Log In | Register
Though legions of dead European philosophers from Hegel to Derrida no doubt spin in their graves as I write it, language is both the instrument of our communication and the greatest impediment to it. Language serves as a protocol, an agreed upon syntax of translating pure thought into sound and image for transmission or dissemination. Such a translation is – and always will be – imperfect, capturing only the most brutish and crude of the delicate nuance of human thought.
Yet more concerning is our inability to separate our own biases and assumptions from the language we enlist; and here arises the notion semantic difference. Often dismissed as trivial, semantic distinctions carry real meaning and have substantive worth based upon the ideological baggage that individual terms may carry.
One such argument that is most poignant to the discussions of the present is that which centers upon the question of what to call enemies in this "Global War on Terror." Already a heinously complex linguistic conundrum, the problem is further exacerbated by the political questions incumbent upon it. Who designates these enemies? What criteria are to be used to distinguish foes from innocents, particularly when some foes seek to hide amongst the innocent?
Make no mistake; a semantic difference at this delicate tipping point has profound impact. Casting such enemies as "criminals," "terrorists," "freedom fighters," "resistance," or "insurgents" has influence – both obvious and subtle - over the subtext of any subsequent discourse.
The terms preferred by the American government and its allies carry intonements of the pervasive power structures already in place. "Terrorist" implies deviancy from the rules of war, rules set forth, often capriciously, by great powers for the furtherance of power. By its very nature the word simultaneously condemns, illegitimates, and marginalizes as irredeemable those it is affixed to.
"Criminal" has similar connotations. Criminality has as a necessary precondition the authority and subordination of the criminal to the state which criminalizes him. Though such rhetoric is befitting of a government or political force seeking to proffer the notion of a foregone victory, it rings hollow in truly open discourse. The presumption of victory and thus the preemptive application of the label "criminal" cuts short any debate as to the moral or even legal niceties of the conflict even before the first arguments can be made.
The United States is not alone in its use of loaded words. Phrases such as "freedom fighter" harbor no illusions as to the presumptions of moral superiority they carry. A "freedom fighter" by definition struggles for those most noble and sympathetic rights of self determination and independence; his opposition invariably cast as oppressive, imperial, and onerous.
Similarly "resistance" supposes the existence of an unjustly occupying army. As in Nazi Occupied France, the "resistance" is seen by Western eyes as romantic, noble, and brave – facing pervasive danger in pursuit of the lofty goals of regained-independence and abolition of a foreign yoke.
As consumers of media in an age of information the subtlety and nuance of the data we view should not be lost upon us. Insinuated within the words and phrases of our educators, be they writers, anchors, or teachers, are tiny ideological challenges which, should we allow them to pass, may lead us down a path – not of our own determination – but of someone else's.
Words are the instruments through which we communicate our thought. Through them we praise or condemn, create analysis or propaganda. Through our words we express bias, preference, and even prejudice – textually or subtextually – in the phrases and frames we use.
Are the men who fire bombs and mortars into Israel freedom fighters or terrorists? This and many others are questions for each of us to decide. As we seek to learn and inform ourselves in the course of making that decision, we must remain apprehensive and vigilant of the language we encounter. As is always true in a world of ideas, someone else is always eager to make that decision for us.
