Language and Power

Mosaic Web Resources Index

All language is social and powerful and complicates the view of intercultural interaction. The
language that is used, the words and the meanings that are communicated depend not only on the
context but also on the social relations that are part of that interaction. Persons in positions of
power and their co-workers may use the same words, but the meanings that are communicated
will differ due to the power differential.

Organizations have particular structures and specific job positions within them. Those positions
and the differences are central to understanding communication. Power is an important element
of this focus on differences in position. When we communicate, we note the group membership
and positions of others. Groups hold different positions of power in society. Groups with the most
power and who are in powerwhites, men, heterosexualsconsciously or unconsciously use a
communication system that supports their perception of the world. This means that co-cultural
groups, ethnic minorities, women and gays, have to function within communication systems that
may not represent their lived experience. These non-dominant groups find themselves in a
struggle of whether to adapt to dominant communication or to maintain their own styles.

There are three general ways that co-cultural groups relate to the powerful group. They
communicate non-assertively, assertively or aggressively. Within each of these communication
postures, co-cultural individuals may emphasize assimilation -- trying to become like the power
group, or they can try to accommodate or adapt to the group in power. They can also try to
remain separate from the dominant group as much as possible. There are costs and benefits for
co-cultural groups when they choose which of these strategies to use because language is
structured in ways that do not reflect their experiences.

Tips for Improving Language Usage

Become more conscious of how you use language. Send the message you intend to send.
Sharpen your own skills by checking to see if people are interpreting messages the way
you intend in intercultural situations. Paraphrase if others dont understand.
Become more aware of others verbal messages in diverse encounters. Be aware of your
own assumptions about others language skills.
Practice expanding your language repertoire in diverse situations. Be flexible and adapt to
others language style.
Use labels that are preferred by group members.

Working With Tonality

Posted by Joseph Riggio on Friday, September 29, 2006

Sometimes how something is spoken can reveal as much about what is being spoken as what is
being said. To quote the late Marshall McLuhan, The medium is the message. ...

As you begin to explore the intersection between power and language very early on it becomes
apparent that there is a relationship between how something is spoken and what it means. This
is distinct from what is spoken. While most people are tracking the content or what thats
spoken, how it is spoken is received and responded to at a direct neurological level pre-
cognitively. What I mean by pre-cognitively here is that there is a neurological response before any
meaning is applied. Simply speaking the neurological response is the generation of a state
experience in response to what is being spoken irrespective of content. This knowledge in and of
itself is extremely powerful.

This whole idea is reminiscent of the idea proposed by Frank Herbert in his sci-fi book series
Dune and the Bene Gesserit witches use of the VOICE - a powerful, control technique that
worked based on bypassing the cognitive faculties of judgement to create virtually instantaneous
and irresistible responses to commands given. This technology took advantage of both the
neurological response to the how and the cognitive response to the what that is spoken.

So often in our wired world we forget the impact of the interpersonal. We are used to receiving
information in written, audio (e.g.: telephone, radio, recordings ...) and visual (w or w/o audio e.g.:
computer graphics, television, movies ...) forms. These forms of media transmit their information
devoid of the subtle cues of live interpersonal interaction. As McLuhan said, The medium is the
message. This is never more true than in face-to-face encounters.

Using McLuhans formula - f (medium = message) in regard to human interaction we have:

Individual Person (the medium) is the Information Being Transmitted (message). That is we are
responding in the interpersonal context to the individual who is communicating as the message
being communicated. At a neurobiological/neurocognitive level this is especially true. The cross-
mapping between the individual and the message is virtually complete. The individual becomes
fully associated with the message they are communicating and the message becomes fully
associated with the person who is communicating it. This is a technique used extensively in
political campaigning.

Building the validity of the candidate in a political campaign builds the validity of the messages
they convey, just as building the validity of the messages being conveyed by a political candidate
builds the validity of the candidate. This little trick of power allows a good campaign advisor to
establish a deep foundation of credibility for their candidate regardless of the message, stance or
position they are taking. When the validity of the candidate is higher than the validity of the
message the candidate uses that personal validity to build validity for their messages. When the
message the candidate is presenting has a higher validity than the candidate presenting it the
candidate uses the validity of the message to build personal validity. Regardless of the direction
taken the validity of both the candidate and the message are bolstered and begin to recursively
reinforce one another. [NOTE: Validity is the measure of pre-existing confidence the audience
has in the candidate/message.]

Much of the validity of an individual in interpersonal encounters is based in the subtle non-verbals
cues being offered by that individual as they present themselves and their ideas. The most
significant of all is the level of congruity the individual maintains as they present themselves and
their ideas. What is being transmitted in addition to the informational content of the message is
the emotional content associated with it (and therefore the presenter).

Youll find more information about this in the book Primal Leadership by Daniel Goleman, et al
and its worth a read. I also recommend the HBR article by Goleman, et al, Primal Leadership:
The Hidden Driver of Great Performance, which summarizes the book about 75-80% of the way
in just thirteen pages. Even more valuable in regard to this topic, and especially the topic of
congruity is the book, Success by John T. Molloy - while can be challenging to get a copy the
effort will most surely be worth it.

Political power and language change

Preamble: I was discussing the ability of a political power to affect language with a few friends
(over burgers and beers, of course; because we had tired of talking about The Dark Knight, which
wed just watched). I had written a last-minute essay for an undergrad sociolinguistics course on
the topic, but couldnt recall my arguments very clearly. As such, I made a number of faulty and
unconvincing arguments in an attempt to support my position that political power alone cannot
abolish or enforce a language.

On coming home, I found the essay and read it over. Ill admit, its conclusions are not earth-
shatteringbasically its complicatedor inarguable, but it was enough to spark and fuel some
pretty interesting discussion. So, Ive reproduced it here. If you agree or disagree, take offense or
whatever, feel free to post a comment. Please keep in mind that Im no historical linguist or
essayist, the citations are patchy, I like commas, the sun was shining in my eyes, etc.

Language and thought control

In his most popular work, 1984, George Orwell introduces the language of Newspeak: a medium
of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc [the
totalitarian governing power] that will make all other modes of thought impossible literally
unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.1 The language is based on English,
but with significant changes, including a more regular system reliant on prefixes and affixes, an
emphasis on shorter, easily pronounceable words, and a drastic reduction of vocabulary. Orwell
seems to think this last feature most important in controlling speakers thought, each reduction
[is] a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. By
shrinking the choice of words and simplifying their construction, Newspeak aims to shift the locus
of control over language from the higher brain sectors to the larynx, away from any unorthodox or
seditious thought, making them inexpressible. By 2050, Newspeak is to be the one and only
spoken language in the lands ruled by Iinguistic social.

Despite being a work of fiction, the threat that language can be co-opted or replaced by those in
power is considered as real outside of 1984 as in. Mamet insists that names are powerful, that
the assignment of nicknames, the application of jargon is an understood tool for the
manipulation of behaviour.2 Noting the increase of unnatural, government-made terminology in
the United States since late 2001weapons of mass destruction: overlong, clunky, and obviously
confectedhe warns against a shift from the conscious into the automatic, worried of a
linguistic take-over very much like the one in Orwells dystrophic England.