A post on how the obfuscatory language of war and 'international relations' conceals truth but reveals who has the power. And a few tips on how to decipher that language.
Really fantastic article - tears apart the obfuscation used by aggressive parties to justify their illegal actions. How about 'use of human shields' and the term 'terrorists' to describe those resisting violent oppression? Why is 'intifada' considered so provocative, and also the term 'from the river to the sea'? Language is twisted and misinterpreted deliberately.
Great comment Brenda, thank you. When you start to look, the obfuscation is everywhere. Diplomats, politicians and commentators are highly skilled at euphemism and obscurantism.
Excellent work!! I'm new to the space but super interested in the idea of who does what to whom and who names and frames. Fascinating!
I'm looking at 'Just Transition' and how are rural farmers named and how is justice framed, justice for whom and under which circumstances(the frame if you wish). About poststructuralism and their take on words/language I point towards critical realism and how ideas are real and make things happen in the world. Language is real and indeed it has causal powers, as you so brilliantly put it in your post. I'm grateful for any pointers in the space of Just Transition and thank you for sharing your poignant ideas with us!!
Thanks so much Caroline. Yes, framing what 'justice' constitutes is a biggy. Interestingly, Derrida spent much of his later career looking at precisely this. I'm trying to understand this at the moment!
As a doctor we have been encouraged for a long time to remove jargon from our vocabulary. This has many benefits - it reduces mistakes, builds rapport amd trust amongst staff and patients, and is essential for collaboration between them to enable the patient to make informed choices about their own health. I have just finished both of your books The Leaderless Revolution and Independent Diplomat over the past two days, and found them incredibly interesting, thought provoking, and your personal thoughts and confessions deeply moving and brave-thank you.
I note in both books you are very interested in the study of language and knowledge itself, and how difficult it is to capture the complexities of our world in language accurately. This then is where in lies the tension-how can language capture and communicate the real meaning of things so the receiver can understand it, and make informed decisions, without highly complex concepts becoming intelligible.
When giving patients complex information about treatments (often with complex research methods, conflicts of interests, complicated statistics) infographics can be incredibly helpful, a picture tells a thousand words after all.
I think there needs to be some sort of oath professionals in journalism, government and institutions need to take to ensure they use the simplest language possible to be understood. When done well, this actually takes more skill than using pretentious language anyway. I think these parties should also always define the meaning of complex or new terms at the beginning of any document or discussion. Parties should also outline who will be affected (Israel’s participation upon the issue of Palestine could hardly be glossed over so easily then) and is contributing/complicit locally.
Infographics that all agree on and can refer to as a standard would be incredibly helpful to prevent obfuscation.
Many thanks again for your books. I will be posting an indepth review on my substack shortly. Best of luck with your venture and fundraising to go towards your work at Independent Diplomat. It seems an incredibly important issue to help reduce conflict everywhere.
Thank you, Kim, for this kind and thoughtful comment. And thank you for reading my books. I am indeed very interested in language and how it shapes what we think of as the world and how we arbitrate it. I am getting increasingly obsessed with poststructuralism and the idea that words do not describe ideas, in fact the words produce the ideas. It's the other way around. I'm sure I haven't put this very well. I agree on the oath of simple language. Terminology and jargon is designed to obscure and exclude, certainly in my experience. The huge tsunami of jargon in diplomacy has precisely that purpose - to preserve it as an elite practice and frustrate scrutiny and broader participation. I could go on. Thanks for following my work. I am encouraged to keep going. Best wishes, Carne
Thanks so much for your reply. I am going to sit down this afternoon and write reviews of your books on my substack and hopefully i can put it on amazon for you. I’m really glad its motivated you to go on. I really have found your books incredibly enlightening and empowering. I have been re-reading them and making notes, and would like to let you know also how moved I was with your description of the treatment, indeed, betrayal of your dear friend David Kelly. I am so sad he was humiliated, left feeling unsupported in such an important role, and his life’s work was ‘rubbished’ and belittled.
I have been thinking about this a lot, and thought it might give you a moments consolation to think of how proud he would be to know how may lives he has probably saved with his measured and dedicated service - constantly reiterating that there were in fact no WMD to the government and the media.
His steadfast attitude, not bending to political pressure to ‘find something - find anything to justify this war!’ I imagine he was put under, showed incredible strengths and integrity. I am sure this measured, careful and calming attitude in reaction to the inflammatory rhetoric about “weapons of mass Destruction!” Will have delayed military interventions, and indeed, have directly and indirectly limited their impact which will potentially helped save thousands of lives.
He should, indeed, therefore be heralded as a hero (although I do understand Tolstoy would not approve of that idolatry ;).
I think however, that if I was him, I would be somewhere above looking down and feeling really bloody proud of myself.
I know I, although having never met him, will describe him to my children as an illustration of what incredible impact an honourable character can have on the world. I will hold him up as a role model for them in this respect.
I hope this is very small piece of consolation for something that has clearly impacted you a lot. Thanks again for your books. They have been truly eye-opening and inspiring.
We don't have the vocabulary, or access to knowledge, necessary to have functional national discourse. That's one reasons why the popular press uses language the average 8 year old can understand. And it's why we are a nation of consumers not citizens.
Really fantastic article - tears apart the obfuscation used by aggressive parties to justify their illegal actions. How about 'use of human shields' and the term 'terrorists' to describe those resisting violent oppression? Why is 'intifada' considered so provocative, and also the term 'from the river to the sea'? Language is twisted and misinterpreted deliberately.
Great comment Brenda, thank you. When you start to look, the obfuscation is everywhere. Diplomats, politicians and commentators are highly skilled at euphemism and obscurantism.
Excellent work!! I'm new to the space but super interested in the idea of who does what to whom and who names and frames. Fascinating!
I'm looking at 'Just Transition' and how are rural farmers named and how is justice framed, justice for whom and under which circumstances(the frame if you wish). About poststructuralism and their take on words/language I point towards critical realism and how ideas are real and make things happen in the world. Language is real and indeed it has causal powers, as you so brilliantly put it in your post. I'm grateful for any pointers in the space of Just Transition and thank you for sharing your poignant ideas with us!!
Thanks so much Caroline. Yes, framing what 'justice' constitutes is a biggy. Interestingly, Derrida spent much of his later career looking at precisely this. I'm trying to understand this at the moment!
As a doctor we have been encouraged for a long time to remove jargon from our vocabulary. This has many benefits - it reduces mistakes, builds rapport amd trust amongst staff and patients, and is essential for collaboration between them to enable the patient to make informed choices about their own health. I have just finished both of your books The Leaderless Revolution and Independent Diplomat over the past two days, and found them incredibly interesting, thought provoking, and your personal thoughts and confessions deeply moving and brave-thank you.
I note in both books you are very interested in the study of language and knowledge itself, and how difficult it is to capture the complexities of our world in language accurately. This then is where in lies the tension-how can language capture and communicate the real meaning of things so the receiver can understand it, and make informed decisions, without highly complex concepts becoming intelligible.
When giving patients complex information about treatments (often with complex research methods, conflicts of interests, complicated statistics) infographics can be incredibly helpful, a picture tells a thousand words after all.
I think there needs to be some sort of oath professionals in journalism, government and institutions need to take to ensure they use the simplest language possible to be understood. When done well, this actually takes more skill than using pretentious language anyway. I think these parties should also always define the meaning of complex or new terms at the beginning of any document or discussion. Parties should also outline who will be affected (Israel’s participation upon the issue of Palestine could hardly be glossed over so easily then) and is contributing/complicit locally.
Infographics that all agree on and can refer to as a standard would be incredibly helpful to prevent obfuscation.
Many thanks again for your books. I will be posting an indepth review on my substack shortly. Best of luck with your venture and fundraising to go towards your work at Independent Diplomat. It seems an incredibly important issue to help reduce conflict everywhere.
Kim
Thank you, Kim, for this kind and thoughtful comment. And thank you for reading my books. I am indeed very interested in language and how it shapes what we think of as the world and how we arbitrate it. I am getting increasingly obsessed with poststructuralism and the idea that words do not describe ideas, in fact the words produce the ideas. It's the other way around. I'm sure I haven't put this very well. I agree on the oath of simple language. Terminology and jargon is designed to obscure and exclude, certainly in my experience. The huge tsunami of jargon in diplomacy has precisely that purpose - to preserve it as an elite practice and frustrate scrutiny and broader participation. I could go on. Thanks for following my work. I am encouraged to keep going. Best wishes, Carne
Thanks so much for your reply. I am going to sit down this afternoon and write reviews of your books on my substack and hopefully i can put it on amazon for you. I’m really glad its motivated you to go on. I really have found your books incredibly enlightening and empowering. I have been re-reading them and making notes, and would like to let you know also how moved I was with your description of the treatment, indeed, betrayal of your dear friend David Kelly. I am so sad he was humiliated, left feeling unsupported in such an important role, and his life’s work was ‘rubbished’ and belittled.
I have been thinking about this a lot, and thought it might give you a moments consolation to think of how proud he would be to know how may lives he has probably saved with his measured and dedicated service - constantly reiterating that there were in fact no WMD to the government and the media.
His steadfast attitude, not bending to political pressure to ‘find something - find anything to justify this war!’ I imagine he was put under, showed incredible strengths and integrity. I am sure this measured, careful and calming attitude in reaction to the inflammatory rhetoric about “weapons of mass Destruction!” Will have delayed military interventions, and indeed, have directly and indirectly limited their impact which will potentially helped save thousands of lives.
He should, indeed, therefore be heralded as a hero (although I do understand Tolstoy would not approve of that idolatry ;).
I think however, that if I was him, I would be somewhere above looking down and feeling really bloody proud of myself.
I know I, although having never met him, will describe him to my children as an illustration of what incredible impact an honourable character can have on the world. I will hold him up as a role model for them in this respect.
I hope this is very small piece of consolation for something that has clearly impacted you a lot. Thanks again for your books. They have been truly eye-opening and inspiring.
I’ll sit and type out your reviews now.
Take care,
Kim.
We don't have the vocabulary, or access to knowledge, necessary to have functional national discourse. That's one reasons why the popular press uses language the average 8 year old can understand. And it's why we are a nation of consumers not citizens.