of the “war on terror.”

The very first sentence of the essay is a quote from former president George W. Bush. Nunberg quotes, “The long-term defeat of terror will happen when freedom takes hold in the broader Middle East” the use of famous testimony introduces the change from terrorism to terror, and therefore introduces the purpose of this piece. The use of the word terror instead of terrorism by journalists and presidents describes not only the actions of terrorists, but also the reaction of the victims they are targeting. This change in meaning and usage begun after the 9/11 attacks occurred.  The people are afraid, and therefore the war is no longer only with a handful of terrorists, but has become a war on terror as a whole.

Throughout the essay Nunberg provides a timeline of the word terror. This use of historical context shows how the earliest form of the word is returning. By alluding to Robespierre’s Reign of Terror in 1793 Nunberg writes, “ ‘terror’ conveyed the exalted emotion people may feel when face to face with the absolute.” He then goes on to describe how the meaning changed by 1880, and in the Jazz Age “terrific” became a common superlative. However, now, the original form of the word has resurfaced, and this symbolizes the never-ending battle with terrorism. Nunberg highlights this point by describing another shift in our language. Instead of using the term “war against” we have switched it to “war on,” this dates back to the 20^th century when we used “war on” to campaign against social evils, and it is used to describe terror because it is a war that can never have full victory.   

             I believe that Nunberg was able to achieve his purpose of examining the changes in American language towards terrorism and describing its effects through the use of famous testimony, and historical context/allusions.