ABSTRACT
The aim of this chapter is to suggest that languages used for political messages must often be constrained by those languages (and types of language) used by the organizations that wield power. I will suggest that it is of little value to use language for the benefit only of the communicator, or for the benefit of a small group within an alien culture. This chapter will therefore explore language use by both individual groups of various kinds and governments of various persuasions. Of particular interest to me are those individual groups that seek to promote issues of local importance, communicating these to other communities, which may not share their language. It should be recognized that, frequently, sharing cultural norms such as language is difficult: for example, the English and Americans are not in general well-known for their ability to learn or adapt to using other languages or recognizing the value of other cultures. A recent example comes to mind. While interviewing Taliban and Al-Qa‘eda combatants detained in Afghanistan at the fort of Qala-i-Jhangi in the province of Mazar-i-Sharif, the CIA operatives on the ground spoke in English using phrases such as ‘are you a terrorist?’ Linguistic and psychological subtlety were not on their agenda – or perhaps even in their vocabulary. This may not have been a problem of training only, but rather of perception. Although it has long been recognized that the CIA are no experts in Middle Eastern politics or languages, and that their operatives in the area are poorly trained, this example (exposed in a BBC documentary on the Afghanistan conflict by Jamie Doran, Massacre at Mazar) starkly shows how linguistic failure may give rise to dire consequences. The CIA operative doing most of the questioning died when his threats were taken seriously and the prisoners tried to escape, an attempt later ended by US bombing and General Rashid Dostum’s firepower which left 600 prisoners dead.
