By Leon Cohen
This business of using words to report on “reality” is not easy. Philadelphia Jewish Exponent editor Jonathan Tobin barely scratches the surface of the problem in his above essay about the flap over using the word “terrorists” to describe people who commit violence against civilians supposedly to further a cause.
When I write an opinion article, I have no problem calling Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat a “terrorist.” But in news stories, we try to be more even-handed.
Think about it for a minute. Does this word describe an objective reality or is it a subjective, judgmental, emotion-inducing word — a directive to get readers to feel the same way about him I do?
We could consult the dictionary for definitions of “terrorist” and then attempt to see if Arafat’s behavior fits the definitions. But having done that, what have we done except make another judgment based on more words?
And if I say, “Arafat is a terrorist,” does that say everything about him or just everything about him that is important to me? If I were a Palestinian Arab, would I not regard calling Arafat a “terrorist” instead of “freedom fighter” or “liberator” a taking of sides against him?
And if I were truly trying to be neutral in reporting information about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, shouldn’t I try to find a word that doesn’t carry positive or negative connotations in describing Arafat?
But are there any such words in English? “Activist” or even “militant” both make him sound relatively harmless, like somebody who would march on a picket line rather than commit mass murder.
Principles of semantics
In a short article like this, it is not possible to go deeply into the subject. All I can do is refer the reader to “Language in Thought and Action” by semanticist S. I. Hayakawa, which is one of the wisest books I’ve ever read. Its last chapter contains a summarizing list of concepts about the use and misuse of language developed at length in the book.
They include:
• “A map is not the territory it stands for; words are not things.” Words are symbols that have no necessary connection to the things they stand for.
• “A map does not represent all of a territory; words never say all about anything.” Words are abstractions, generalizations and classifications.
• “The meanings of words are not in the words; they are in us.” Whether we are talking about “terrorists” or “marriage” or “human life,” words mean whatever we decide and agree to have them mean.
• “Beware of the word ‘is,’ which, when not used simply as an auxiliary verb (‘he is coming’), can crystallize misevaluations.” To say “Roses are red” only refers to some rose flowers, and ignores both their green stems and the existence of other colored roses.
• “Distinguish between directive [trying to get people to do something] and informative statements.” It is not only easy to confuse them by mistake, but people often write to confuse them on purpose.
• “Distinguish at least four senses of the word ‘true’” — reports that can be and have been verified; emotions that people share or should share; directives that should be obeyed; and statements logically consistent with other statements; and none of these may have any necessary relation to the others.
• “Beware of definitions, which are words about words. Think with examples rather than definitions wherever possible.”
• “No word ever has exactly the same meaning twice. Cow-1 is not cow-2‚ cow-2 is not cow-3, …” And Jew-1 is not Jew-2 or Jew-3… Palestinian Arab-1 is not Palestinian Arab-2 or Palestinian Arab-3….
Hayakawa also cautions readers to avoid “two-valued orientation,” which is a fancy, academic jargon way of saying: Don’t see everything as black or white, all good or all evil. This, too, is not easy to do, especially in a situation in which the lives and well-being of Jews and Judaism are at stake.
Yet Hayakawa wrote a passage about having a “multi-valued orientation,” which, especially after this bitter presidential election, is worth quoting at length and pondering:
“The multi-valued orientation shows itself, of course, in almost all intelligent or even moderately intelligent public discussion. The editors of responsible papers … and the writers for reputable magazines … almost invariably avoid the unqualified two-valued orientation….
“They may denounce the actions of a foreign power, but they do not forget the extent to which American actions may have provoked the foreign power to behaving as it did. They may attack a political administration, but they do not forget its positive achievements.
“It does not matter whether it is from fair-mindedness or timidity that some writers avoid speaking in terms of angels and devils, pure ‘good’ and pure ‘evil.’ The important thing is that they do avoid it, and by so doing they keep open the possibility of adjusting differences, reconciling conflicting interests, and arriving at just estimates.
“There are people who object to this ‘shilly-shallying’ and insist upon an ‘outright yes or no.’ They are the Gordian-knot cutters; they may undo the knot, but they ruin the rope.”
Loading ...