Some from my generation, the WW 2, pre-baby boomers, will have heard that phrase many times growing up. Swearing was simply not permitted in polite families. Even words like “damn it” were considered swear words. So we know, whether we agree about swearing or not, that language is critical to how a society describes itself. In more recent years, churches have looked for ways to change male-orientated language to more inclusive language. There is sufficient psychological/social research to let us know that the way we use language impacts the way we think about and act towards others.
Given what we know it is not surprising to hear people who represent the particular ideology of a country using language that paints their position in the best possible light and their opposition in the worst. The Hamas fighters who invaded Israel are denigrated as terrorists. The Kurds, attempting to secure some autonomy in Turkey are also terrorists. The USA encouraged Australia to join it in the failed venture in Iraq because supposedly there were weapons of mass destruction, which translates to terrorism. From Iraq we were then persuaded to join the USA in Afghanistan, because that was a hotbed of terrorism. This was despite the Soviet Union’s failure to achieve any meaningful goal for their interests over 10 years. Now we are back to where we started. The USA also interfered with Cuba, Panama and Chile. Of course, this is all in the name of democracy and freedom, even though the interference led to further destruction and in the case of Chile, the establishment of the cruel dictator Pinochet.
Now we hear alternate voices saying that the USA is the true terrorist, given its war record, as well as the economic benefits its arms industry enjoys. Does this mean that the word “terrorist” has lost any useful meaning? I would argue yes it has. It is simply a word used to denigrate the other and uphold another position, as well as open the way for violence, such as in Gaza because it is part of a “righteous cause”. against “terrorism.” Was the bombing of the King David Hotel by the Jewish Irgun in 1946 a terrorist attack or an attack on the colonial power of England? If the Jewish people, emerging from terrible suffering, violently opposed the British colonial power, what then of the Palestinian people who face oppression by the conquering colonial power of Israel? Is it valid to say that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter? Are there any rules to guide such a process? Who gets killed and who does not? Is there really anything such as a just war and who determines that? Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Japan? Did it end the war more quickly and exactly save lives? Such questions have forever troubled ethicists and there will be many times when a variety of decisions are made that are different and lead to ongoing controversy.
What we can be sure of is that if we moderate our language from denigrating others to respecting the value of all life, the way we think about others and the decisions we make will change. A trainee soldier may well charge with a bayonet into a bag full of sand when the sergeant says that the bag represents a terrorist, that is, a person of no value needing to be destroyed. If, however, the sergeant says, “Bayonet that bag of sand, because it represents a young man with a wife and a baby”, then the scenario changes radically.
The places where language adversely impacts outcomes are many and varied. From police who refer to people committing crimes as crimes and scum to, those referring to people seeking asylum as “queue jumpers” and “illegals” all the way to Abos, micks, Lebs, polaks etc. Denigrating language allows us to be superior and dismissive of the other. Russia simply says that Ukraine has no historical reason to exist; consequently, we can invade and take over this place. Israel can use pseudo-biblical material emerging from an atheistic Zionist organisation to claim the whole of Palestine. Those who oppose this view are terrorists and in any case, Palestinians do not actually exist, thus cancelling a whole race of people. This is done, even though historically the Hebrew texts clearly state that Abraham came from the land now called Iraq, to take over a land already occupied.
When the language changes from disrespect to valuing every person, it becomes much more difficult to denigrate the other. While there is not much of this being seen from the leadership of Hamas and Israel, there are increasing numbers of people on both sides of this conflict who recognise the need for this shift of language and attitude. Psychology tells us there will always be haters and those who narcissistically demand their view be the only one heard. On the other hand, there will always be those of great hope, willing to make the necessary sacrifices so that our communities work together towards a better outcome for all people, regardless of religion or culture.
psychology and hope 