|
The current US administration has
introduced an analogy between President Bush and
Winston Churchill in their search for support for
action in Iraq. The analogy can be summarised as
follows:
1. Churchill was a great
leader and a powerful orator. Bush sees himself as one
too.
2. Churchill symbolises
unflinching opposition to appeasement, first to Hitler,
then during the cold war to Soviet communism. Bush sees
himself in the same light re Saddam Hussein and Iraq
(terrorism and the axis of evil).
3. Churchill was a lone
voice which was proven right in condemning the nazis and
urging war against them. Bush is a lone voice which will
ultimately be proven right when he wins the war he is
urging us to wage against the Iraqis.
But how apt is the
analogy? How does one measure its aptness? And how
dangerous might a misleading analogy be? Click
here
to learn more about analogies and their use in political
rhetoric. Thanks to Biljana Scott for submitting this
example. |
|
|
Language
and Diplomacy Resources
|
|
|
|
Language is one of our most basic instincts. From birth humans communicate, at first in order to
survive - to ensure that needs are met. But at an amazing rate communication becomes refined
into language, one of the defining characteristics of human beings. In
The Language Instinct Stephen Pinker writes:
In any natural history of the human species, language would stand out as the pre-eminent trait… A common language connects the members of a community into an
information-sharing network with formidable collective powers. Anyone can benefit from the strokes of genius, lucky accidents, and trial-and-error wisdom accumulated by everyone else, present
or past. And people can work in teams, their efforts coordinated by negotiated agreements.
(Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1994, 16)
As Pinker points out, language is what allows us
to build on the work of others, benefiting from their knowledge and collaborating to achieve more than one person can alone. The processes of
diplomacy - communicating, negotiating, reaching and formulating agreements, collecting,
creating, transmitting and recording knowledge - all depend on language.
Studies of diplomacy usually concentrate on the message rather than the means. However,
examination of language use in diplomacy can lead to a better understanding of the way diplomacy functions and why some diplomatic processes are more successful than others. Through careful and critical attention to various aspects of diplomatic language we can improve our understanding of both the explicit and implicit messages world leaders and other political figures send out, and improve our own ability to communicate in the most effective and appropriate ways.
|
