Unspeak
Page 26
10
Epilogue
‘We cannot too earnestly recommend to our Authors the Study of the Abuse of Speech.’ – Martin Scriblerus, 17271
A vehement heat
To trace how Unspeak is perpetrated and spread across the world is to recognise it as fundamentally misleading. But it may be simplistic to call it plain lying. A more melancholy possibility was recognised 250 years ago in The Art of Political Lying:
Towards the End of this Chapter, he warns the Heads of Parties against believing their own Lies; which has proved of pernicious Consequence of late, both a Wise Party and a Wise Nation having regulated their Affairs upon Lies of their own Invention. The Causes of this he supposes to be too great a Zeal and Intenseness in the Practice of this Art, and a vehement Heat in mutual Conversation, whereby they perswade one another, that what they wish, and report to be true, is really so.2
And so, following this scheme, it is tempting to imagine that a ‘faith community’ such as the Bush administration, vehemently opposed as it is to the judicious study of reality, may end up – as Ehud Barak claimed was true of ‘the Arabs’ – simply incapable of telling the difference between truth and lies at all.
Apparently, however, this does not faze their adversaries. Having witnessed the virtuoso use of Unspeak by the Bush administration, some liberals in the US desperately want to catch up in the rhetorical arms race. Studying the work on how different terms ‘frame’ arguments by such linguists as George Lakoff, the Democrats hit on a counter-strategy: to burnish and sharpen their own language until it became as steely and weaponised as that of the opposition. The aim was expressed thus in 2005 by Howard Dean: ‘The framing of the debate determines who wins the debate.’3 But this may end up merely as fighting Unspeak with Unspeak. One may be wearily sceptical that it will lead to any great enlightenment. The clash of Unspeaks that we saw in the Introduction between ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ did not engender more civilised conversations about abortion. And as we saw in Chapter Two, the first fruit of the Democrats’ new ‘reframing’ strategy – the slogan ‘Prosperity. Opportunity. Community’ – was just more of the same mental anaesthetic, novocaine for the soul.
Linguist Ranko Bugarski argues, by contrast: ‘What is needed in replacement of “Warspeak” is not an equally crude and militant “Peacespeak”, but judicious use of normal language, allowing for fine-grained selection and discrimination, for urbanity and finesse.’4 What counts as ‘normal language’, of course, is already subject to ideological disagreement. But the sentiment is admirable, even if it describes an unlikely ideal. Politicians will go on trying their luck with all the rhetorical strategies in their pockets. But we should at the very least expect, and demand, that our newspapers, radio, and television refuse to replicate and spread the Unspeak virus. As BBC World presenter Kirsty Lang explains: ‘It’s much easier to take the language that’s given to you, and the government knows that full well. So if you keep saying “coalition forces”, “coalition forces”, people will use it. I think people do need to be more careful. They do take phrases willy-nilly from the government without thinking, without seriously analysing what they say.’5 The citizen’s plan of action is simple. When the media do this, talk back: write and tell them. Possibly the growth of Unspeak cannot be reversed. But that doesn’t mean we have to go on swallowing it.
To resist Unspeak, after all, is not just to quibble about semantics, any more than a jury deciding whether an accused person has committed ‘murder’ or ‘manslaughter’ is engaged in an arid linguistic exercise. Words have consequences in the world. To adopt the phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ is to be complicit in mass killing. To talk blandly of ‘abuse’ turns a blind eye to the beating to death of blameless taxi drivers. It is not a coincidence that this book has largely concentrated on how Unspeak is used simultaneously to advance and disguise the claims of war and corporate interests. The masterpieces of the art are indeed ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘war on terror’, ‘repetitive administration’. Rhetorically, Unspeak is a kind of invasive procedure: it wants to bypass critical thinking and implant a foreign body of opinion directly in the soft tissue of the brain. Perhaps for this reason, it seems to have a particular affinity with projects of violence.
Unspeak itself does violence: to meaning. It seeks to annihilate distinctions – between ‘anti-social’ and criminal; ‘resources’ and human beings; ‘cleansing’ and killing; ‘combatant’ and civilian; ‘abuse’ and torture. Because meaning is socially constructed, the Unspeak that skews meaning for political ends can itself properly be called ‘anti-social’. Unspeak finds soothing names for violence so that violence no longer surprises the deadened mind. Unspeak conjures a world where violence is the default activity, encouraging its user to think of everything in terms of violent conflict.
It was, therefore, understandable when George W. Bush, campaigning for the US presidency in September 2000, explained why he would not demolish hydroelectric dams in order to protect endangered fish. ‘I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully,’ he blurted.6 Now, the phrase coexist peacefully is only ever used of two groups in a warring attitude. Since when were we at war with the fish? (It is true that in two states of the US, it is legal to go fishing with an assault rifle, but let us consider this an aberration, rather than evidence for a real War on Fish.) Bush’s phrasing, one might think, reflected a set of assumptions which he since made real, about the necessity for perpetual and total war.
Our distant watery cousins made a welcome return to political rhetoric three years later, when they generously furnished a symbol for the success of the war in Iraq. On Fox News, under the usual banner ‘WAR ON TERROR’, At Large host Geraldo Rivera exclaimed joyously: ‘You go to the markets [in Iraq], they’re thriving, big fat fish coming out of the Tigris and the Euphrates river.’7 The invasion had thus accomplished wonders. Only a cynic would wonder how much ‘depleted uranium’ had ended up in these fishes’ fat flesh. No, the story was a fairytale happy ending. Man’s oldest and most implacable enemy, the fish, had by dint of a war become our chubby best friend, had accelerated its rate of sexual reproduction in excitement at all the bombs and missiles going off, and was now leaping happily on to the plates of grateful liberated Iraqis. If fishes were now our allies in the war on terror, maybe the tide was turning at last.
Acknowledgements
This book benefited incalculably from the surgical strikes of Schuyler W. Henderson and the reforming zeal of Daniel Fugallo, to both of whom my deepest gratitude. Valuable advice and help were also given by Zoë Waldie, Tony Rees, Gavin Rees, Robert Grant, Giles Foden, Ranko Bugarski, Philippe Sands, John Houghton, Julian Hunt, and Ted Honderich. I am grateful to editors Tim Whiting, Iain Hunt, and Brando Skyhorse, and to interviewees Harold Walker, Kirsty Lang, Stephen Whittle, Ian Mayes, and David Marsh. Thanks also to Tam Threipland and Claire Armitstead.
Others had an indirect influence on the book, though it was a long time ago and they should not be held responsible: Elizabeth MacArthur, Adrian Kilroy, Peter Holmes, Liz Marsden, and John Lennard.
Finally, special thanks to Carole Le Page, without whom I would not have got up in the mornings.
Paris, November 2005
www.unspeak.net
References
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, in Lau, D. C. (trans.), Confucius: The Analects (London, 1979), p. 128.
2 Safire, William, Safire’s New Political Dictionary (New York, 1993), p. 615; Oxford English Dictionary (OED), ‘pro-’, 5a.
3 Skinner, Quentin, ‘Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action’, in Tully, James (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Cambridge, 1988), p. 111.
4 Burke, Kenneth, Language as Symbolic Action (Berkeley, 1966), p. 50.
5 Lakoff, George, Moral Politics (Chicago, 2002), p. 263.
6 Orwell, George, ‘Appendix: The Principles of Newspeak’, in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949; New Y
ork, 1977), p. 258.
7 Whyte, Jamie, A Load of Blair (London, 2005), p. 18.
8 Orwell, George, ‘Politics and the English Language’, in Carey, John (ed.), George Orwell: Essays (London, 2002), pp. 954–67.
9 Klemperer, Victor, trans. Brady, Martin, The Language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook (LTI Notizbuch eines Philologen, Third edition; Halle [Salle], 1957; London, 2000).
10 Interview with author, 1 March 2005.
11 Fisk, Robert, ‘The Twisted Language of War that is Used to Justify the Unjustifiable’, Independent, 7 April 2003.
12 ‘Defense Department Town Hall Meeting’, Department of Defense (DoD), 29 June 2005.
13 Interview with Barbara Walters, 20/20, ABC News, 14 January 2005.
14 ‘Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Sir David Frost, BBC News’, DoD transcript, 15 June 2005.
15 Interview with John King, Defending America, CNN, 18 January 2005.
16 Dao, James, and Schmitt, Eric, ‘Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad’, New York Times (NYT), 18 February 2002.
17 ‘Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability En Route to Chile’, DoD, 18 November 2002.
18 Oborne, Peter, The Rise of Political Lying (London, 2004).
19 Arbuthnot, John (attrib.), Proposals for Printing A very curious Discourse, in two Volumes in Quarto, intitled, PSEUDOLOGIA POLITIKE: or, a Treatise of the Art of Political Lying, with An Abstract of the First Volume of the said Treatise (Edinburgh, 1746), p. 7.
20 Ibid., p. 8.
21 Bourdieu, Pierre, Language and Symbolic Power, ed. Thompson, John B., trans. Raymond, Gino, and Adamson, Matthew (1991; Cambridge, 2003), p. 236.
22 Cicero, ‘The Treatise on Rhetorical Invention’, XVII, in Yonge, C. D. (trans.), The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Vol. IV (London, 1913), p. 332.
23 Cicero, op. cit., XVIII, in Yonge, ibid.
24 Webb, Tom, ‘Bush Regrets Glib Statements About Iraq’, St Paul Pioneer Press, 14 January 2005.
Chapter 2: Community
1 ‘Anti-Social OAP Faces Jail’, BBC News, 22 July 2003.
2 ‘Brothers Placed on Two Year Anti-Social Behaviour Orders’, Manchester City Council, 10 March 2004.
3 Lamarra, Paul, ‘Woman to Fight Underwear Asbo’, Sunday Times Scotland, 6 March 2005.
4 Lane, Charles, ‘California’s “3-Strikes” Law Upheld: Supreme Court Decides Long Prison Terms Legal’, Washington Post, 6 March 2003.
5 Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], report of proceedings of Standing Committee B, 30 April 1998, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cml99798/cmstand/b/st980430/am/80430s01.htm
6 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (1998, chapter 37), 1 (1) (a).
7 Public Order Act 1986 (1986, chapter 64), 5 (1).
8 OED, ‘antisocial’, 1.
9 OED, ‘antisocial’, 2.
10 Merivale, Roman Empire (1865), VIII. lxv. 149; cited in OED, ‘antisocial’, 2.
11 Harradine, Sally, et al., ‘Defining and Measuring Anti-Social Behaviour’, Development and Practice Report 26, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2004.
12 ‘Crime and Policing: Anti-Social Behaviour’, http://www.homeoffice. gov.uk, August 2005
13 Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (2003, Chapter 38), Part 4, Chapter 30.
14 Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], op. cit.
15 Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], op. cit.
16 Campbell, Siobhan, ‘A Review of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders’, Home Office Research Study 236, January 2002.
17 Denham, John, ‘Introduction, A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts’, Home Office, March 2003.
18 Travis, Alan, and White, Michael, ‘Liberal Law and Order Days Over, Says Blair’, Guardian, 19 July 2004.
19 Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], report of proceedings of Standing Committee B, 5 May 1998.
20 Criminal Law Week, Issue 9,2005, p. 4.
21 Ibid.
22 Souter, J., opinion dissenting, Lockyer, Attorney General of California v. Andrade, 538 US 63, note 2, 5 March 2003.
23 Criminal Law Week, Issue 6,2005, p. 7.
24 ‘Anti-Social Behaviour’, The Government Reply to the Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 2004–05 HC 80, June 2005, para 32.
25 ‘Asbo Attempt to Halt Woman’s Suicide Bids’, Scotsman, 25 February 2005.
26 ‘Bridge Ban on Suicidal Woman’, Daily Record, 26 February 2005.
27 Walker, Duncan, ‘Asbowatch V: War on a G-String’, BBC News, 15 March 2005.
28 ‘ASBO on “Suicide” Woman Upheld’, BBC News, 29 April 2005.
29 Roberts, Chris, Cross River Traffic: A History of London’s Bridges (London, 2005), p. 33.
30 ‘Pakistan “Moral Laws” Spark Row’, BBC News, 11 July 2005.
31 Wong, Edward, ‘Draft Iraqi Charter Backs Islamic Law’, NYT, 20 July 2005; ‘Iraqi Leaders Struggle to Draft Consitution’, Associated Press (AP), 1 August 2005; ‘US “Concession” Marks Turn in Iraq Constitution’, Agence France Presse (AFP), 23 August 2005.
32 Taine, Hippolyte, trans. Durand, John, The French Revolution, Vol. 3 (1878; Indianapolis, 2002), p. 1149.
33 ‘Blair Calls For Better Parenting’, BBC News, 2 September 2005.
34 ‘The Crime and Disorder Act: Guidance Document: Parenting Order’, Home Office, 2 June 2000.
35 Caldwell, Christopher, ‘There Ought to Be a Law?’, NYT, 22 May 2005.
36 OED, ‘community’.
37 Golding, De Mornay, ii. 18, cited in OED, ‘community’, 2.
38 Blair, Tony, ‘Our Politics of Hope, Not Fear’, Observer, 28 November 2004, p. 6.
39 Quoted in ‘Too Young to Die’, Economist, 5 March 2005, p. 49.
40 Ignatieff, Michael, Empire Lite (London, 2003), p. 2.
41 Interview with author, 2 March 2005.
42 ‘Remarks by President Bush and Senator Kerry in the Third 2004 Presidential Debate, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona’, White House, 14 October 2004.
43 Interview with author, 1 March 2005.
44 Asthana, Anushka, ‘We’re Not All Hardline Extremists’, Observer, 21 August 2005.
45 Interview with author, 16 May 2005.
46 TM’s Press Conference’, Downing Street, 5 August 2005.
47 Preston, Peter, There is No Such Thing as Community’, Guardian, 18 July 2005.
48 TM’s Press Conference’, Downing Street, 5 August 2005
49 Inaugural Address of United States President William J. Clinton’, 20 January 1993, at University of Oklahoma College of Law, Historical Documents, http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/
50 Etzioni, Amitai, ‘Joining Together’, San Francisco Recorder, 16 March 1993.
51 Quoted in Lichfield, John, ‘Great Speech, Even Second Time Around’, Independent, 3 October 1996.
52 Green, Joshua, ‘It Isn’t the Message, Stupid’, Atlantic, May 2005.
53 Walker, Martin, ‘Profile: Community Spirit: Amitai Etzioni’, Guardian, 13 March 1995.
54 Phillips, Melanie, ‘Father of Tony Blair’s Big Idea’, Observer, 24 July 1994.
55 Etzioni, op. cit.
56 Williams, Raymond, Keywords (1976; London, 1988), p. 262.
57 Quoted in Remnick, David, ‘The Masochism Campaign’, New Yorker, 2 May 2005.
58 ‘Economics Focus: Old Before Their Time’, Economist, 5 March 2005, p. 85.
59 Etzioni, Amitai, ‘Tony Blair: A Communitarian in the Making?’, Times, 21 June 1997.
60 Etzioni, ‘Joining Together’, op. cit.
61 E.g., in Blair, Tony, ‘My Vision for Britain’, Observer, 10 November 2002.
62 House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 June 1998, part 10.
63 Blair, op. cit.
64 Helm, Sarah, ‘Plight of the Refugees: Britain Slams Door on “Economic Migrants”: The second part of an investigation into refugees finds doubts over whether Britain is upholding the principles of asylum’, Ind
ependent, 26 June 1989.
65 Shaw, David, ‘Straw Out to Break Asylum Racketeers’, Evening Standard, 22 January 1998.
66 Deans, John, ‘Six Months and You’re Out, Straw Tells Illegal Migrants’, Daily Mail, 9 February 1999.
67 Johnston, Philip, ‘Blunkett Defiant Over Plans for Refugee Schools’, Sunday Telegraph, 25 April 2004.
68 ‘Harper’s Index’, Harper’s, July 2005.
69 Cited in Cohen, Nick, Pretty Straight Guys (2003; London, 2004), p. 96.
70 ‘Steep Rise in Asbos, But Are They Working?’, Daily Mail, 29 June 2005.
71 Holmes, Stephen, ‘The Ku Klux Klan Are a Close-Knit Bunch Too’, Guardian, 18 February 1995.
72 Ibid.
73 Financial Times, 10 December 1987, cited in OED, ‘band’, v., 5.
74 Editorial: ‘Meeting the Homeless Crisis’, Independent, 19 December 1990.
75 House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 December 2001, part 8.
76 Samson, Pete, ‘This is a Sh*t Job. We’ve No Powers … We’re Not Properly Trained … We’re Meant to Make the Public Feel Safer But it’s … Just a Fraud’, Mirror, 11 May 2005.
77 Police Reform Act 2002 (2002, Chapter 30), Schedule 4, Section 38.
78 ‘President’s Remarks at Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Conference’, White House, 3 March 2004.
79 Keen, Judy, ‘White House Staffers Gather for Bible Study’, USA Today, 14 October 2002.
80 Interview, Tonight with Trevor McDonald, ITV, 4 July 2005.
81 ‘Remarks by President Bush and Senator Kerry in the Third 2004 Presidential Debate, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona’, White House, 14 October 2004.
82 Interview, Newsnight, BBC, 6 February 2003.
83 Blair, speech ‘Choice, Excellence and Equality’, to Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, 23 June 2004 (quoted in Whyte, Jamie, A Load of Blair (London, 2005), p. 60).