Words matter: calling a terrorist a what?
When I was getting my Master’s degree in Marriage and Family Therapy, one of the major messages I learned was that words matter. Not just the words that clients use to each other, but the words the therapist uses in speaking to clients. I had always been somewhat careful in the way I phrased things, but I learned to be ultra-careful in a session, because the way something is phrased could have a surprisingly large effect on the course of the therapy.
One of the tools therapists use is something called the “reframe” (go here and scroll down a little more than halfway to find a discussion of reframing). The reframing therapist re-labels or re-interprets a behavior that has been given a negative spin by the family, in hope of changing the family’s perspective to facilitate a positive change. Reframes aren’t Pollyana-ish lies, however; to be effective, the therapist must believe they represent some form of truth.
Therapy was developed in a framework in which punitive judgments of children and other family members were the norm. Even in my childhood—not so very long ago—parents felt very free to call kids “bad” and to predict a dreadful life for them if they didn’t change their wicked ways. It was a big advance when books such as this one by Chaim Ginott came out, suggesting that parents condemn as “bad” not the child, but the behavior of the child.
A very small switch, and one that, I hasten to add, still left plenty of room for judgment, limit-setting, and the need for the child to take personal responsability and to change. What it left open as well, though, was for the child to not feel demeaned and diminished as a human being, judged incapable of change because of some inherent flaw within him/herself.
Like many things that are initially advances, in time this correction became an overcorrection. In my tiresome cohort, the Baby Boomers, many parents relinquished responsibility to guide children with a firm hand and even to condemn behavior as bad and in need of correction. In an attempt to be liked by their children, many set few limits at all on behavior.
And then the growing self-esteem movement communicated the idea that it was every child’s right to have high self-esteem no matter what his/her behavior might be. Ginott’s book wanted children to retain a certain amount of shame about their behavior rather than their basic selves but to foster a sense of optimism about improvement. But subsequent “advances” in the field jettisoned the whole notion of shame, helping to create a sense of amoral entitlement in some children no matter what their behavior.
The whole movement spread somehow to the print media, who decided it would be helpful to third-world players on the international scene to have their self-esteem raised, as well. Oh, I know the connection between this and what therapists do is tenuous, and that this behavior on the part of the MSM has many causes—especially political correctness and in some cases the idea that it’s actually the US that has the most reason to feel the emotion known as shame. But both phenomena are on the same continuum, a road our society has been traveling now for quite some time.
Thus we have articles such as the following AP story, about the recent killing of Islamist-what-have-you’s in Somali. I say “what-have-you’s” because the words used to identify the dead in the headlines are surprisingly variable.
The AP is a wire service that has grown immensely in influence because most newspapers don’t have the capability to cover stories in the Muslim world and rely on it for much, if not most, of their news on the subject. Each newspaper takes the AP story and edits it at its own discretion. Often the papers just lazily place the text in their pages intact, without changing a word. The headlines tend to have the most variety, and if you Google this particular story you will see that the titles it is given by different newspapers vary.
Often the dead are referred to as “militants” (see this from Canada, for example). Sometimes the headline doesn’t mention them at all (see this from Seattle, which calls them “militants” and “insurgents” in the AP-generated text). But the same AP article in the Houston Chronicle calls them “terrorists” in its headline. It doesn’t seem that these choices are the least bit accidental.
Then take a look at the words of the article itself. In the fifth paragraph it reads: …Vice-President Hassan Dahir Mohamoud said eight foreign militants were killed in the fighting and Somali forces were pursuing five others. But a bit further down we have an actual quote from Mohamoud, who says: We have successfully completed the operation against the terrorists who came here and we are chasing the other five. Then in the very next sentence the AP reporter does another “reframe,” and writes: …he [Mohamoud] said the total number of militants was 13.
Pleaes forgive me if I say I doubt that’s what Mohamoud actually said. Every time the man is quoted directly, he uses the unambiguous word “terrorist” to refer to the people in question.
“Militant” and “fighter” are morally neutral words that simply mean “those who are engaged in fighting.” Interestingly enough, in this Web-based definition of the word it says: Journalists often use militant as a purportedly neutral term for violent actors who do not belong to an established military.
Yes indeed, they do. We wouldn’t want terrorists to have low self-esteem, would we?
Typical outmoded, eurocentric nomative ethnophobic-preservative judgement values, Neo.
You should excersise more tolerance.
You notice, though, that it only applies to the people and groups they champion. Bush is still “Hitler”, “stupid”, etc., but illegal immigrants are “undocumented workers”, Chavez is the “man of the people”, terrorists are “freedom fighters” fighting our “imperialism and racism”, but words like “axis of evil” only makes it harder to have a “dialog” with them.
We need to be more sensitive, but they are standing up to “tyrrany”.
I am starting to wonder whether the word terrorist is the best choice. It has almost become sanitized to mean alternative political actor. I would like a word that conveys the idea of loser, murderer, brutal thug who is insecure about hos manliness.
I may have to subscribe to the Houston Chronicle — any paper which still dares to use the word “terrorist” to describe terrorists is doing something right.
Ah yes, the dysfunctional self-esteem/PC champions are alive and well in the media. Now where did these writers come learn this. Well, my wife has told me about when she was teaching, some many years ago, every child in the class had to be recognized as having some special talent and be rewarded at the end of the year. When I coached soccer 20 years, a grandparent wanted to purchase small trophies for each player. We were last in our division, I believe. As usual, undiplomatically, I asked if we were now rewarding kids for showing up. He didn’t say so, but I knew we were. What surprises me is that we have so many young men and women who have survived the self-esteem/PC world and have gone on to fight for the liberty of the Iraqis and by extension maintaining our freedoms. That is truly amazing. Now if we could only isolate what makes them that way and inoculated the rest of the country, we might be better for it. I have said that I am, by my character, from the same generation as my parents and my children are too. We didn’t buy into this “crap” from Dr. Spock and his cohorts; more to the point, one of my sons serves in Iraq.
Hi –
Language is indeed critical: are we not giving away part of the fight by allowing those who prefer euphimisms to unpleasant truths to determine what it is we are talking about?
When I lived in DC (1986-1990), I found that I would antagonize people simply by speaking bluntly and refusing to accept politically correct speech. Usually I didn’t care, but I recognize in hindsight that controlling the language used is effective in stiflling probably close to 80% of any dissent.
In too many cases being unafraid to speak bluntly labelled you as someone who was opinionated.
As if that was a bad thing: what those who reacted thusly were really saying is that those who had different opinions from them were those with opinions: they, of course, were enlightened and Knew The Truth.
Words matter enormously.
defenselink.mildefenselink.mil“The AP is a wire service that has grown immensely in influence because most newspapers don’t have the capability to cover stories in the Muslim world…Often the papers just lazily place the text in their pages intact, without changing a word.”
Is that “laziness” or just being responsible, since the editors in say, Houston, weren’t there, but the AP reporter presumably was? Is that something you’d like to see more of?
[BTW, I’m interested to know where you got your info on how “immensely” the influence of the Associated Press has grown?]
“Words matter enormously”
I’m curious how anyone thinks having our newspapers calling the enemy “insurgents” as opposed to “terrorists” will have any significant affect on the outcome of the War in Iraq?
Seems to me if we had been willing to call what is going on in Iraq an insurgency, rather than making jokes about it, or characterizing it as being perpetrated by “regime holdouts” “thugs and assasins” we might have made better progress.
The only reason I see to insist on calling them terrorists would be to help White House efforts to convey the message that Iraq is a “central front in the War on Terror” and that “We are fighting the terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them here,” both of which are highly arguable assertions.
Funny how it is that milbloggers, who are “there” don’t seem to hold any credence for the left, yet the AP reporter should be given the benefit of the doubt because he/she is “there” as opposed to the Houston Cronicle editors.
Contradiction, anyone?
UB asserts that using the word “terrorist” to describe our enemies couldn’t possibly have any affect, yet then asserts that if we had called them “insurgents” from the beginning, we would probably have had better progress.
How ’bout “radical Islamists”?
That ought to rattle a few cages…
Are there really Milbloggers in Puntland. Lee?
No, alphie, just in your wife’s bed.
youtube.comhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8
Says it all really.
Neo, I remember hearing a memorable misapplication of therapeutic concepts before the start of the current Iraq war. A local news reporter was interviewing people who were travelling down to a big anti-war march in London, and asking them why there were going. One woman explained earnestly that she worked with disturbed children, so she knew that confrontation was never the right approach!
Presumably she would have just told Saddam to go sit in the naughty corner and think about what he’d done.
Lee Says:
June 4th, 2007 at 1:40 am
No, alphie, just in your wife’s bed.
Lee, nice to know we can always count on you to raise the level of debate. 🙂
ojr.orgtomgrossmedia.comcbc.caTo the Unknown Blogger: On the topic of the AP, see this, for example, and also this.
From the first article: Most news organizations, of course, have long since slashed their foreign bureaus in favor of saving money and running AP content….And readers haven’t exactly beaten down newsroom doors demanding first-hand reportage.
From the second, written in 1999: If anything, the Internet has exposed and accelerated several unhappy trends in international coverage that the news industry has inflicted upon itself this decade — the slashing of foreign bureaus, over-reliance on wire services and stringers, ignorance of foreign editors and the advent of ‘logo’ journalism.
I obtained a good deal more information on the subject at a talk I attended given by Jules Crittenden, journalist and editor at the Boston Herald, who spoke at length on the subject, including how much the stories are generally re-written by the paper.
If you read AP stories and take a good look at them, you’ll see that the labeling of terrorists as “fighters,” “militants” and/or “insurgents” is reflexive. In the story in question, the Somalian public official clearly used the word “terrorist” in every direct quote attributed to him, and yet the AP uses the generic in its summaries of what he said.
The BBC is well known (as is Reuters) for having a highly restrictive policy on the use of the word “terrorist” (see this : ….we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit — and unwarranted — value judgment. See also this lengthy discussion from Canada, in which the editor of the AP stylebook describes the AP policy on the subject: Words like gunmen, separatist and rebel are often more precise than terrorist and less likely to be viewed as judgmental…We often prefer the more specific words for that reason. “Separatist” and “rebel” are certainly not any more specific than “terrorist,” however; they are equally open to interpretation. What they are is more morally neutral.)
Nathaniel Whorf, a linguist, is credited with formulating the “Whorf hypothesis”, which briefly stated says “language conditions the way we think.” It’s the basis for the feminist insistence on using the term “Ms.” and the reason many don’t use words like “chairman,” “fireman,” and “policeman” anymore, instead substituting “chairperson,” “firefighter,” and “police officer,” the idea being that by removing gender from the term, we no longer think of these professions as male-dominated or male-only. There’s also the apocryphal cliché that “Eskimos have 28 words for ‘snow'” (which may or may not be true, but you get the drift). This is also the basis for much of the political correctness we see on today’s campuses.
All that just reinforces what neo’s trying to say: if we remove “terrorist” from the language, and don’t call people who commit acts of terror “terrorists,” then we’re changing the way we think about them. They become “freedom fighters,” “radicals,” “insurgents,” and the like, such that we aren’t “judgemental” about their actions. This is a grave mistake, because we need to be “judgemental” about these actions; we need to understand the nature of the people who commit these atrocious acts; and we need to know the difference between “freedom fighters” and psycopathic thugs.
UB, as I have stated many times: You get what you give. If Alphie can keep it at an adult level, it will remain so with me.
stumbley – that was the idea behind “newspeak”, the language of the totalitarian state in Orwell’s 1984. Big Brother’s regime controlled what words people were allowed to use in order to control what concepts they were able to express, and ultimately what thoughts they were able to think.
I personally thought 1984 showed a quite effective, if draconian and resource intensive, means of control. Possible, but not exactly feasible was my thinking. Up until I saw the Left in 2003 that is.
Words do matter. Words often lie, and we forget what we can see with our own eyes. Consider the phrase “Palastinian refugee camp.” Now look at the picture the next time you hear those words on TV. Chances are you’ll see an collection of especially ugly concrete apartment buildings. Is that a camp? The word “camp” suggests a bunch of unfortunates living in tents. The people living in these cities, which were built for them two generations ago with other people’s money, are no more refugees than the cities are camps, but the lie goes on.
Will someone please challenge it?
Mark,
Words can also blind one to the reality of any given situation. While I don’t disagree with Neo’s reflection on the medias sanitization through effective self censorship (the term “illegal alien” is another excellent example) I would assert that the term “terrorist” has come to encompass such a broad expanse of undesirable ideologies that it is, in effect, a blind fold. Consider the following terrorist groups:
Hezbollah
Abu Sayyaf
Al Qaeda
While the fundamental core of each of these groups differs greatly we still willingly lump them into the same category. Or, better yet, this:
“”This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hizbullah and Hamas and Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood,” so said Mitt Romney in addressing the subject of terrorism and the “long war.”
Mitt lumps four completely different elements into a neat, ideological heap ignoring the complexity of each. This homogenous ideology leads to similarly shallow policies in terms of dealing with each.
subadei:
How would you deal with “four completely different elements” whose means to an end are identical?
Definitions of English words are always lumps. Words define other words, and more complex words require simpler foundation words to function in a meaningful way.
Terrorism is getting inputs from two or more different philosophies and basic pool of definitions. That’s because every side wants terrorism to be defined by their specific preference. So that means some of the connotative definitions of terrorism becomes inconsistent with other definitions.
That tends to happen when people call GitMo terrorism, Bush terrorism, etc and then we use the same word for suicide bombings.
Mitt lumps four completely different elements into a neat, ideological heap ignoring the complexity of each.
They are not four completely different elements. Just as there are different CO[m]munist, Neo-m[a]rxist, Soc[i]alist, and Democrat Soci[a]lists parties amongst the nations of the world, just because geographically their origins are different doesn’t mean ideologically they are completely different.
Terrorism is an apt definition for those groups. There are individual differences, but you only require the knowledge of them if you are specifically planning to target and destroy one of the groups. We’re not talking about strategic planning to destroy Hizbollah. If we were, then yes calling Hizbollah terrorism would be vague and counter-productive. But we’re not, are we.
Under this standard, it is definitely not okay for the media to be vague about a specific group that did a specific attack, and they just aren’t going to tell you who did it.
hmm. Yes Harry. Let’s tolerate those who terrorize us.
Neo, I’ve been in favor of calling Palestinian suicide bombers as suicide murders to be more accurate.
I love how you pull in other topics like counseling and reframing into your posts. I find people are often negative and judgmental and with very little energy or due diligence will state things about another that aren’t even true. I often will reframe at work (naturally) to re-characterize someone to another and what their actions were. I get two different reactions: 1) Many will dig in and be more insistent pulling in other events – to which I say repeatedly I don’t know about those things I’m only referring to the one issue – and usually to no avail so I have to let it go 2) Some will actually look at you with surprise and actually say I never thought of it that way.
Neo, you are a great writer and I often come to read your work but mostly only post at Sister Toldjah’s blog (which is how I found you because somebody mentioned you about 2 years ago).
I hope you like writing because I hope to see it for many more years.