Wake Up: The Effects Of Linguistic Convenience On Political Polarization

A recent study finds that 59 percent of links shared on social media weren’t actually clicked by the person sharing them, implying that—six times out of ten—only the article’s headline was read before deciding that “Katie has to see this.”

It’s hard to condemn this behavior when headlines like “Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy” clearly don’t require any further reading. Indeed, such headlines are designed to be provocative and oversimplified, to appeal to a generation that demands instant gratification, and to survive in a world where convenience is the new greatest commodity. Now that we can binge-watch an entire season of Stranger Things as soon as it’s released and find our next boyfriend by swiping right from the comfort of our own couch, why should we need to read an entire article to understand its message? The Internet has conditioned us to crave as much information as possible in the shortest amount of time, so that we can get what we need and keep browsing.[su_pullquote]The term “socialism” has been thrown around so carelessly that it has inevitably lost all concrete meaning.[/su_pullquote]

Recently, this ‘convenience virus’ has spread from the land of social media to the already-fragile world of politics. Take the concept of socialism, for example. Everyone from Joseph Stalin to Barack Obama has been described as a socialist, and while both are left-leaning to various degrees, they have markedly different political philosophies. But under the tyranny of political convenience, the term “socialism” has been thrown around so carelessly that it has inevitably lost all concrete meaning. As a consequence, people defer to the meaning of the word that best fits their personal ideology, creating a division not only in politics but in language.[su_pullquote align=”right”]People defer to the meaning of the word that best fits their personal ideology, creating a division not only in politics but in language.[/su_pullquote]

How did we get here? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, in the early twentieth century socialism was defined as “collective ownership and regulation of the means of production,” referring to policies of complete wealth redistribution, à la Soviet Union. Eventually, though, societies decided they wanted the best of both worlds: a capitalist nation with some strong social welfare policies, à la Norway or Denmark. This sort of system is called “social democracy” in Nordic nations, while the American adaptation—popularized by Senator Bernie Sanders—is called “democratic socialism.” The key distinction is that, while the Nordic system uses the adjectival form “social” to reflect their aims, the American system uses the noun form “socialism” to describe their own.

That is a huge difference. The difference between adjectives and nouns is the difference between “he’s Black” and “he’s a Black”: the former is an accepted way to describe someone’s race, while the latter is a pejorative method to define someone by their race. We understand that a person’s race does not inform the entirety of their identity, but may describe it to some degree, so we use “Black” as an adjective. Similarly, socialism does not define Bernie Sanders’ platform or Nordic society as a whole, but instead describes some facets of them, so the Nordics use the adjective “social.” The adjectival form implies a nuanced political approach and discourages any comparisons to the extreme methods of nations like the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the American system uses the noun form “socialism” because our politicians realize that citizens at both ends of the political spectrum are rallied by the very comparisons the Nordics have desperately tried to avoid.

Our politicians understand that—in the era of convenience—the headline is all that matters. “Socialism” is the headline they’ve chosen. Click on the link and you’ll discover that Bernie Sanders isn’t a full-blown socialist, but that he merely supports some social policies. But, most likely, you won’t click on the link. Instead, you’ll just read eye-catching headlines like “Socialist fairytale could destroy the American Dream” and “Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism,” and your brain will light up with either anger or elation. You’ll then share your new-found pseudo-understanding of politics with your equally credulous friends. Soon the entire country will stand—pitchforks and tiki torches in hand—ready to die for the beliefs we’ve cultivated out of thin air and linguistic trickery. Such a climate, while valuable for politicians trying to galvanize their base, squanders the potential for compromise or resolution.[su_pullquote]Soon the entire country will stand—pitchforks and tiki torches in hand—ready to die for the beliefs we’ve cultivated out of thin air and linguistic trickery.[/su_pullquote]

Infected with the convenience virus, we have forgotten that we can describe things without defining them, that we can use adjectives instead of nouns, and that we can be nuanced instead of absolute. The media and politicians aren’t eager to remind us, for it is much easier to catch a comatose frog than a conscious one.

Thankfully, the cure is simple. Pick up a few adjectives from the local dictionary and set the nouns aside, read past the headline before sharing an article, and learn to differentiate between the sensible and the sensationalized. Snap out of this comatose state and start squirming; they can’t hold on for long.

Daniel Berkovich ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at dberkovich@wustl.edu.