Symbols in Public Policy

by Allison Wachtel

Linguists generally acknowledge two main theories of language. One, which Steven Pinker spoke about in the assigned video, posits that language is shaped by culture; it is a tool of both the individual and society to communicate content and relationships. The second, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that language can actually dictate culture and thought by raising awareness of what it describes. A common example: the Inuit people have many more words for snow than we do as English speakers. Do they have so many terms for that single subject because of their environment and the subsequent importance of snow in their lives, or does the mere condition of having so many descriptors make them more aware of the different types of snow (thus necessitating those descriptors)?

Political language can be interpreted with similar variation. It seems to me, however, that when the speech in question is political, people tend to view it through both interpretations simultaneously: Either the politician is trying to “impose his/her beliefs” on the audience (the first hypothesis) or he/she is trying to “brainwash” the audience into putting more credence on a subject than it deserves, overlooking the real problems, etc. (the second hypothesis). This kind of reaction is certainly not unjustified; undoubtedly, there are indeed politicians who would love nothing more than for their peers and constituents to forget the substance of their policies and listen only to the language with which they were presented. However, I think it is important to remember the original role of emotion in language. The linguistic and rhetorical devices that Stone, Pinker, and Westin discuss are all intended to elicit some kind of emotional response from the listener – not necessarily to deceive, but to enable. Evolutionarily, emotion enabled us to make decisions (the right ones, hopefully) in dangerous situations where extensive reasoning would have been impossible. Now, they allow us to integrate values and logic in our political decision-making – a notion that might seem questionable on the surface but one that I think we would be reluctant to forsake. Thus, the linguistic and rhetorical techniques that politicians use might actually be marks of human communication at its most efficient.