分裂世界中两极分化语言的危险

语言深刻影响我们对世界的感知和解释，塑造我们的思维和行为。虽然战争是一种独立于我们的语言的现象，但将世界感知和描述为敌对的可能会导致战争的显现。近几十年来，包括委婉语和模糊沟通在内的语言滥用现象愈演愈烈，引发了人们对公共话语恶化的担忧。操纵语言来控制思想一直是反乌托邦文学的主题，虽然这种国家产生的新话在民主国家并不普遍，但政治正确语言的出现源于自由民主本身的机制。

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

语言、思想和分裂世界中两极分化的危险

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.

在一个充满深刻的全球挑战和不断升级的地缘政治紧张局势的时代，我们必须仔细审查我们用来描述世界的语言。因为语言不仅仅是事件的被动观察者，而且是事件的被动观察者。它积极塑造我们的看法，影响我们的行动，甚至可以促成它所预测的结果。

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.

考虑一下“战争”一词的普遍使用来描述不断扩大的冲突范围。这种语言习惯源于对紧迫性和果断行动的感知需要，有可能使它试图缓解的敌对行动永久化。如果我们始终从冲突的角度来看待世界，我们可能会无意中加剧紧张局势并增加军事对抗的可能性。

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.

乔治·奥威尔的《政治与英语》的警示故事在我们今天的话语中回响。奥威尔谴责二战后双语和委婉语的兴起，认识到它们是混淆视听和为无法辩解的行为辩护的工具。极权主义政权使用委婉的语言来净化暴行，例如用“整顿边境”来指代强迫人口转移，赤裸裸地说明了语言扭曲现实和压制异议的力量。

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.

近几十年来，公共话语发生了微妙而普遍的转变，其特点是越来越模糊和缺乏精确性。考虑一下英国皇家艺术学会的愿望，即培育一个“有弹性、重新平衡和再生”的世界，或者英国政府人工智能基金会模型工作组承诺制定一项“细致入微”的政策，“管理下行风险，同时保护上行趋势”。这项技术。”这种语言引发了人们对公共传播专业人士角色的质疑，他们可能会发现自己遵守流行语和常用短语的规定公式，而不是参与真正的对话和辩论。

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.

奥威尔的反乌托邦小说《1984》对语言控制思想和消除异议的操纵力量提出了先见之明的警告。小说的主人公温斯顿·史密斯的任务是重写历史以适应最新的政治变化，消除令人难以忽视的事实，并最终使独立思考变得不可能。

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.

虽然《1984》中描述的公开审查制度似乎已经成为过去，但“取消”或羞辱使用“不当”语言的个人的做法甚至在民主社会中也已扎根。这种做法往往打着社会工程的幌子，压制不同的声音并扼杀公开对话，创造了一种从众和群体思维盛行的环境。

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.

我们这个时代的语言过剩不仅是由国家强制的新话推动的，也是由自由民主本身机制中出现的政治正确词汇的扩散所驱动的。正如亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔敏锐地观察到的那样，民主社会很容易出现语言膨胀，平凡的职业被赋予宏大的头衔，技术术语被应用于日常用品，词语被赋予模糊的含义。

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.

正如托克维尔所说，这种语言膨胀不仅反映了多数人的暴政，而且也是少数人寻求承认和代表的要求所驱动的。避免给这些群体的成员造成困扰的道义责任促使民主政府对语言进行监管，以防止社会动荡。

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.

然而，当今民主言论所带来的最阴险的危险在于其倾向于用赤裸裸的道德术语来构建国际关系，将世界分为“好”国家和“坏”国家。这种简单化的二分法虽然可能提供了一种道德明确感，但却破坏了和平共处和全球合作的前景。

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.

正如历史学家 A.J.P.泰勒有一句名言：以理想之名进行的战争，例如 20 世纪的“正义”战争，往往会比出于务实原因而进行的战争造成更多的流血。通过用道德术语来描述冲突，我们可能会面临紧张局势升级、立场强硬、妥协和外交变得更加困难的风险。

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.

在一个相互联系和相互依存的世界中，我们语言选择的后果远远超出了国内政治的狭隘范围。我们用来描述从气候变化到核扩散等全球挑战的语言，要么可以促进合作和集体行动，也可以播下分裂和不信任的种子。

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.

因此，我们必须以正念对待语言的使用，认识到它对我们的感知、行动和人类历史进程的深远影响。通过使用精确而细致的语言，避免双关语和委婉语的陷阱，并抵制退回到两极分化的道德框架的诱惑，我们可以创造一种促进理解、同理心以及和平解决冲突的话语。

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

我们选择的词语有能力塑造我们的世界。让我们明智地选择它们。