Introduction: Euphemism by Government
Before exploring euphemism by government, we are delving into the various ways and perspectives through which governments employ them. It, however, is essential to understand what euphemism is, how it has manifested in literature, its intended purposes, and the reasons prompting governments to incorporate it for either ulterior or sincere motives. These words and phrases are crafted with diverse intentions – some cater to a global audience, while others target a domestic or public audience. Objectives may range from deflecting undue criticism and maintaining diplomatic relations to swaying public opinion or even inciting rebellion or agitation. In essence, euphemisms serve various political purposes, often aiming to veil facts with language that conveys information in a more pleasant manner.
Euphemism by Government: Etymology and Derivation
Linguistically, euphemism is derived from the Greek word “euphemia” or “euphemis,” signifying words that convey goodwill, praise, or highlight glory. Interestingly, its pronunciation suggests an antonymic relationship with “blaspheme,” conveying an opposite meaning (Durkin 2009). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OAL) defines euphemism as the “indirect use of words or phrases that people often use to refer to something embarrassing or unpleasant, sometimes to make it seem more acceptable than it really is” (“Euphemism”).
However, this definition is not exhaustive, as several words touch upon the concept of euphemism without being classified as such. There exists a subtle difference between euphemisms and other related terms. For instance, jargon pertains to technical language specific to a particular field. Similarly, doublespeak is designed to deceive or mislead people or audiences, but the distinction from euphemism is often blurred, making the differences unclear (Childs and Fowler 2006).
Euphemism by Government: Common Usage
Certainly, a euphemism can be described as the mild use of words or expressions to refer to something strong, harsh, or blunt, with the intention of making it seem more agreeable or pleasant. Essentially, it involves the substitution of inoffensive and less troublesome language for words or phrases that may be considered offensive or harsh. While it is employed to conceal potentially offensive ideas or expressions, its primary goal is to convey information in a manner that pleases or reassures people, even if there is no material benefit derived from the language used. This linguistic device is commonly observed in government, the press, and official statements concerning various events and occurrences. In essence, a euphemism serves as a polite way of expressing something that might otherwise be considered impolite.
Euphemism by Government: Politics and Wars
In the realm of political language, doublespeak and euphemism serve distinct purposes, with doublespeak being more prevalent in war or military contexts, while euphemism is commonly employed in both internal and international politics to navigate delicate situations. Notably, a euphemism takes on the characteristics of doublespeak when its primary intent is to confuse the audience or obscure the truth.
For instance, in military terminology, the use of “casualties” instead of explicitly stating deaths is an example of euphemism. The term “casualties” is milder compared to words like “killed,” “murdered,” or “died.” Similarly, the compound term “collateral damage” is frequently used in military operations to refer to the unintended deaths of civilians. This euphemistic expression is employed to mitigate the unpleasant nature of the situation. In the realm of international politics, the killing of civilians not only triggers international outrage but is also deemed illegal and could lead to accusations of war crimes. Thus, euphemisms like “casualties” and “collateral damage” are utilized to soften the impact of these grim realities and, in some cases, to avoid international condemnation.
Euphemism by Government: Opinion of Economist
The article “Making Murder Respectable” in The Economist sheds light on the diverse uses of euphemism across different cultures, emphasizing how these linguistic devices serve political and diplomatic purposes. One notable example cited is the Japanese emperor Hirohito’s euphemistic statement following the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Instead of acknowledging defeat, he stated that “The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage,” showcasing how euphemisms can be employed for political mileage even in dire circumstances.
The article contends that each nation has its own set of political euphemisms, with the Americans, Chinese, and British being among the most famous. Diplomatic euphemisms are noted to be slightly more refined than political ones. For instance, Americans use the term “senior citizens” as a euphemism for the elderly, avoiding potentially offensive language. The Chinese, known for their diplomatic finesse, use the expression “not convenient” to politely decline invitations, demonstrating a diplomatic and non-offensive approach.
The overarching argument is that the use of euphemisms at the governmental level reveals certain truths about governments and nations that they may be unwilling to directly disclose. Euphemisms become a tool for shaping public perception and navigating sensitive topics, allowing political leaders to present information in a more acceptable or palatable manner, even when the underlying realities may be challenging or uncomfortable.
Euphemism by Government: Internal Politics
Even in internal politics, governments employ euphemisms to pacify the public or shape public opinion. Here, euphemisms are used either to calm public sentiments or to gain an advantage over political rivals. In some instances, a government may face excessive criticism regarding a particular agenda or task and aims to create confusion, discouraging interference or agitation.
For instance, consider the United States’ war on terror initiated in 2001. When President Obama came into power, there was a shift in terminology. The term “rogue states” began to be used for countries that did not align with the United States or the Western states. Additionally, instead of explicitly stating the deployment of soldiers, the military refers to it as “boots on the ground.” When certain countries require additional troops, the term “surge” is employed, potentially pacifying anti-war lobbies. Even in emergencies, the deployment of troops may be framed as an “overseas contingency operation,” emphasizing the necessity of sending troops to secure victory in a conflict (Liebau).
In the context of external politics, the use of euphemism becomes particularly distinct and is often aimed at influencing the international audience. An example can be observed in the case of Israel during the recent conflict in Gaza. Reports indicate a significant number of civilian casualties due to Israeli bombardment. However, instead of directly acknowledging civilian deaths, the Israeli government refers to them as “human shields,” attributing responsibility to its rival, Hamas. Prime Minister Netanyahu employed the euphemism that “we use missiles to protect civilians while Hamas uses civilians to protect its missiles” (Fantz). This language aims to downplay the civilian casualties and shift blame, potentially avoiding scrutiny for war crimes.
On the other side, Gazans use strong euphemistic terms like “massacre,” “genocide,” or even “mini-holocaust” to convey the severity of the situation and strengthen their case on the international stage. The war of euphemisms in this external or international context reflects the efforts of both sides to shape public perception and garner support while framing their actions in a more favorable light.
Euphemism by Government: Conclusion
Indeed, the use of euphemism by governments serves various purposes, whether it’s glossing over offensive terms, pacifying the audience, or manipulating international opinion. George Orwell aptly captured the essence of this phenomenon in his essay on political language, stating that it is crafted “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind” (Orwell). Orwell’s insight highlights how political language, often laden with euphemisms and doublespeak, is designed to convey meanings in a way that avoids negative reactions and maintains a semblance of respectability. This deliberate manipulation of language allows governments to shape narratives and influence public perception in a manner that aligns with their objectives.
Euphemism by Government: Works Cited
- “Euphemism.” Oxford Advanced Leaner’s. 8th Edition. Oxford Univeristy Press. 2010. Print.
- Durkin, Phillip. Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
- Fantz, Ashley. “Why are so many civilians dying in Hamas-Israel war?” CNN. 06 Aug. 2014. Newssource. Web. Accessed 08 Aug. 2014.
- Liebau, Carol Platt. “Obama Uses Euphemism to Obscure His Unpopular Agenda.”. Townhall. 05 Sep. 2011. Newspaper Source. Accessed 08 Aug. 2014.
- Making Murder Respectable. “Making Murder Respectable.” The Economist. 11 Dec. 2011. Newspaper Sourec. Web. Accessed 08 Aug. 2014.
- Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” 1946. Web. Accessed 08 Aug. 2014
- Peter Childs, Roger Fowler. Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxon: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2006. Print.
Euphemism by Government: Relevant Questions
- Euphemism by Government: How does the government’s usage of euphemism in communication affect public perception and understanding of its actions or policies?
- Euphemism by Government: In what ways is euphemistic language employed by the government, particularly in addressing sensitive issues, and how does this linguistic approach impact public opinion?
- Euphemism by Government: Can you provide examples of the government’s use of euphemism in official statements, and how might these linguistic choices influence public discourse and interpretation of governmental actions?
