The Perils of Polarized Language in a Divided World

Language profoundly influences our perception and interpretation of the world, shaping our thinking and actions. While war is a phenomenon independent of our language, perceiving and describing the world as hostile can lead to its manifestation. The misuse of language, including euphemisms and vague communication, has intensified in recent decades, raising concerns about the deterioration of public discourse. Manipulating language to control thought has been a theme in dystopian literature, and while such state-generated Newspeak is not widespread in democracies, the emergence of politically correct language stems from the mechanisms of liberal democracy itself.

Language, Thought, and the Perils of Polarity in a Fractured World

In an era marked by profound global challenges and escalating geopolitical tensions, it is imperative that we scrutinize the language we employ to describe our world. For language is not merely a passive observer of events; it actively shapes our perceptions, influences our actions, and can even precipitate the very outcomes it predicts.

Consider the ubiquitous use of the term "war" to describe an ever-widening spectrum of conflicts. This linguistic habit, born out of a perceived need for urgency and decisive action, has the insidious potential to perpetuate the very hostilities it seeks to mitigate. By consistently framing the world through the lens of conflict, we may inadvertently escalate tensions and increase the likelihood of military confrontations.

The cautionary tale of George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" echoes in our present-day discourse. Orwell decried the rise of doublespeak and euphemisms in the aftermath of World War II, recognizing their role as tools of obfuscation and justification for indefensible actions. The euphemistic language employed by totalitarian regimes to sanitize atrocities, such as "rectification of frontiers" to refer to forced population transfers, starkly illustrates the power of language to distort reality and suppress dissent.

In recent decades, a subtle yet pervasive shift has occurred in public discourse, characterized by an increasing vagueness and lack of precision. Consider the aspiration of the Royal Society of Arts to foster a "resilient, rebalanced, and regenerative" world, or the commitment of the UK government's AI Foundation Model Taskforce to forge a "nuanced" policy that "manages downside risks while protecting the upside of this technology." Such language raises questions about the role of public-communication professionals, who may find themselves adhering to prescribed formulas of buzzwords and stock phrases rather than engaging in genuine dialogue and debate.

Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" stands as a prescient warning about the manipulative power of language to control thought and eliminate dissent. The novel's protagonist, Winston Smith, is tasked with rewriting history to conform to the latest political shifts, erasing inconvenient truths and ultimately rendering independent thought impossible.

While the overt censorship depicted in "1984" may seem like a relic of the past, the practice of "canceling" or shaming individuals for using "inappropriate" language has taken root even in democratic societies. Such practices, often cloaked in the guise of social engineering, suppress dissenting voices and stifle open dialogue, creating an environment where conformity and groupthink prevail.

The linguistic excesses of our time are not solely driven by state-mandated Newspeak but also by the proliferation of a politically correct vocabulary that has emerged from the mechanisms of liberal democracy itself. As Alexis de Tocqueville astutely observed, democratic societies are prone to a linguistic inflation, where grandiose titles are bestowed upon modest occupations, technical jargon is applied to everyday items, and words are imbued with ambiguous meanings.

This linguistic inflation is not solely a reflection of the tyranny of the majority, as Tocqueville suggested, but is also driven by the demands of minorities seeking recognition and representation. The moral imperative to avoid causing distress to members of these groups has led democratic governments to regulate language in an attempt to prevent social unrest.

However, the most insidious danger posed by today's democratic rhetoric lies in its tendency to frame international relations in stark moral terms, dividing the world into "good" and "bad" countries. This simplistic dichotomy, while perhaps providing a sense of moral clarity, undermines the prospects for peaceful coexistence and global cooperation.

As the historian A.J.P. Taylor famously observed, wars fought in the name of ideals, such as the "just" wars of the 20th century, have often resulted in far greater bloodshed than wars fought for pragmatic reasons. By framing conflicts in moralistic terms, we risk escalating tensions, hardening positions, and making compromise and diplomacy more difficult.

In an interconnected and interdependent world, the consequences of our linguistic choices extend far beyond the narrow confines of domestic politics. The language we use to describe global challenges, from climate change to nuclear proliferation, can either foster cooperation and collective action or sow division and mistrust.

It is therefore imperative that we approach the use of language with mindfulness, recognizing its profound impact on our perceptions, actions, and the course of human history. By employing precise and nuanced language, avoiding the pitfalls of doublespeak and euphemisms, and resisting the temptation to retreat into polarized moral frameworks, we can create a discourse that promotes understanding, empathy, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

The words we choose have the power to shape our world. Let us choose them wisely.