Linguistic deodorant
The language of war
April 24, 2003
The Iranian
Throughout history, war-makers have created Orwellian euphemisms
to sanitize the gruesome realities of war and, in the process, neutralize
or deflect public sentiment in favor of their actions. "Blitz"
was used in World War II, "friendly fire" in the Vietnam
War, "the mother of all battles," in Persian Gulf War
I, and "shock and awe" in Persian Gulf War II.
Words are symbolic representations of human thoughts, actions,
and feelings. Their shared meanings, by members of a particular
group, form language. Language, to use a dictionary definition,
is "the expression and communication of emotions or ideas between
human beings by means of speech and hearing." Psychologically,
words are as powerful as icons, signs, and flags. Hence to reduce
their emotional impact, especially in war, the army generals and
the Pentagon's propaganda planners devise new words and phrases
that are often unfamiliar to the general public and are, therefore,
devoid of any emotions or feelings.
The process is that government and military officials unveil their
concocted terms in their pronouncements prior to war; mass media
reporters incorporate them into their daily reports and, through
repetition, the mass audiences (public) add them to their conversations,
often without knowing their true meanings. In other words, military
lingo, hyped by the mass media, becomes public lingo. Consider the
following military jargon, from the two Persian Gulf wars and the
War on Terrorism, which have become common public expressions:
"Collateral damage," civilians killed or injured; "friendly
fire," allied soldiers killed or injured by their own coalition
troops; "shock and awe," scaring the wits out of the Iraqi
regime and people to cause them to surrender to the Anglo-British
forces; "pre-emptive strike," attacking a nation or group,
unilaterally, based on assumptions that they pose a threat; "just
war," justifying an attack based on assumptions of eminent
danger; "coalition of the willing," the countries -- about
30 of the nearly 200 nations -- that are assisting or supporting
the American-led attack against Iraq; "embedded reporters,"
journalists who are willingly cooperating and are literally "in
bed" with the military forces; "the mother of all bombs,"
a 20-ton weapon of mass destruction; "Operation Iraqi Freedom,"
getting rid of the Ba'ath regime and replacing it with a regime
which would ensure the interests of the invading forces, multinational
corporations, and oil companies; "Operation Desert Storm,"
invading and partitioning Iraq without removing the dictator, Saddam
Hussein, or his regime; "theater of operation," battleground;
"turkey run," randomly killing a massive number of people;
"body bags," killed soldiers; "bunker buster,"
bombs dropped on safety shelters or other public buildings; "daisy
cutter," a bomb capable of penetrating and destroying caves
and their occupants; "sorties," bomb runs on various targets;
"carpet bombing," indiscriminate bombing of selected locations;
"peacemakers," soldiers and/or weapons; "attacking
positions," attacking people; "attacking targets,"
attacking buildings; "decapitation," killing and destroying
opposition leaders; "terrorists," any individual, group,
or nation that one may dislike; "the patriot," a missile;
"patriotic," an individual who supports the government
and military actions, even if they are contrary to the spirit of
the U.S. Constitution, international laws, human rights, UN mission,
and world public opinion.
The language of war is intended to soften the tragic realities
of human blood and gore through highly sophisticated manipulation
techniques involving the creation of words, phrases, euphemism,
and images that are intended to sanitize and, in the process, desensitize
human feelings toward mass killings and destruction. In other words,
in order to achieve their goals, government and military leaders,
aided by mass media professionals, displace reality with fiction,
fact with symbolism, and truth with propaganda. Indeed, truth is
always the first casualty of war.
In this so-called "Information" or "Communication"
Age, ironically, the missing components are reliable information
and meaningful communication. Perhaps the terms "Disinformation
Age" or "Babble Age" would more accurately describe
this gloomy period in human history. Today, more than ever before,
we need to devise mechanisms for making sound decisions for resolving
domestic, regional, and global conflicts through dialogue rather
than through imposing a particular agenda, plan, or perspective
on the entire world through military force, bribes, persuasion,
and sophisticated propaganda techniques. Moreover, it is absurd
to think that a people's hearts and minds can be won by missiles,
bombs, destructions, and death. To even envision and plan for a
better future, we must replace the language of "hate"
with "love" and the language of "war" with "peace."
Otherwise, we bring George Orwell's nightmare world of 1984
to life in the 21st Century.
Author
Yahya R. Kamalipour, PhD, is professor of mass communication and
head of the Department of Communication and Creative Arts, Purdue
University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana. He is editor of the book,
Global
Communication (Wadsworth, 2002) and editor-in-chief of
Global Media
Journal.
* Send
this page to your friends
* Printer
friendly
|
