the language of politics
by Mark Hunter Mulvey
Published: April 25, 2008
Iran says U.S. shows ‘Iranophobia’ over Iraq.
- Reuters headline (April 20th 2008)
This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing.
- George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946)
“Iran accused U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of ‘Iranophobia’ on Sunday…” - so begins the first sentence of a Reuters piece accounting the strange behavior of nations.
The issue here is one of semantics. “Iran” is the name of a country with natural and artificial borders, the populace of which is mostly Muslim, all housed, in various appointments, throughout 30 provinces. Iran, the country, cannot accuse or form opinions of any kind. “Iran” is simply what human beings call this particular patch of earth, and all the laws, morals, and customs that go along with it. “Iranophobia” is, quite simply, not a legitimate word. It is a linguistic abortion attempting to re-brand the concept of political strife in the Middle East.
For the nation of Iran to “accuse” anything by using an imaginary word is a debilitating indication of the kind of fiction that has crept into political news coverage.
I don’t believe this argument is a rambling amusement, but a serious problem hampering our news sources and global politics at large. Personifying entire countries and describing their wills, wishes and accusations is to ignore the subtleties of its people. In reference to a meeting in Kuwait last week, the Reuters piece states, “Iran, as a neighbour of Iraq, will also attend the gathering.” This phrasing evokes images of a jagged-edged block of land cavorting through a dinner hall with an Old-Fashioned in its metaphysical grip. More dangerously, it implies that the entire nation of Iran is involved in these discussions, rather than a specific attendee.
A more accurate and mature phrasing of the event would be to say, “Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hossein will also attend the discussion.” Here, the involved party is specifically named, and neighborly vagueness is swept aside. Tending to the accurate particulars of a description, combined with a moratorium on newly-invented phobias, can help eliminate generic arguments centered around the imaginary feelings of entire countries.
When subtlety and distinction enter the verbal political landscape, discussions become less heated and more insightful. It is important to remember that the language we use to describe events is linked strongly with the way that event is perceived and, eventually, acted upon.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
