Does Language Make Policy?

Having just been involved in a discussion where the meaning of the word "cautious" was the point of misunderstanding, I've become re-sensitized to how words matter.

I'm thinking of starting an irregular (or is it occasional) posting on the topic.

Here's the first installment.

Much of the news in the US these days is taken up with the "war" in Iraq. This makes military matters more likely to be reported on than in peace times.

The installation of a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was the hook for this story:
Meeting Today’s Military Demands, With an Eye on Tomorrow’s

The focus is on planning for what the military should look like after the war is over, since many years are needed to bring plans to completion. This is all very routine. However this is where I find language important:

That is why it is no less a priority for the new chairman, and his civilian bosses, to plan how the military pivots out of Iraq to face the next enemy, whoever and wherever that is.
...
But the military cannot ignore traditional threats posed by nations that are not enemies but may, over time, challenge American interests through coercion, if not aggression. China tops that list.

There is an assumption in the first paragraph that there will be a next enemy. In other words, US policy is already being designed to continue military confrontation rather than work toward a world where differences are handled by negotiation.

In the second paragraph there is the well-worn phrase "American interests". This is a code word for the US's ability to determine the conditions of international trade so that raw materials and finished goods are supplied on terms favorable to America. The assumption is, once again, that the normal workings of the marketplace won't be sufficient to ensure the American lifestyle.

What you see in these two casual remarks is the entire framing of the US policy for the next 20-30 years. There is no debate over whether this is the right direction to pursue. It is also why I constantly claim that there are no substantial differences between the two parties when it comes to militarism and capitalism.

It is also a sign that the US government is still set in a 20th Century industrial mindset and that it has yet to give any thought to looming resource shortages or climate change. This isn't a good sign.

PS. For the curious I objected to an economics paper which developed a model to explain why the Federal Reserve Bank acted "cautiously" in the 1970's. I said that caution is a human characteristic and using it metaphorically or anthropomorphically was editorializing. My point wasn't understood. Here's the thread, if anyone is interested in the ins and outs of the Federal Reserve's economic modelling.
The Implications of Behavioral Research for the Phillips Curve

•  LOL...I love discussions of symantics. Thank

  you for starting one.  

  While "caution" is a human characteristic, would an automobile with a computer that reads the vehicle's proximity to other objects and slows the vehicle so that it can traverse an area more "carefully" be said to be cautious in that particular circumstance?  I would argue that "cautious" could be used as a description of the vehicle's actions although the vehicle would clearly not have the emotional aspect of caution.  In that way, an organization could have a policy that would be described as "cautious" without actually ascribing "caution" to the organization itself.  Although I admit that my argument would fail in being able to discern between attribution to the action itself as differentiated from the organization itself.

  Thanks for thinking.  Recommended.

  by macmcd on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 08:00:23 AM PDT

  •  Proceed at your own risk

    Once we drove from eastern Colorado to Las Vegas during the night.  Though all alone on the highway, there were frequent signs telling me Caution! Watch for falling rocks, Caution! Watch for cattle crossing, Caution! Watch for deer crossing.  So around two a.m., my husband woke up and asked me why I was driving 25 mph?

    We are programmed to be cautious:  Caution wet floor, Caution low overhead.  If I had just read your quotation, I probably wouldn't have questioned it.  Thanks for making me think.

    by JFinNe on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 08:33:56 AM PDT

  •  caution

    Caution can imply prudence or it can imply timidity. That's why using metaphors (especially for "dry" things like economic policy) is not up to scientific standards.

    If what was meant was that the Fed was slow (compared to whose expectation?) to change direction then a neutral statement would be something like this:
    "Under conditions XYZ the Fed changed policy slower than it had under conditions ABC. We have found a correlation which helps explain this."

    In my principle point the military is gearing up for the next enemy even when one doesn't exist. Could this be a sign that the US is planning to create a new foe? Look at the hoopla over Iran to see how it can be done. Orwell described the process perfectly in "1984". We seem to be living it.

    by robertdfeinman on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 08:42:11 AM PDT

    •  While I agree with you that language is used

      to "signal" information as you correctly state in your diary but since it must also communicate, it seems to me, it could be that using "caution" in this case simply communicates an idea rather than describes an aspect of the organization itself.

      by macmcd on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 08:52:04 AM PDT

    •  Post a tip jar, sucka!

      When I'm having trouble sleeping, I zip across the street to the convenience store for candy bars and occasionally a magazine.  If they don't have anything good, I'll pick up a Time.  Man,that magazine, it's like dissecting fish in a barrel.

      by o really on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:48:47 PM PDT

  •  the 'hidden' meanings

    it's like calling some Harvard grad articulate, an insult, or labeling racism forced bussing, an adjective for a man being a compliment, while ....  There are ways of saying something without saying it, using the trope metonymy as well as relying on an understanding of how words are 'understood' in some particular group (or 'subgroup,' as an example).  The power works by what is printed, and what reaches 'the news.'  It's all very sneaky, and it's what sells.    David always looks innocent, and has a benign explanation ready at hand.  No wonder Hillary is being cautious.  There are sharks out there, and you know, it does not do to bleed around a shark.  

    by anna shane on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 09:11:25 AM PDT

•  The effect on policy is less direct.

  Words are tools, as are dollars, hammers, and laws.  So, yes, they have an effect on policy.  IMO, that effect is less direct, more variable than your argument allows.  Kucinich is probably the leading Democrat most likely to buy your line of reasoning that using language assuming an enemy will significantly alter our foreign policy.  I suspect that even if he creates a department of peace, we will still have a military (or defense force or militia) that will still use the exact same language while preparing for potential future military action.  

  IOW, audience, intent, context matter much more.  Bush using those words might indeed be framing the long-term policy debate in a profoundly important way; a general discussing hypothetical plans is probably just using the most efficient words to talk about his/her work.

  by chicago jeff on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 08:08:31 AM PDT

•  Occupation. Not war. This is one of

  the biggest semantic differences in the whole discussion.  

  Using "war" is much like using "pro-life".

  by maybeeso in michigan on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 08:13:01 AM PDT