When Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security stated that she rather refer to terrorism as “man-caused disasters”, the country’s eyebrows raised. When the Obama administration ordered an end to use of the phrase "Global War on Terror" [GWOT] and replaced it with the preferred phrase “Overseas Contingency Operation", Americans shook their concerned heads. But when President Barack Hussein Obama announced that terrorists will be referred to as “militants” or “insurgents, citizens from all over the country raised their fists in outrage (Wilson, 2009 ).
And why shouldn’t they? After all, it was less than eight years ago that America was brutally attacked by the hijack of four commercial aircrafts that were used as missiles against three of the nation's most symbolic landmarks—the two World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. It was only a few years ago that President George W. Bush vowed to “rid the world of the evil-doers” after 2,974 Americans were killed by al-Qaeda, an extremist Sunni movement that believes a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam and that the killing of civilians is justified in jihad. It was shortly thereafter that Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible and endorsed a legislative package that would strengthen the government's legal arsenal against terrorists—a package that would include stiffening penalties for people found to have harbored or assisted terrorists as well as broaden the government's rights to wiretapping (Perez-Rivas, 2001). It was directly afterwards that the United States responded to the attacks by launching a "War on Terrorism", by invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists, and by enacting the USA PATRIOT Act. It was only seven years ago when President Bush identified Iran and its "terrorist allies" as part of "an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world" during his State of Union address (PBS, 2002). And it was only a short time ago that leaders like Secretary of State, Colin Powell; Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld; National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice; Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Congresman, John Kerry; and Congresswoman, Hillary Rodham Clinton were united in all methods to protect our country including the endorsement of USA PATRIOT Act (United, 2009).
The United States suffered many radical changes after the al-Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001. Americans would not be permitted to board any commercial aircraft without being recorded, legally identified, accounted for, and searched. All passengers, including small children would have to pass through security before allowed to approach the terminals. Only authorized passengers, employees, and government personal would be permitted beyond the ticketing and baggage claim areas. All adult citizens would be required to carry legal identification at all times. Random spot checks became inevitable; and of course, anyone could be subjected to background checks or delayed by any investigation. Security measures such as these were implemented in most public and government institutes, especially in areas where large groups gathered. National monuments, tourist attractions, government institutions, and public transportation executed strict security procedures. Sport, entertainment, and political events adopted defensive routines. And in the process, Americans adopted hostile language to describe the opponent. The Bush administration used terminology such as terrorist, radical, barbaric, and evil to depict al-Qaeda, its actions, and the war. Though critics would question whether tough tactics and antagonistic language was essential to keep Americans safe, supporters stated that “all of this is necessary because the nature of the nation's new enemy is different from the conventional enemies of past wars.” “The new enemy works in the shadows,” Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld said. "The terrorists who are attacking our way of life do not have armies, navies or air forces. They do not have capitals. They do not have high-value targets that the typical weapons of war can go in and attack" (Perez-Rivas, 2001). And though the security measures were inconvenient and the language stirred emotions like anger and fear, Americans did not complain. America was united. America would “never forget.” These precautions were necessary to keep us safe.
Now, not even a decade later, the White House has chosen to minimize the attacks against us, the war, and even the enemy itself by softening the language that describes the reasons behind our efforts in protecting this country. Do our leaders not understand the significance of language and how it affects the way we see, understand, and react to the world? Do they believe that softening the tone towards the opponent will temper their aggression towards us? Do these elected US representatives, representatives who have sworn to protect this country honestly believe that altering the language we use to define the opponent will not change the methods that we incorporated to protect ourselves? While some may quote William Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other name smells as sweet” to support the administration’s position, critics may quote less poetic statements like “language is to the mind more than light is to the eye”—William Gibson. Regardless if one is a Democrat or Republican, an Obama supporter or critic, one should understand the basic concepts of language and its impact. For knowledge will lead us towards making wise decisions that ultimately affects our future.
Over the years scholars have disputed over what constitutes communication. While some believe that communication is the process of natural [spoken] language between a sender and receiver, others believe that communication includes artificial language [sign language, gestures, computer, writing, symbols, etc]. Still, other researchers focus on the transformation of information, ideas, and emotions through the use of any vehicle that conveys a thought. Although the definition of communication may somewhat vary, there are several absolutes on which they all agree: communication includes the exchange of language, culture shapes language, and language affects the way we see the world (Trenholm, 2005, p. 18-20, 68-70).
Language is more than just a source of communication. It not only influences our culture, but also our thought processes. We think, store memories, and create our reality in language. According to Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, language shapes our perception of the world. In other words, language acts like a polarizing lens on a camera in filtering reality—we understand the world only in the categories of our language. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis consists of two central concepts—linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. Linguistic determinism states that language shapes thought. Linguistic relativity maintains that people from different languages perceive the world differently. Basically, the cultural environment in which people are reared effects the way they interpret the world and reality (Cronkhite, 1976, p. 271-3). A 2002 Washington D.C. murder trail demonstrates this concept. Joseph Mesa Junior [who is deaf] was convicted of stabbing two of his classmates to death at Gallaudet University. During the trial, the defendant said that he was told to do it by mysterious black-gloved hands. He was instructed through sign language to kill his classmates, which is his mode of communication. Unlike other psychotic murders who hear voices, Mesa visualized his native language, American Sign Language [ASL]. This example gives us insight towards understanding how other people perceive reality through the filter of their language and culture (O’Neil, 2006).
Psychologist Carol Cohn [who studied how the war strategists discuss nuclear strategy] found that defensive intellectuals use euphemisms [replacing highly charged terms with inoffensive words] as a coping mechanism. Since euphemisms allow people to communicate about painful and offensive situations without having the emotional attachments that are normally connected with these subjects, individuals can easily become detached from its reality. In other words, euphemisms act as blinders. Cohn states that war strategists use terms “so bland” that the sender and receiver are not forced to think about the reality of a nuclear holocaust. For example, nuclear experts refer to bombs that are much more powerful than the Atomic Bomb as “clean bombs”. When the death of civilians are identify as “collateral damage” they become easier to dismiss. And the “friendly casualties” [Americans troops killed by American gun fire] practically goes unnoticed. Cohn reports that this “techno-strategic language” is specialized jargon known only to the in-group members. She admits that gaining access to the language gave her a since of power and that talking about defense strategies was fun. “Referring to a missile guidance system as ‘shoot and scoot’ made it easy to forget the darker and more serious side of the nuclear scenarios,” Cohn said. According to Cohn, it became more difficult to express her own values, thoughts, and ideas as she became more fluent in the language. Thus, “language has powerful effects on the ways that we think about and experience the world.” (Trenholm, 2005, p. 18-20, 68-70) The very use of language can help or hinder; unite or divide; or as Cohn demonstrated, promote social awareness or create communal blinders.
No doubt that the Obama administration has good intentions for choosing to redefine terrorists, the acts of terrorism, and the war against terror. After all, in a multicultural society and a world of “political correctness” we are rightfully taught diversity, sensitivity, and acceptance. Obviously, stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination against any [law abiding] culture, religion, race, gender, or creed promotes division and is ethically wrong. But describing a crisis with preferred phrases that doesn’t accurately convey the situation, distances the public and government agencies from the actual danger. In other words, the more often we hear the enemy referred to soft toned or ambiguous phrases, the less threatening the adversary becomes. Americans gradually becomes desensitized to the real issues. We become less cautious, even complacent. Using euphemisms to discuss issues related to national security can only lead us, at the least, towards national volubility and at the most, towards national destruction. So how can we maintain our awareness of the dangers our country faces without falling into stereotyping or discrimination traps—traps that we have worked for over 50 years to overcome? How can we avoid using euphemisms when discussing terrorists groups like al-Qaeda and still hold true to our values?
Undoubtedly, there is a massive gap between ridiculing [directly or by implication] law abiding groups and acknowledging criminals for who and what are. For example, if one was to say that Muslims are terrorists, one would be guilty of stereotyping. Even though al-Qaeda is associated with a Muslim based religion, not all Muslims are associated with al-Qaeda; and not all Muslim founded religions are extreme Sunni movements. The only connection between Muslims and al-Qaeda is that the group happens to have Muslim members; just as Jonestown [a radical Christian based religion that took the lives of 918 people in 1978] had many Caucasian members. On the other hand, in order to communicate social and situational awareness one should use understandable language that is accurate, descriptive, and sometimes highly intense. While those who support the use of highly intense language [under appropriate conditions] may use the Cohn experiment to demonstrate how vague speech creates emotional distance from reality, critics would say that intense, profane, and obscene language breads hostility. Those who subscribe to this belief argue that generating a low intensity environment will reduce tension, which will help eliminate aggression, and ultimately, establish positive relationships. However, according to John Waite Bowers, Professor Emeritus of Communication at University of Colorado, that is simply not true.
John Waite Bowers did a study on the effects of language intensity. He found that highly intense language produces less attitude change in listeners than low intensity language. Bowers found that it’s the level of frustration in listeners that produces positive or negative reactions. He discovered that while highly frustrated listeners reacted poorly to highly intense language, listeners with low frustration levels had no reaction to either high or low intensity language. Thus, Bowers discovered that there was no correlation between highly intense language and poor or hostile reactions (Cronkhite, 1976, p. 277). In the end, there is nothing we can say or do to reduce al-Qaeda’s level of frustration. Every individual is responsible for maintaining their own optimum levels.
Substituting highly charged, emotional, or intense language with flowery, bland, ambiguous terminology is not the solution. It will only desensitize Americans to the actual dangers with which we are faced. Tempering our language when discussing al-Qaeda will not make us more likable. Minimizing the war on terror will not make our enemies see us in a more favorable light. Underrating the effects of terrorism will not lead to compromise. Softening the blow will only compromise our national security.
Because language affects our perception of the world, it stands to reason that it will influence the way we react to it. We are more likely to stand strong in the face of evil if we maintain strength in our language.
Sandie RH Hart
Beaumont, Texas
Citations:
Cronkhite, Gary. (1976). Communication and Awareness. Menlo Park: Cummings Publishing Company.
O'Neil, Dennis. (October 24, 2006). Language and Thought Processes Retrieved May 3, 2009 from the World Wide Web http://anthro.palomar.edu/language/language_5.htm.
Perez-Rivas, Manuel. (September 16, 2001). CNN Washington Bureau. Bush vows to rid the world of 'evil-doers' Retrieved April 30, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.bush.terrorism/.
PBS Front Line. (Jan. 29, 2002). How Iran Entered the ‘Anis’ Retrieved April 30, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/map.html.
Trenholm, Sarah. (2005). Thinking Through Communication an Introduction to the Study of Human Communication. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
United States Senate. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm.
Wilson, Scott and Al Kamen. (March 25, 2009). 'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name. The Washington Post.
Bush's Phrase Is Out, Pentagon Says. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html?wprss=rss_politics/administration
