The Language of Politics

From PhiloWiki

This is a new guide - under construction!

Language of Politics

I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. * George W. Bush

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. * George Orwell, 1984

Some questions to consider:

• What justifies state authority?
• Why should one obey the law?
• What are the limits of legitimate state regulation?
• What is justice? What kind of political equality is morally defensible and desirable?
• We will also consider several issues connected to the ongoing "war on terror,"
• What is the moral justifiability of the Bush doctrine of "preventive" war and state sponsored torture?[1]

The study of how politicans use language leads to lively debate for political philosophy. For example, Victor Klemperer's masterful study of the changing German language under Nazi rule, The Language of the Third Reich, he points out that propagandistic speech can never completely hide what it is up to. Under the Third Reich, the official language of Nazism came to be used as a political tool. The existing social culture was manipulated and subverted as the German people had their ethical values and their thoughts about politics, history and daily life recast in a new language. This Notebook, originally called LTI (Lingua Tertii Imperii)-the abbreviation itself a parody of Nazified language-was written out of Klemperer's conviction that the language of the Third Reich helped to create its culture. As Klemperer writes: "it isn't only Nazi actions that have to vanish, but also the Nazi cast of mind, the typical Nazi way of thinking, and its breeding ground: the language of Nazism." This brilliant, entertaining, profound, and ultimately saddening and horrifying book is one of the great twentieth-century studies of language and of its engagement with history. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. From [2]

There was never a time in history when politicians spoke nothing but the unvarnished truth. Birtish journalist Peter Osborne, or example, published in 2004 a book called The Rise of Political Lying, which ably spoke of the misleading rhetoric of Tony Blair's government. For more [3]

Politicians lying is an ancient art form of course. Centuries ago Confucius called for the recification of names. He advocated the use of neutral language. Indeed, naming things has long been thought of as a special, even magical ability.

The necessity to challenge names was also important to the great Roman orators. In a guide for students of the art, Cicero advised:

:[I]t will be desirable to invalidate the definition of the adversaries; but that will be invalidated if it be proved to be false. This proof must be deduced from the belief of men concerning it, when we consider in what manner and under what circumstances men are accustomed to use that expression in their ordinary writing and talking.''

[As quoted in Unspeak, page 12]

• Does it really matter that politicians spin the truth?
• Does media bias exist?
• Is the term "war on terror" a good use of political language?
• Are the anti-social behaviour orders really effective?
• Should the US have gone to war in Iraq?
• Is the threat of nuclear terror real?
• Do words like the Coalition of the Willing, pro-choice, pro-life, public diplomacy really mean anything?

When Noam Chomsky is interviewed in relation to his book manufacturing consent, Noam states that he believes the media only appears to have a liberal bias. He points to cases where news columns in America have given more space to genocide happening in countries whose economics are favourable to America. During the course of the interview Noam Chomsky discusses the extent of media control in America with a large percentage of the media being owned be large corporations. Another point about the media is that it is all soundbits. As Noam points out this makes it difficult to go in depth into any topic, thus when talking about a topic people tend to make broad sweeping statements. The use of broad sweeping statements is advantageous for people who use rhetoric. If corporations have control over the language of the media, then how much control do they have over how we think?