|
Related Articles
The
'Radicalization' Fraud
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Originally published under the title "The Politics of
Radicalization."
Towards the end of his too-brief life, George Orwell came to the
conclusion that English society had become decadent and that "the
English language is in a bad way." It was 1946, several years before
introducing the world to "newspeak" with his greatest novel, 1984,
when he wrote
perhaps his greatest essay, "Politics and the English
Language," describing the disease he observed and prescribing its
cure.
The belief that "political chaos is connected with the decay of
language" led him to conclude that language had become "ugly
and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish [and] the slovenliness of
our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
Today, the ways we speak and write about the threat of Islamism are often
inaccurate and slovenly, making "foolish thoughts" almost inevitable.
Everyone involved needs Orwell's prescription.
The post-9/11 era is rife with what Orwell called "the abuse of
language" ("war on terror," "overseas contingency
operations"), but no abuse more obviously illustrates his complaints
than the media cliché describing how a moderate Muslim becomes an
Islamist: he becomes radicalized. This euphemism (a passive
construction in grammatical terminology) denotes almost nothing. Orwell
calls it a "verbal false limb," that is, a device used to
"save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns."
It has become the default explanation for a phenomenon few want to
discuss.
The post-9/11 era is rife with
what Orwell called 'the abuse of language.'
|
"Politics and the English Language" has advice for arresting
the English language's slide into decadence, culminating in 6 rules that
"will cover most cases." Each rule points to its author's zeal
for clear and precise prose, unmarred by clichés, jargon and anything
extraneous. Among the obstacles to clarity, the passive construction is
so severe that rule #4 is "Never use the passive where you can use
the active."
An active structure emphasizes the agent of activity conveyed in the
verb: "Tom kicked the ball." A passive structure
emphasizes the object being acted upon: "The ball was kicked
by Tom." It can also eliminate the agent altogether: "The
ball was kicked." Aside from being imprecise, passive
constructions allow writers to conceal important evidence: who kicked the
ball? Or, more germane to political prose: who dropped the bomb? Who gave
the order? Who planned the attack?
There is much to dislike about both the passive "was
radicalized" construction and the term "radicalization,"
which comes from an adjective (radical) turned into a verb (radicalize)
and then into a noun. The term "self-radicalized," which
appears to be a reflexive passive verb, if such a thing exists, is even
worse.
Consider the following sentences, which could have been pulled from a
thousand sources:
- Tamerlan Tsarnaev
was radicalized in Dagestan.
- Sayed Rizwan
Farook became radicalized by his wife.
- Maj. Malik Nidal
Hasan was self-radicalized.
The passive construction in each blurs the relationship between agent
(Tsarnaev, Farook, Nidal) and the already-vague verb
"radicalized." Each deflects responsibility elsewhere, or omits
it altogether, treating "radicalism" as a contagion that
infects its host upon first contact.
Observing Rule #4 from "Politics and the English Language"
might yield instead the following sentences:
- Tamerlan Tsarnaev
sharpened his nascent hatred for the US among the Islamists in
Dagestan.
- Sayed Rizwan
Farook traveled to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia seeking a wife who
shared his Islamist views.
- Maj. Malik Nidal
Hasan sought spiritual and operational guidance from AQAP leader
Anwar al-Awlaki.
What Gore Vidal called
"the popular Fu Manchu theory that a single whiff of opium will
enslave the mind" is not a good metaphor for Islamism. Islamism is
inculcated over time. Teachers
spread it in schools
with books.
Imams
and community
leaders reinforce it in mosques and
Islamic centers. Some communities
ignore it, and some families
tolerate
it. Sudden
Jihad Syndrome only appears sudden to outsiders.
What Gore Vidal called 'the popular
Fu Manchu theory that a single whiff of opium will enslave the mind'
isn't a good metaphor for Islamism.
|
Orwell insisted that language always be used "as an instrument
for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought," but he
understood that not everyone shared his view.
The "was radicalized" construction has become ubiquitous
mostly by thoughtless repetition, but to those who deliberately
obfuscate, this seemingly inoffensive passive construction provides a way
to avoid what has increasingly become the un-nameable. Maajid Nawaz calls
this "the Voldemort effect: the refusal to call Islamism by its
proper name."
Those who make and influence US counterterrorism policy must recognize
that jihadists are not created accidentally or spontaneously. Speaking
and writing as though they are, either deliberately or through "the
slovenliness of our language," hinders clear thinking. And as Orwell
put it, "to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political
regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and
is not the exclusive concern of professional writers."
A.J. Caschetta is a senior lecturer at the Rochester
Institute of Technology and a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East
Forum.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment