The accusatory nature of the political world seems inescapable now. It seeps into the life of the average man as its ever-growing presence has overflowed and dribbled down to the very foundation of communication — language.
It’s better to change your opponent’s mind than defeat him, thus gaining an ally rather than beating an enemy. Effective democratic operation requires this strategy.
In our current democratic society, progressives progress eternally leftward to truly be progressives — lest they lose their distinction. The classic speculation is that their constant leftward movement drags the center of the political spectrum left with them while the right concedes little bits at a time.
What distinguished Donald Trump was that he got elected by using the same strategy but taking the opposite direction, holding the center but widening the divide.
Now it seems more common for mainstream Republican politicians to emulate Trump’s strategy.
With a wider political gap, those wanting to stay out of the way are having trouble finding the safety of the center. Too far to the right, and progressives call you racist bigots. Too far left, and right-wingers unveil that, unbeknownst to you, you’ve succumbed to the mind virus.
Changing technical terms into words that have a more favorable connotation is the leftist’s forte. Many radical left groups have changed terms and in turn have affected the broader culture’s thinking on key issues. Like the general political progression leftward, what was once progressive wording has become mainstream.
Radical right-wingers cannot seem to summon any tactic other than making something bad sound worse. Centrists do not usually respond positively to that because they like the safety of the center, not stepping on other people’s toes.
For example, the topic of abortion has caused particular linguistic chaos because the disagreement is on such a fundamental level — the question mainly being whether all human life is worth protecting. The political abortion debate now is only duked out through surface level technicalities, like whether abortion should be allowed before a detectable heartbeat.
The phrase “chemical abortion,” which describes an abortion initiated by the use of the mifepristone pill, has been replaced by pro-choice advocates. The proper phrase in that sphere is now “medication abortion.” This term only started being used in the early 2000s, whereas the phrase “chemical abortion” has been around since before Roe v. Wade.
Though it is a fairly minute difference, which sounds better: a chemical abortion or a medication abortion? Though connotation is not quantifiable, we know “chemical” suggests something toxic. “Medication” makes the abortion procedure sound like the necessary healing of a sickness. Soften the word, and dull the horror it signifies in the minds of those who speak it. Make the word positive, and make what it signifies positive in the minds of those who speak it.
These language shifts may have hit journalism the hardest. Readers can now easily discern party affiliation based on word choice. Pro-lifers — or anti-abortion activists according to their adversaries — say “the abortion industry,” or if they’re very zealous, “baby killers.” Pro-choicers — or abortion advocates according to their adversaries — say “women’s health care providers.”
Even self-proclaimed “neutral” institutions like the Associated Press Stylebook maintain politically charged language choices. It mandates reporters at major publications use terms like “anti-abortion” or “abortion-rights” rather than “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” Though subtle, they endorse one that says “rights” and one that says “anti.”
Figuring out acceptable language on abortion is complicated. Anyone who knows the connotations of language on abortion can pick out the affiliation of anyone who speaks on the topic. This, in addition to the obvious gravity of the issue, is why the average centrist would not dare mention abortion in polite company.
During the sexual revolution, the word “sex” was redefined to have a much broader meaning, encompassing more activities than just the procreative act. This has redefined not just the word but the meaning of the word sex in the broader culture.
In this political climate, it seems all topics are moving in a similar direction to the abortion debate: politicized language makes discussions about charged issues nearly impossible. But this change of words is not something new.
Samuel Johnson, the great 18th century lexicographer and thinker addressed this subject in his “Preface to the Dictionary.”
“As any opinion grows popular, it will innovate speech in the same proportion as it alters practice,” Johnson wrote. In other words, changing words represent a change in how a culture wants to represent what words signify.
But George Orwell, a great 20th century thinker, said something seemingly opposite to Johnson in his essay “Politics and the English Language.”
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,” Orwell wrote. “A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”
In other words, language can be intentionally imposed to affect the culture and can do so even if the culture knows it’s happening.
Both men point out serious concerns about linguistic use. Language and culture have an interactive relationship that we shouldn’t ignore or take lightly. Particular word usage tends to be democratically agreed upon, but like all human affairs, democracy can be manipulated.
Johnson hoped that his dictionary would help solidify the English language, making communication easier and helping the language better represent truth. Orwell was concerned about the changing nature of war amidst more authoritarian use of language.
Both men devoted much of their lives to preserving language and communication to protect society from collapse.
But what can a regular citizen do? Find out if the language is changing, see whether the change is good and or manipulative and, of course, choose your next words wisely.