What’s in a word? Framing the argument.

What’s in a word? Framing the argument.

The following is an extract from my forthcoming book "How to Coordinate a campaign". This section forms part of Chapter 4: Campaign Marketing.


In Chapter Three: Campaign Communication, I mentioned the importance of Power words. Words which are loaded with connotations and meanings, words which if used effectively can inject a vast amount of imagery into a person’s mind within seconds. When considering your marketing it is imperative that you understand how your message is perceived, this can only be achieved by a very careful consideration of the words you use. All words carry with them deeper meaning, however they can be either neutral or loaded. The word “cat” is a neutral word but saying it or thinking it instantly conjures an image in your mind of what you believe a cat to look like, for example this may be a memory of a cat you owned as a child. Loaded words work in exactly the same fashion, yet for a political or marketing end. Immigration is perhaps the best example of this. The word instantly conjures up images of a stereotypical immigrant as defined by the media and political parties; it is unlikely that the word will conjure a neutral image because such groups and organisations have invested so much time and money associating the word with their cause and their propaganda. Indeed, in the introduction and the first chapter I addressed the words “activist” and “campaign” as these are highly charged, loaded terms which have been used to create a stereotypical mental image. Often the word is associated with militancy, political unorthodoxy and quite possibly violence. However, as this book has demonstrated this is a very misleading frame as the words can just as easily apply to children and parents campaigning to save a local swimming pool, as it can too social justice campaigners calling for Fair trade or local elderly residents protesting against the closure of a local fire station.
It is our choice of words and our use of phrases which construct the methods we as activists use to present both ourselves and our arguments, and so it is these words which we constantly need to re-evaluate. The relationship between words and the political cause is hardly a new development. To prove the point I will refer to three very different analysts and writers, whose agendas are as dissimilar as their points are parallel; George Orwell, Professor Richard Dawkins and Professor George Lakoff.

In 1946 George Orwell wrote his most famous essay “Politics and the English Language”, a brutal denunciation of sloppy and slovenly writing but also a discussion on the relationship between words and politics. Orwell argued both in this essay and in his later masterpiece 1984 that words as a political tool can contain the potential of both enlightenment and of tyranny. Words, Orwell remarked, are often used by politicians to “defend the indefensible”, when villages are bombed and their homes destroyed this is called “pacification” whilst a forced exodus of people, such as the Cossacks under Stalin, is dubbed “population transfer”. Clearly this is not a million miles away from the clinical phrase “collateral damage” that the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defence wheels out to defend modern day acts of military horror. Such words, Orwell argued, can be an empirical or intellectual sheen over indefensible acts. However, this is not the only way in which the choice of language is pivotal to politics. Orwell was not simply writing about slovenly word play as would a sixth form English teacher, but was commenting on the relationship between words and meaning. In 1984, Orwell demonstrated how a party, which narrowed the amount of words in a person’s vocabulary, directly narrowed that person’s ability of thought, thus creating a sense of “protective stupidity”. The same process can happen to a political party, an ideology or in our case a campaign that becomes lost or bogged down in clichéd and tired rhetoric. Orwell was writing in post-war England, in an era when totalitarianism had been defeated at a vast human cost in Germany and Italy, yet continued to thrive in Franco’s Spain and Stalin’s Soviet Union. In the world of Orwell the Cold War was yet in its infancy and due to his premature death in 1950, Orwell did not live to witness the world changing revolutions in both communications and political propaganda. This is not to say that his work is of little value, grounded as it is in the 1940’s. Various writers have, albeit unwittingly, contributed to Orwell’s concept of the relationship between words and political meanings.

Among these is Richard Dawkins, the controversial scientist and writer of the “The God Delusion.” Dawkins, like Orwell is an atheist, however unlike Orwell his work constitutes an educated, articulate and rational assault against God and the perceptions of religion. Orwell’s work constituted a similar assault, yet his target was human totalitarianism. The point is that whilst their causes are different, both writers recognise the huge significance of single words. As Dawkins states, “language is the single most important consciousness raiser.” To make this point Dawkins refers to the Feminist movement and specifically the radical movement of the 1970’s that fought for “feminist pronouns.” It may sound small but this isn’t simply saying “fireperson” instead of “fireman” or “chairperson” instead of “chairman” but using “she” in many of the instances where we have been trained since school days to automatically say “he”. Like Orwell, Dawkins recognised that the words we use define our thoughts and therefore our attitudes and values. Dawkins takes this principle and identifies an area within his own cause, religious pronouns for describing children. Dawkins argues that we should not refer to “Christian children”, but rather “children with Christian parents” as children are not old enough to make a consciousness choice regarding faith. Dawkins argues that this would raise consciousness surrounding religious debate as much as feminist pronouns did for feminism since the 1970’s.
George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science, at Berkeley University in the United States understands the significance of words and the lessons progressives and campaigners must learn. The premise is a simple one, “progressive political groups must struggle to define their principles and values.” Lakoff, who writes for an American audience argues that the Republican party have already learnt the significance of words. He states, “conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them.” It is these definitions which Lakoff believes to be all important. Just as Orwell identified that words and their meaning have a political relationship, Lakoff talks of “framing words”. Like Orwell and Dawkins, Lakoff argues that words are not merely expressions, they are neural links to metaphors and narratives. Political words are therefore loaded, or “framed”, from a political perspective. To understand the affect of politically framed words in the national, and international consciousness one need only think of the phrase “War on Terror”, which has been the dogged mantra of the American Bush administration since 2001. It is clear that the “War on Terror” is not a politically neutral term, analysed objectively it means very little, it advocates a war against the intangible, against an unempirical notion. Put simply you couldn’t take a photo of the war on terror and put even more simply, you couldn’t put it on a plate. The phrase is a cold slab of rhetoric, however through endless repetition of imagery and its insertion into generic speeches, the phrase has become framed so as to unleash a plethora of values and images. The phrase now conjures horrific images of planes crashing into towers, of fireman pulling lifeless bodies from smouldering wreckage, of down flights in Pennsylvania, of turbaned fanatics wielding Kalashnikovs, of American action heroes with Ray-bans and of old fashioned flag fluttering patriotism. With this comes a necessary willing to support “our boys” and the belief that any deviation from complete loyalty to the cause is both heretical and unpatriotic. For a physical simile of how the framing of words works, simply type “War on Terror” into an image search of Google and the result will be an electronic version of our sub consciousness. The “War on terror” is just one of many national and international phrases which have been politically framed, others include “immigration”, “terrorism”, “free market”, “free trade” and “environment” to name but a few.
To return to Orwell’s essay, with Lakoff’s premise kept firmly in mind we can find clear and present lessons for Socialists. As Orwell states, “many political words are abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justices have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with each other.” Here Orwell is also referring to framing, how different political organisations can use the same word, yet frame it in such a way as to ensure its meaning completely changed. “Freedom” and the principle of what is “free” is perhaps the most engaging example of this. When the left speak of being free we may be discussing freedom from tyranny or from exploitation. Of course when a conservative speaks of freedom they may be referring to the free market, or free enterprise, thus giving the principle a vastly different meaning.

So, we have the theory, both from contemporary analysts and from the hand of Orwell, extending towards us from the 1940’s, but what does this mean for campaigners today? It means that when considering the message you want to promote you must bear in mind the words and also the frames you are dealing with. For example, if you are against the “War on Terror” then do not use the phrase as it merely re-enforces the existing frame, which means you are campaigning against yourself. Instead it is important to construct new frames, using key words which are associated to the values and goals of your campaign. For example, if you are campaigning against the proposed building of a new motorway through a forest, then a simple “Keep our Forest Free” would be an ideal frame. With this message you are using the word free, which is associated with freedom. Whilst freedom is an often disputed term, it is a value understood by all. By using the term you are alluding to the idea that this freedom is under threat, which is inherently negative. In another example, if you are campaigning to save a local fire station from closure then a “Save our fire-fighters” will create a very effective frame. The word “save” implies that someone, usually a hero figure has to save something, the victim from somebody else, a villain. Fire-fighters are also usually depicted as heroic figures so a simple three word sentence suddenly implies that the heroes themselves need saving and that whoever is trying to shut down the station is the villain. These are very simple examples but they show how framing works and the logical words, values and imagery which are associates with key words.
The second lesson these writers bring to us is the need for clear, coherent language. Many campaigning organisations or political groups will use words, phrases and quotes which will mean very little to someone outside of the organisation. Left wing groups have been notorious for doing this with words such as “proletariat”, “bourgeoisie” and “petit-bourgeoisie”, antiquated words which will mean very little to the average person, who after all is your target audience. It is important that you consider the words you are going to use and the effect they will have on your audience. When writing a leaflet, blog an article or for that matter giving a speech, write each line as if you are writing to a friend. If your about to use a phrase which you wouldn’t use in everyday conversation then don’t use it!