Let’s imagine that you and I are having a conversation in which I am talking about a “whole,” and you are talking about a “hole.” And let’s assume I have never heard of a hole, and you have never heard of a whole. So here I am making the sound of “HOL” in reference to something that is complete and contains everything, while that same sound, to you, refers to empty space in the wall or the ground, that contains nothing. This conversation might become rather vexatious, with each one of us coming away thinking that the other is a total idiot.
This may seem like a silly scenario, but if you substitute other words, like, say “Obama,” or “Republican” or “Democrat,” you will see the same thing happening. I have a friend who is of the opposite political leanings of myself, and while we can have very in-depth conversations about just about everything else, when these political terms come into play, the conversation falls apart. We can’t discuss the issues because we lack common language. The only way we can continue is if we sit down and carefully define our terms. If we allow these terms to be defined by others who wish to keep us factionalized and divided, we cannot speak to each other at all.
Language is an important aspect of empire. The ancient Romans made all the people in their conquered territories learn basic Latin, hence, the Romance languages. When the Spanish took over South America, they didn’t say, “hey, let’s preserve all these marvelous indigenous languages.” No. They made everybody speak the same language. We did the same thing here in United States with all of our indigenous peoples and immigrants.
Consistency of language is essential to greasing the wheels of commerce. It’s like Europe going on the euro. Consistency saves time and makes everything more efficient.
But now in the political realm, we have the exact reverse. By creating diametrically opposed definitions of political parties and elected officials, highly emotionally provocative ones at that, this has the subversive effect of dividing and conquering. How can you and I discuss our political disagreements and come to a compromise if the language itself is designed– even guaranteed– to outrage and insult each other and thus provoke conflict and total disagreement? How can we possibly ever agree on anything if you only think “whole” and I only think “hole” when we hear identically sounding words?
That sense of righteous indignation you get when these words enter the conversation– bear in mind, someone somewhere wants you to have that emotional reaction, because no matter which “side” you may be on, this hijacking and manipulation of language keeps you from allying with other people outside a very small group and making any changes. The people who are in power (and want to stay there) are very happy about that.
© Justin Locke
