It is no secret that words have power. Being a vital part of communication and conversation, words are the backbone of it all. But when it comes to politics or social issues, things are different. On the grand political stage, any word can immediately be amplified to where it is heard by everyone. But with power comes great responsibility, and when words don’t fulfill that responsibility in politics, people get the wrong idea.
When expressing concern for the issues in our world, socially and politically, expressing differing views is the only way to bring change. But oftentimes, when those words don’t properly represent the overarching message it causes tremendous upraise. A mainstream instance that most Americans will have heard at some point is “Defund the Police.” To give a background, the “Defund the Police” movement aims to distribute parts of the grand funding of police forces to healthcare and education. This would directly benefit societal problems such as homelessneess and poverty, that the police force can’t take on. The more radical side of the movement desires to completely abolish the american Police Force because it has proven to cause more harm than good, especially within the black community. The countermovement is Blue Lives Matter, which speaks of the lives of the police. It is evident that the movement itself has caused division within communities, and a huge part of that can be due to misunderstanding between groups.
Look at the phrase itself: “Defund the Police.” Although it represents a powerful message and call to action, the phrase itself is rather aggressive. To address the actual issue, the same phrase could be written in a way to imply “redirect police funds to pressing societal issues such as poverty and homelessness; issues that the police force is not equipped to handle. Or relocate funding to our healthcare and education systems. On these terms, simple facts are being stated. There is no room for contradiction, because there is in fact an issue in America of limited funding to our education and healthcare systems, when the police force gets so much. It simply a change in words which can have much influence on the effectiveness of any protest or campaign.
The beauty in words lies in that each word has a concrete definition yet each word is still open to interpretation. It is thus sometimes not what is being said, but rather what is not being said that draws attention. Across the ocean in Britain, Member of Parliament Margot James herself recognized that the slogan of her conference was excluding people. The Conservative Party slogan was “For the Hardworking People.” At first glance this is nothing to ponder at. But upon closer inspection, one may realize that the so-called “hardworking people” are those who work. Therefore the elderly, the retired population, the children, the disabled, the ill, or others who can not work for certain reasons are not represented by the party, when they make up a large portion of the people. These people would consider themselves hard working, and thus excluding them from the “hardworking population” because of their employment status can be a slap in the face, as well as may cause decrease in support for the party. So is that what the party is really aiming to represent? The middle aged, privileged-enough-to-get-an-education, healthy people? Because that is obviously not what the entirety of the population looks like. The phrasing may not be stating this; but the fault in it is that, that can be implied. What isn’t directly said, can hold just as much value and power.
Because of the tremendous influence that any statement may have in politics specifically, false information has the potential to create a wave of panic in addition to its contagion. The “No Baby Parts” or “Dead Baby Parts” slogans that Pro-Lifers use, refer to a video made by the Center of Medical Progress, which is a well-known anti-abortion group. The video suggests that dead baby parts are sold by Planned Parenthood in an attempt to make money. However, the crucial missing information here is that the video being discussed was highly edited, and deceptive. It never happened this way. Yet when political candidates Carly Firoina and Mike Huckabee took the stage and discussed this video, the false information spread like a wildfire. As mentioned before, with such a grand platform, and the technologies of today, news spreads faster than ever. And then reversing the pandemic of false information becomes near to impossible, as a wave of confusion, panic, and unsettlement has already settled. In America, people have the right to protest when they do not agree with an occurrence. But when information like “dead body parts are being sold by planned parenthood,” is inaccurately being said, and more so at the actual protest to counter abortion, the spread of such, needs to be monitered and fixed.
And when talking about abortion rights itself, it is also important to explain what being “pro-choice” itself means. Oftentimes those that are pro-life, are pro-life becuase of their religious beliffs. So using generic terms such as “having a choice” has no effect, because a person’s religious beliefs are their religious beliefs. So once again, making an effort to outline what exactly the overarching message is, is what will effectively share the message of the movement. It’s essential to highlight “the right to make medical decisions for oneself, without government intervention,” or “the right to privacy.” The shift in phrasing when discussing abortion in general can create an environment where people who are pro-choice can accurately extend their views on the issue.
In a world full of chaos, words are what connect us to one another. But just as easily, they have the power to divide. Within political and social issues, and even speaking of them, it is now ever so easy to further that divide through technological advancements. So then it falls upon the people of society to make that conscious effort and try. It’s cliché, but use your words wisely.
Comentários