Language is the vehicle that facilitates opinions on a variety of issues in intellectual fields, particularly with respect to medicine, architecture, engineering, and education, just to name a few. However, when it comes to the political arena, clashes surface concerning the accurate definition of different terms. Researcher Felder Ekkehard refers to such conflicts as “semantic battles.”
This observation takes us to the issue of multiple definitions (which could confound the meaning), and which run counter the widely-held belief that specialized discourse is unambiguous. The concept of democracy–which is defined differently by progressives and Islamists–provides a prime example of this situation.
Semantic battles are attempts to normalize language and utilize words to shape–and in emanating from a rather jaded perspective on motivation, maybe even manipulate–the world to one’s advantage. Meaning, in this case, should not be perceived as a separate entity; but rather, an interpretative hypothesis driven by textual and situational constructs.
Authors George Lakoff and Mark Johnson assert that linguistic signals play a pivotal role in shaping social and political realities. These battles are waged through the signifier as the word itself, the signified as the concept determined by the said culture, and the object referred to, which is defined simply as a “fact” in modern philosophy. As per Kant’s “Dissertation on the Form and Principles of Sensible and Intelligible World,” knowing implies cognitively processing an experience and making sense of it using our sensibilities and understandings.
Texts offer specific indicators on thought processes and on applying language as means to state various interpretations of facts, primarily within the social sphere. As a consequence, linguistic approaches determine facts and their related cognitive frameworks.
The notion of “apparatus” by Foucault is particularly pertinent when discussing semantic battles, as it refers to the validation of certain behaviors, discourses, identities and types of knowledge. It further enables people to take ownership of knowledge they need in order to “make their mark” on the world—their own personal impact; thus, language becomes an instrumental means for this “apparatus.” Foucault noted the power struggle and complex, dynamic relationship between such heterogenous yet interactive componentry as knowledge, discourse, methodology, and societal institutions.
Semantic battles are fought on three levels:
1- Controversy Over Appropriate Terminology
Controversy occurs at the surface of the text as the language user attempts to normalize the choice of words by all parties privy to the discourse. Such intent is known as term fixation within the professional jargon of semantic battles. The debate over the contentious issue of cloning (medical terminology) is an excellent example in this regard, as German physicians and theologians do utilize cloning for both therapeutic and research purposes. A somewhat similar parallel is observed in the case of the terms “Arab Spring” and “Democratic Spring” when comparing and contrasting their connotation.
2- Controversy Over Appropriate Semantic Aspects
Here, controversy occurs at the concept level as the language user intends to normalize a specific aspect of a concept linked to a controversial term, and to control the word’s meaning. This is called an attempt at meaning fixation (i.e., the meaning of democracy for the Muslim Brotherhood vs. that for socialists/liberals).
3- Controversy Over the Object of Reference
When controversy occurs at the level of the object of reference, it indicates that the language user intends to normalize this object through the creation of facts. As far as semantic battles are concerned, this intent is regarded as an attempt at fact fixation.
With respect to political jargon, for instance, a party to the discourse which holds a linguistic pathway to public or specialized debate can impart its viewpoint towards the given linguistic facts. The perspectivity of linguistic units is a sine qua non not only for fact creation through the use of language, but also for discursive analysis.
Political discourse is inherently ambiguous as it is inevitably tainted with the speaker’s ideology. This ideology itself takes the form of an apparatus that pairs the concept with a term, the definition of the term and the fact that this term is describing. An analysis of political texts used by news outlets following the protests that swept Arab states–with the result being the Islamists taking power–proves the existence of such semantic battles between different political stakeholders. Here labels provide a stark example, notably the word “revolution” vs. “popular uprising.” For some, the downfall of President Mubarak was perceived as a revolution, while for others–who espoused that revolution in general constitutes a radical change in regime–the military dictatorship is still present and controls the country’s political and economic machinery.
This example clearly shows that political reality could be tempered by and interpreted differently depending on each group’s inclination. Ambiguous interpretation of facts results inevitably in an obfuscation of truth both at the conceptual levels and with respect to the term itself.
As previously mentioned, another prime example of semantic battles encompasses the labels “Arab Spring” and “Democratic Spring.” Arab nationalists, who consider the region stretching from the Gulf to the Atlantic to be the “Arab World,” favor the term “Arab Spring,” and therefore tend to exclude indigenous ethnic groups such as the Amazighs and Copts. In contrast, the Amazigh people employ the term “Democratic Spring,” recognizing the role of all ethnic groups in the popular uprising in the MENA region.
Term fixation in political jargon is a complex and unstable process that mirrors the ideology of political actors. Democracy, in the words of David McCord Wright, is a highly controversial term that takes on different meanings, and is dependent on time, place and circumstances. Its definition vacillates in accordance with the opinions and agenda of democracy disciples and with the nature of the regime in question. Hence, democracy refers in oligarchies to a government of majority, not of minority; however, in regimes in which citizens are fighting for economic advancement, social justice, and racial equity, democracy signifies equal opportunities and socioeconomic stability.
In a regime where the government monopolizes economic initiative and controls official public opinion via the media, democracy means free entrepreneurship and free speech; however, in a regime where the minority is facing pressure (i.e., second-class status) from the majority, democracy refers to the rule of law and valuation of human rights.
In a society characterized by corruption and arbitrary manipulation of public opinion, the term connotates reference to election regulation, political transparency, and equitable representation.
Two differing perspectives were proposed in the MENA region regarding the concept of democracy. The Islamists (the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco) have demonstrated a propensity to link democracy to free and transparent elections, while the progressives and socialists see democracy as a process by which to strengthen human rights and the rule of law, which necessitates inherently a process where the government must consult with the opposition. Even though the two sides apply identical terminology, they render two different readings of the factual situation, as this conceptual divergence is driven by the diversity of ideologies.
Linguistic perspectivity in the political discourse is difficult to achieve because political jargon is often tainted with ideologies offering heterogeneous interpretations of reality. The three levels of the linguistic sign creation and the notion of apparatus offer a method to decipher the ambiguity surrounding some expressions which are used only occasionally, but could become ubiquitous in social life.
*Prof. Youcef Hdouch is the head of the English department at the Faculty of Languages, Letters and Arts – Ibn Tofail University. He is also Advisor to the President of the University.