No one should ever underestimate the power of rhetoric. Both the power to unite and the power to divide are contained in these linguistic performances. But the power of language is only available to those who understand it. Stories are meaningless if spoken in an unknown language, as the very essence of communication is lost. If all forms of correspondence are lost, society has little chance of uniting around anything that requires meaning.
The Political Power of Words
It is universally acknowledged that a well-functioning society requires a common language. Though some situations can be managed without verbal dialogue, a community can slow and even disband if they cannot find common linguistic ground.
“By language, we know, not only words, but also feelings are communicated. Language is the expression of the mind, as it is commonly said, and it is therefore the bond of society.”
John Calvin, “Commentary on Jeremiah 5:15”
But language, for better or for worse, changes over time. Sometimes, a new machine is invented, or a strange trend becomes popular. Our language quickly adapts to these changes, providing new words and phrases to describe them. This linguistic adaptability also applies to the realm of politics. In fact, for most Western societies, the very nature of politics hinges upon these features.
“The concrete nature of politics is shown by certain linguistic facts which appear in all Western languages. Invariably the concepts, ideas, and vocabulary of a political group are polemical, propagandistic. This is true throughout all higher history.”
Francis Parker Yockey, “Imperium”
For the West, acknowledging this political purpose of language is a civil necessity. Our rhetoric can create new ideologies, and our propaganda can spawn organizations. Understanding and responding to these powerful rhetorical movements is the very essence of politics. Each societal group maintains its identity through vocabulary and narratives while distancing itself from its rivals.
But as these political coalitions rise and fall, it’s important to note how far the vocabulary overlaps. There was a time in American history when the political vocabulary of the Left and the Right both propagandized patriotism. Now, the seldom-used term is considered a relic of the Right. In this way, a word commonly used to describe the traditional American identity became a political dividing line. When a call for patriotism appeals to only half the country, a call for civic unity is actually interpreted as a call to arms.
On January 20, 2021, Joe Biden was inaugurated as president of the United States. Citing COVID restrictions, Biden’s sparsely attended speech emphasized unity and democracy. After his speech, the newly established White House issued a proclamation to make this moment a national day of unity.1https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/a-national-day-of-unity/ But half the country, still struggling to understand the election audits and trials, couldn’t take Biden at his word. At that moment, “unity” was a partisan word—a word with deeply political connotations. A person calling for unity in January 2021 was telling you to submit to the regime.
Over time, our overlapping vocabulary forms the political landscape of America as a whole. Tapping into these overlapping words creates powerful bipartisan rhetoric for a linguistically homogenous society. But using this same tactic on a divided nation produces the opposite effect.
No Longer The Same Language
In 2020, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University collected millions of comments across social media platforms, analyzing them with a machine translator. By the end of the study, the researchers concluded that each side of the political aisle had their own distinct language.2https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.02339.pdf As an example, the machine translator found that the Leftist word for “mask” translated as “muzzle” for the Right. Similarly, any use of the phrase “all lives matter” from conservatives would translate to “black lives matter” in liberal circles. “Nazis,” a generic term for anyone the Left hates, is replaced in conservative groups with the word “Communists,” a generic term for anyone they hate. Even words like “Christianity” and “multiculturalism” were considered translatable pairs by the algorithm.
In any society, partisan political rhetoric is to be expected. But seeing rhetoric altogether redefine a term indicates far more significant problems. Leftists, known for their love of relativism, regularly cross the line between typical partisan language and completely renaming words.
“…when talking about abortion, they avoid using the word ‘abortion.’ Instead, they rely on innocuous terms like ‘choice’ and ‘privacy’ or on ambiguous phrases like ‘women’s health,’ ‘reproductive freedom,’ and ‘bodily autonomy’ lest the brutal realities be exposed for what they really are.”
George Grant, “Word Play – A form of doublespeak” – June 17, 20223https://wng.org/podcasts/word-play-a-form-of-doublespeak-1655440369
Similarly, notorious Leftist phrases such as “protect trans kids” are a call for the opposite: to allow parents to abuse their children. Even the most basic, goal-defining terms like “safety” or “healthy” are unusable in a bipartisan conversation.
As far as I can tell, our language is at an impasse, leaving no room for a middle ground. On the religious Right, Christians refuse to budge on the definition of murder, calling for an end to the countless abortive homicides. On the Left, liberals refuse to budge on the definition of health, even killing themselves to further trans-affirming pseudo-science. Moderates aren’t given a choice. Either abortion is murder, or it is health. Either genital mutilation is abuse, or it is health. Regardless of how nuanced a position you want to take, your article will not be understood the same when spoken in two different languages.
So, which language did you read this article in?
Sources:
- 1
- 2
- 3
Leave a Reply