Throughout the history of wars, conflicts and hard truths, language plays an important role in describing events. The difference between what actually happens and the way it is described to the public by political leaders, governments and the media is a reflection of rhetoric versus reality.
Within linguistics, one concept that affects how events are described is euphemism in war and politics: the use of softened language to describe harsh situations. Euphemism can be an issue. It does have a positive role in everyday language, where softer words replace harsh and negative ones. But when politicians and the military use euphemisms to describe violent, harsh and intense situations, it can make those situations seem less emotional and less harsh, and can change the way people view the events.
Orwell on Euphemism in War and Politics
In his essay Politics and the English Language, George Orwell describes the problems with political language. He explains how political language can be used to mislead people and to serve particular interests. Many political terms are used by political leaders and governments, including ‘democracy’, ‘fascism’, ‘bestial atrocities’ and ‘free peoples of the world’. Orwell notes that these words often do not have a clear meaning and can be used differently by different people, depending on their definitions and political interests. Hearing these terms can feel like listening to a machine.
A War Called ‘Cold’
Historically, the term ‘Cold War’ has been used. The word ‘cold’ could be seen to imply that there was no complete warfare between the countries. However, the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union involved intense political, military, economic and ideological rivalry. Whilst there was no direct warfare between the two superpowers, much of the globe was still affected by their rivalry. Analysing this term shows how labelling something can cause us to focus on only one part of the situation.
When Harm Gets a Technical Name
Another example is ‘blue-on-blue’. This term is often used when friendly forces have accidentally harmed those on their own side or their allies. Military language also uses the term ‘collateral damage’. Such technical terms can make the suffering of civilians seem impersonal. Using real words rather than technical terms gives the reader a human experience of what happened.
‘Collateral damage occurred’ sounds technical, distant and far away. ‘Killed, injured or made to leave their homes’ feels more human, because it is.
Not Every Soft Word Is a Trick
Not all euphemisms are used to trick the public. We need to look at what the term is trying to express. As language focuses on the intention of the action being performed, the public can be left with a limited understanding of what really happened.
By looking at these terms, we can see how language affects our thinking and understanding. It shows us that sometimes the softest words can reflect the harshest truths. By critically analysing euphemism in war and politics, we are not dismissing all explanations, but looking at what the term is trying to tell us and what it is trying to hide.
Related reading on Feature Pakistan: Why Public Trust Is Pakistan’s Biggest National Challenge.
About the author: Farhana Soomro writes on language, media and politics. Her work explores how euphemism and political rhetoric shape public understanding of war and power.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Feature Pakistan.
