Language and Linguistic Nonviolence

The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives Language and Linguistic Nonviolence

Contributors: Amitabh Vikram Dwivedi Edited by: Paul Joseph Book Title: The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives Chapter Title: "Language and Linguistic Nonviolence" Pub. Date: 2017 Access Date: May 6, 2017 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc. City: Thousand Oaks, Print ISBN: 9781483359892 Online ISBN: 9781483359878 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483359878.n367 Print pages: 968-969 ©2017 SAGE Publications, Inc.. All Rights Reserved. This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

SAGE Contact SAGE Publications at http://www.sagepub.com.

SAGE Reference

The role of language is important in war and peace, as new words are formed and old ones are filled with new meanings with specific nuances and connotations. In peacetime, language is used to bridge differences, end hostilities, encourage cooperation, and assist economic and industrial development, whereas in war, it is used as a tool of propaganda and indoctrination. However, language has also been exploited by politicians, government officials, religious leaders, military personnel, and media to make the ugly seen beautiful, the bad seem good, the unpleasant appear pleasant, and the negative seem positive. Inept language use— whether intentional or unintentional—can result in chaos, resentment, and misunderstanding and can even lead to violence. This entry explores what happens when doublespeak obscures thought and considers the impact of ambiguous words, exaggerated metaphors, and verbal juggling used to shift meanings and conceal intentions. Language has been used in a confusing and deceptive manner in situations around the globe. Words are always at the forefront of our persuasive efforts, defining our cultural values and personal identities and shaping the way we understand military actions. After a U.S. bombing raid in Cambodia in 1974, Colonel David H. E. Opfer, the U.S. Air Force press officer in Cambodia, told the press to refer to the bombing as “air support.” The Pentagon and U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration characterized the neutron bomb as an “efficient” nuclear weapon that could destroy an enemy without killing civilians or friendly forces, and its inventor, Samuel Cohen, maintained that it was a “sane” and “moral” weapon that left noncombatants unharmed. U.S. president Ronald Reagan named the MX international ballistic missile “Peacekeeper.” The euphemism “collateral damage” can be used to refer to civilian casualties in a military operation. A popular belief is that official discourse about war uses euphemisms and misrepresentation extensively, but the militarization of language is so rampant that we may hardly notice it in peacetime. Words and phrases of military origin may appear in day-to-day language without one being aware of this process. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson characterized war as a fundamental metaphorical concept in their book Metaphors We Live By and in subsequent works. A match has become a war or battle; a good finisher has been termed a deadliest finisher. Other terms used in the military context that have been employed metaphorically include deadly, war zone, killer, slaughter, shooter, bomb, missile, gun, and so on. Language is a powerful tool that shapes one’s perception and behavior. All nations employ distinctive words and phrases to designate acts of violence by warriors and soldiers; a change in language converts a brutal act of killing to an act of bravery. While murder is a crime, killing sanctioned by the state may be characterized not only as legitimate but also as a justified use of force. Paraphrasing is a powerful linguistic device; it rephrases lexicons for legitimizing and condemning various actions. This power of redesignation assists politicians and state authorities to support the cause and pursuit of war, and in peacetime, similarly, the language precedes the quest for peace. Any discourse on war is largely supported by the adjectives used in claims that wars are justifiable, unavoidable, and inevitable. Language also can reflect changing views of groups of persons. For example, in Indian society, those once linguistically characterized as “lower castes” are now constitutionally defined and included under the categories “scheduled caste,” “scheduled tribe,” “backward class,” and “less privileged class.” A continuum of negatively charged connotative words may be replaced by a positive one so that a “handicapped person” becomes “differently able person” or “untouchables” are identified as Dalits. These alternatives can include positive renaming of less privileged social groups in ways that are viewed as more respectful. Through

Page 2 of 4

The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives

SAGE Contact SAGE Publications at http://www.sagepub.com.

SAGE Reference

linguistic options such as synonymy, metonymy, and paraphrasing, a term with a more desirable connotation may replace an offensive term with the same denotation. On the other hand, an ideologically charged term may offend members of a social or political group. Political parties often engage in such personal covert violence when they demean their opponents by calling them autocrats, morons, militants, bigots, bullies, and so on. Violence in language may be harmful, offensive, or abusive in a variety of ways. Children may use language to bully another child or to insult an elder; offensive terms such as bimbo, chick, babe, and slut may be used to refer to women. Terms in colonial discourse such as barbaric, lazy, underdeveloped, or uncivilized may demean nations, and users of the official and/or dominant language can make indigenous peoples feel insecure. Terms such as collateral damage, ethnic cleansing, and concentration camp can be used to obscure military atrocities and even genocide. Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s use of inflammatory language included his statement on the 60th anniversary of Israel that the “stinking corpse of the fake Israeli regime” could not be revived. Advocacy of the language of peace, also described as linguistic nonviolence, is one approach to avoiding the use of militaristic terms that subconsciously affect our perception and behavior. Philosopher William C. Gay has written extensively on linguistic violence and nonviolence. He argues that the language of peace includes a genuine affirmation of diversity and promotes mutual respect, cooperation, and understanding; however, avoiding the use of overtly militaristic and prejudiced language does not ensure that prejudice is not communicated. Various groups advocate for the language of peace. For example, the Language for Peace Forum describes itself on its website as seeking to create a community of practice of language teachers and learners who would like to share resources, support, training and orientation, and intentionally reflect on a framework for language education as peacebuilding from an Anabaptist Christian faith perspective, . . . bringing together expertise and resources from the disciplines of education, language learning, peacebuilding and mission to articulate a theology of language education and to nurture the community of practice of Christian language teachers and learners. Some groups seek to address the misuse of language by governments, military personnel, industry, media, and educators. For example, in 1973, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) formed a committee on doublespeak to expose the use of language that is “grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing, or self-centered.” According to its website, the organization gives an annual Doublespeak Award to “a glaring example of deceptive language by a public spokesperson.” Past recipients include the American Petroleum Institute, President George W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and the U.S. Department of Defense. See alsoCultural Militarism Websites National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Doublespeak Award: http://www.ncte.org/volunteer/groups/publiclangcom/doublespeakaward Amitabh Vikram Dwivedi http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483359878.n367

Page 3 of 4

The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives

SAGE Contact SAGE Publications at http://www.sagepub.com.

SAGE Reference

10.4135/9781483359878.n367 Further Readings Bermel, Neil. Linguistic Authority, Language Ideology, and Metaphor: The Czech Orthography Wars. 1st ed . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007. Bolinger, Dwight. Language: The Loaded Weapon: The Use and Abuse of Language Today. New York: Longman, 1980. Bosmajian, Haig A. The Language of Oppression. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983. Gay, William C. “Nuclear Discourse and Linguistic Alienation.” Journal of Social Philosophy 18/2 (1987): 42–49. ———. “Exposing and Overcoming Linguistic Alienation and Linguistic Violence.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 24/2–3 (1998): 137–156. Lakoff, George. “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf.” In Engulfed in War: Just War and the Persian Gulf, edited by Brien Hallett, 95–111. Honolulu: Matsunaga Institute for Peace, 1991. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. The Language War. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Lewis, Jeff. Language Wars: The Role of Media and Culture in Global Terror and Political Violence. London: Pluto, 2005. Moghaddam, Fathali M., and Rom Harré. Words of Conflict, Words of War: How the Language We Use in Political Processes Sparks Fighting. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2010. Schäffner, Christina, and Anita Wenden. Language and Peace. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth, 1995. Thomas, Linda, and Shân Wareing. Language, Society and Power: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1999. Thorne, Steve. The Language of War. London: Routledge, 2006.

Page 4 of 4

The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives