|
|
|
November 13, 2003
Mind your language
From ‘civilization’ to ‘WMD’, words are weapons in the global crusade, writes Simon Tisdall
Given that words, spoken, written or broadcast, are our main form of communication, and given that words have such inherent potency, it is a wonder that today’s sound-biting leaders are not more careful about what they say. In short, they should mind their language.
Words can define how a people or a nation sees itself: the US declaration of independence is one obvious example. Yet modern-day Palestinians also see themselves engaged in a struggle for “independence” and “freedom” from external oppression. The US ignores such semantic paradoxes.
Words such as “imperialism”, “emancipation”, “self-determination” and “liberation” define how history is scripted, how the future will be shaped, how contemporary conflicts are perceived and thus how they may or may not be resolved.
Terrorism is a salient case in point. In the abstract, “terrorism” is a terrible thing; everybody deplores it; nobody supports it. Why then is terrorism such a growth industry? Because its definition is not agreed upon. It depends where you stand. Terrorism has, thus, become a much abused, highly fungible term.
To the oppressed of the world, the men of violence are, variously, militants, freedom-fighters, guerrillas, insurgents, heroes, martyrs. The real terrorists belong to the “other side”. Yet “state terrorism” is a concept that is barely recognized by the ostensible oppressors.
Which brings us back to Bush. By declaring an open-ended, global, no-holds-barred “war on terror”, Bush invited every aspiring autocrat to do his worst in the name of “security” (another much-scandalized word). One never would have guessed there were so many terrorists!
In this loose-lipped, rapid-fire lingo, such people, whether killed or locked up in Bagram or Guantanamo or a thousand other hell-holes, are by definition “evil”. And Bush, author of the “axis of evil”, Tony Blair and others have gone for linguistic broke. Not for them, it seems, is there any deep reflection on the moral connotations of their language. The world divides into biblical good and bad, black and white. Blessed are the peacemakers; battered are the “evil-doers”. Little wonder that General William Boykin, a leading Pentagon Christian soldier, could declare that the US was at war with Satan, that Muslims worshipped idols, and the only true god (not Florida or the supreme court) had picked Bush for president.
Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi has strayed into the same Islam-denigrating territory. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad let slip his own counter-claim last month, saying that Jews “rule the world by proxy”. Such crass slurs are enough to make a philologist pine.
The latest addition to pol-speak, to the modern leader’s essential lexicon, is WMD. This is now a universally understood term, or so you might think. WMD is proliferating, it’s deeply frightening, and it’s coming to a cinema or tube near you. Yet totemic WMD is also a reason why civil liberties are everywhere under siege, why military budgets are rising, why the developing world is not developing, and why your opinion is ignored.
In fact, WMD is a vague, non-specific term that can be (and is) used to cover a multitude of supposed sins. Developed countries have their own WMD, of course, but their arsenals are somehow deemed acceptable. Not so the WMD that may or may not exist in developing countries or “rogue states” (whatever that means). This species of unauthorized WMD is deemed destabilizing.
There are certain words, conversely, that the west’s leaders gingerly eschew. There is “occupation”. Occupation, as in Iraq, is a no-go word; liberation is far preferable. Occupation makes it sound as if the US has barged uninvited into somebody else’s country and refuses to go away. It makes Iraq sound like Palestine, Tibet, Afghanistan or, heaven forbid, Vietnam. That really is careless, ship-sinking talk.
Greater sense and sensitivity in use of language is required of politicians — and indeed the media. The urge to suppress arguably loaded words or phrases should as a rule be resisted as inimical to free expression and better understanding. As every spin doctor knows, acceptance of “official” terminology and definitions can amount to implicit endorsement of official policy. But the search for the right, exact mot juste requires constant awareness of possible ambiguity and politically and culturally charged, multiple meanings. As ever, in all human discourse, there is truth and there is propaganda. As ever, it is important to be able to tell the difference. Before passing the ammunition, pass the word. — Dawn/Observer News Service
|
|
|
|
