It is impossible to communicate without some form of language. While some professionals like engineers and scientists use a highly technical language of symbols and formulas to share ideas, most of us communicate with the system of letters, words and grammar I am using now. Without language, debate, discussion and the sharing of ideas are impossible. Visual artists could argue otherwise, and they would be correct that various wordless forms of art are also capable of expression; however, the dominant form of discourse is the word, both spoken and written. Ironically, despite the importance of language to all of our communications, very little attention is paid to how we use words.
Any intelligent discussion of politics and language inevitably owes a debt to George Orwell's brilliant essay, "Politics and the English Language." Any argument must start with an assumption, and Orwell's fundamental assumption is that language is "an instrument which we shape for our own purposes" as opposed to the belief that "language is a natural growth" (see note 1). Language does not exist in a vacuum. Language only has the meaning that we give to it. Orwell is not making a giant leap of faith here. Since the publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's "Course in General Linguistics" in 1916, this has been the trend of 20th century linguistics (see note 2). Saussure argued that language was the socially produced system by which we express ideas. Key to this is the assumption that language is arbitrary. Since the purpose of this article is to discuss the politics of language, not the history of 20th century linguistics, I'm going to proceed with these assumptions taken for granted instead of spending paragraphs trying to prove them what better minds than mine have already written extensively on the subject (see note 3).
The arbitrariness of words is most evident when we look at more abstract concepts. For example, the word "gay" has been one of the most arbitrary in the last half century of American life. Over the course of a few decades, gay has gone from meaning happy, to a sexual derogatory, to an accepted and even preferred tag for the homosexual community, to its current use by young Americans to mean "stupid." Can "gay" mean all of these things at the same time? Can something mean both happy and stupid? Can one word be used interchangeably to insult a group while the group simultaneously uses it for pride? (potentially contrast with the "n" word, which seems to still function as an insult when used by one group and socially acceptable term when used while another.)
Now consider more political examples. What do fascism and fascist mean? Most recently, the term fascist has been thrown around in the US by those on the left to attack George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But what does Fascism actually mean? If we look it up in a dictionary we find a description of a form of government that bears only slight, at most, resemblance to the Bush Presidency. But does that matter? When pundits and protestors through around the term, they are not referring to its technical meaning, they are using it as a derogatory. The more the term is used in this way, and less in its technical meaning, then the new connotation of the word eclipses its actual denotation. As Orwell wrote, "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'" (see note 4). Written in 1946, Orwell's statement is as true today as it was then.
On the opposite end of the political spectrum, conservatives now attack President Obama for being a socialist without really examining what the word means. If they did, they would see the hilarious hypocrisy of attacking proposed health care legislation as being socialist while declaring themselves defenders of Medicare - which, along with Social Security, is one of the most socialistic programs in the United States. In its true form socialism is an economic organization, not a government system. In conservative political discourse, similar yet disparate terms like Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Maoist and Stalinism have lost their distinctions and now simply refer to something bad on the left, just as Fascism means something bad on the right.
Why is this important? Orwell talks about the need to understand that an effect can in turn be a cause that starts the cycle over again. Orwell uses the example of a man whose sense of failure causes him to drink. In turn, drinking causes the man to fail more at life and this greater sense of failure will continue to cause the man to drink. Likewise, Orwell writes, "it is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts" (see note 5). If we strip the complex terms of our language of their complicated meanings, then it becomes difficult for us to continue thinking about complex issues.
Regardless of political persuasion, those in power, who want to stay in power, have an incentive to destroy language. This is ultimately the theme of Orwell's anti-totalitarian novels 1984 and Animal Farm. If the political discourse is compromised, it becomes harder and harder to fight against the establishment. As people continuously use language carelessly, then it becomes more difficult to engage in meaningful discourse.
Democracy and Patriotism are two ideas fundamental to American society and history. We all have an interest in maintaining the values and meanings of these terms; however, these terms have also been politicized. The United States is not even organized as a democracy; instead, our federal and state governments mix the elements of a representative republic with a few democratic devices (such as ballot propositions). Regardless, the United States is a champion of "Democracy." The politics of language have changed the meaning of this term though. When the Bush Presidency spoke of spreading Democracy, they meant installing pro-western governments supported by capitalist economies. If they truly only wanted to spread the democratic form of government, then the administration would not have condemned the Palestinian Territory for electing members of the reported terrorist organization Hamas to its parliament. The definition of Democracy does not include any value or moral judgments. It is simply a system of government. But since World War II, the United States has been a champion of Democracy against Communism. This use of language is a complete bastardization. A political system cannot fight an economic system. Nonetheless, because of the politicization of language, it becomes un-American to criticize Democracy or to suggest something to remotely resembles Socialism or Communism. The discourse is thus controlled.
Likewise, following the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration forced new connotations onto Patriotism. A patriot used to simply be someone who loved their country, but the administration tried to define what that love could be. The Patriot Act was supposedly designed to protect us from terrorist threats, but the patriotism of the act included giving up some long held American rights to privacy. But how could the opposition argue against it? To be against the Patriot Act smacked of un-patriotism. To argue against the instigation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was "un-patriotic." Although I would argue that the connotation of "Patriotism" has shifted backward somewhat, it is still disconcerting to live in a world where to some people, the word connotes a particular political view point.
As a nation, we are no where near the complete destruction of language seen in Orwell's novels; however, that does not mean we shouldn't be concerned. When people replace the denotations of important words with meaningless connotations, then real communication and discourse breaks down. When complex terms like "Fascist" or "Socialist" become nothing more than insults directed at a holder of a particular viewpoint. They become signifiers of emotional views, not intellectual ones. They become little more than primitive grunts.
Notes:
1) "Politics and the English Language" is available online at
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
The essay is also included in many print editions of the collected essays of George Orwell, most recently in the collection All Art is Propaganda.
2) The Wikipedia entry for Saussure's Course in General Linguistics is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_in_General_Lingu istics
The book is still in print and available at most major internet bookstores and at some physical store locations, generally in the "Linguistics" section, or alternatively, in "Philosophy."
3) A very basic introduction to Structural Linguistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_linguistics
This is a link to the pdf file of a Cambridge University press book titled A Short History of Structural Linguistics by Petter Matthews:
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/23674/sample/97 80521623674ws.pdf
4) "Politics and the English Language." See note 1
5) Id.