10.1177/0196859904267121 ARTICLE Journal of Communication Inquiry Corporate Rhetoric and 9/11 Joel H. Amernic and Russell J. Craig 9/11 in the Service of Corporate Rhetoric: Southwest Airlines’ 2001 Letter to Shareholders This article highlights the capacity for ideograph-like signs that are deeply embedded in cultural consciousness to be appropriated for the purpose of sus- taining the rhetorical agendas of corporations. Focus is applied to the events of September 11, 2001, and to the use of the term 9/11 in the text of a letter to share- holders, signed by the corporate leaders of Southwest Airlines and published in that company’s annual report for 2001. We illustrate how corporate leaders appropriate symbolic representations of national life. Keywords: rhetoric; corporations; corporate rhetoric; rhetorical agendas; 9/11; 911; September 11; CEOs; shareholders; ideographs; symbolic representation September 11, 2001, was a tragic day in American history in which acts of ter- rorism led to an enormous loss of life and human suffering on a large scale. It was a day that has become better known by a term now embedded in the Amer- ican cultural consciousness—the expression 9/11 (or its variations, such as 911 and September 11). The responses of individuals, organizations, and soci- ety to the events of 9/11 reveal important features about our institutions, our corporations, and ourselves. Here, we are interested specifically in how the term 9/11 has been used rhetorically in the American airline industry. In partic- ular, we focus on the behavior of one airline—Southwest Airlines (SWA)— and we analyze the letter to shareholders, authored jointly by the chief execu- tive officer (CEO) of SWA, James F. Parker; the chairman of the board, Herbert D. Kelleher; and the chief operating officer, Colleen C. Barrett. Our interest in their letter is neither prurient nor disrespectful but is directed to examining how corporate leaders in our society appropriate, for better or worse, symbolic representations of national life. 325 Journal of Communication Inquiry 28:4 (October 2004): 325-341 DOI: 10.1177/0196859904267121 © 2004 Sage Publications