Politics make up an essential part of our lives: we can see it in the papers, on the internet, in history, on television series, and even on lyrics. Political decisions form the past, present, and future of the people and they decide on all aspects of our world, including who gets what, when, and how. Because of the expansion of this throughout the world, the language that this field writes with must be an accessible and understandable one for people of all social status, backgrounds, and areas. But this has not always been the case.
Through the years, the language of Political Science has changed depending on the views of those in charge. Just as any other aspect of social activity, Politics has its code, or the language particular to a specific group. Because of this 'isolation' that politics language sometimes seems to have, politicians are sometimes referred as vile and sinister creatures, that they and only they know the whole truth of what they do (Beard, 4). One huge example of this is in Shakespeare's Henry IV Part 1 when he says of his opponent Bolingbroke:
"I am whipt and scourg'd with rods
Nettled, and stung with pismires (ants), when I hear
Of this vile politician."
In the 1960s, the French President Georges Pompidou summarized the different connotations of ‘politician’ and ‘statesman’ in an attempt to lower this idea of the “selfish and corrupt politician.” He said "A statesman is a politician who places himself at the head of the nation. A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service." The word 'politic' dates back to the classical Greek, meaning 'city,' 'citizen,' 'civic,' etc., but even Greek philosophers like Plato described this as "nothing but corruption." This idea is still present today in the language regarding Political Science.
According to George Orwell in his essay Politics and the English Language (1946) the idea that politics is something negative and even declares that "All issues are political." This theme of politics being everywhere continued to appear through different aspects of life: in the 1960s, feminists spoke of sexual politics. Today people speak of the 'politics of food production' and 'politics of sport,' all with the goal to express that the different fields "demand a serious analysis and recognize the need for change" (Beard, 5).
The code of politicians and those who speak of politics use to describe the political alignment of individuals, or their parties are 'left,' 'right,' and 'center.' (Beard, 6) These words formed from French politics just before the French Revolution. Those who supported the King's policies sat on his right, and those against it sat to his left. This is why currently the word 'left; refers to more radical and socialist groups, while 'right' refers to more conservative and nationalists. Those who identify as being in between referring to 'central.' There are many problems associated with these terms, one of them being that it is very had to find a vocabulary that describes politics neutrally. In the end, the conditions that are used differ in definition depending on who is using them, either positively or negatively. This usually leads for the words to lose their meaning at the end and lose their negativity as well.
Another widespread thing found in the language of politics is metonymy or the replacement of a name with something that is connected to it; and metaphor, or when a word or phrase is used to make a comparison between one idea and the other. For example, it is common to see 'The White House' to represent the President of the United States, his government and the advisors, or 'the Buckingham Palace' to replace the names of the royal family. Examples of metaphors in Politics is both sport and war: a common one, when elections happen, Boxing metaphors are used to represent a sense of toughness and aggression usually seen in a fight. The use of these phrases is not just to give meaning or a simple definition to events happening in the political aspect, but to explain how ordinary people see politics; the idea that politics is only about confrontation and not about dialogue, agreement, and consensus.
Speeches is an essential art of a politician’s role to announce a decision, a policy, and persuading people to agree with it. When politicians address an audience, they have a very specific and distinct form of speaking. The use of specific words not only aid with the credibility, but also create connections with those who are listening. In political speeches, the use of the word ‘you’ and its derivatives can be identified. Listening to this word gives the audience an immediate feeling that they are being taken into account and that they are addressed not in a group, but personally. This creates a “connection” between the politician and the citizen, influencing the latter into thinking in a specific way. This is also recognized as an almost obvious form of Rhetoric persuasion as the politician effectively uses pathos through that connection that is created. Another word that many times comes in hand with the second-person singular is the word ‘we’ and its derivatives, used in the language of politics as a way to make the audience feel that “we” already agree with them. (Beard, 24) The word ‘we’ creates a sense of collectivity, a sense that we’re a team and of togetherness with the person speaking.
Another characteristic that one can clearly identify to be present in politician’s speech is that of exaggeration and description. Phrases such as “the most important” create a sense of urgency and of immediate action again, to persuade the audience into accepting a politicians or a party’s views and to excuse the plans or mistakes these might make. This form of describing an issue makes it appear as if it is the most decisive action from the government’s behalf and that we care collectively about it. The audience in turn believes these statements, which sometimes may not be completely true, influencing their decisions and views on a topic.
Another distinctive of the language of politicians is how they abstain from the use of yes and no for an answer. There are several reasons for politicians to act this way. One of the most basic and important one is that some fear that answering with a yes or a no will make people to keep record of the answer. The problem with this is that if what was proposed ends with a distinct result than what was at first predicted, their answer will haunt them through journalists, citizens, peers, etc.
But the Social Sciences do not just embark politicians but those writing the laws, journals, policies, among other documents in this discipline. According to historian and professor Aaron Moreno, Ph. D., the Social Sciences such as Political Science and the humanities should be based on facts, “a neutral language with no opinions or emotions attached to it.” Those who write in this field should try to get across the data with objectivity, using very neutral language. According Dr. Moreno, the wording of some documents will not be accessible for the whole population because the words are incredible important. “In the case of laws, you have to specify exactly what the rules are and what the consequences for going against them are.” This all creates an incredible and complex way of writing, according to Dr. Moreno, an air-tight writing. However, expecting the general public to understand the wording and meaning of these documents is unfair to them. It is the government’s duty to provide a summary or an explanation of these documents to ensure the understanding of them throughout their population.
According to International Politics expert Betsy Smith, Ph. D., the wording that is used in documents from this discipline can sometimes be “exclusionary by nature”, and it can be “used to keep people from being able to seek rights that many would think are owed to them.” Again, she agrees that it is the job of the government to reach the whole population. “In strong democracies, you can meet with your senator for a clarification of a document, policy, law, or any legal document you don’t understand.” But she claims that not only the government should work towards this but a free and mostly unbiased press, that is able to report on the content of laws, in a way that readers can understand and is accurate. By having these options available to the public, there can be a better communication between leaders and citizens, which can contribute to the well-being of the populations.
Politics are everywhere. They work with other aspects of daily life to ensure the