Language of Ideology-Ideology of Language-Notes On Theory and Practice

Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies ISSN No.
1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Language of ideology/ideology of language: Notes on theory and practice

Abbas Zaidi
Street children. . . are often described as dirty vermin so that metaphors of street clearing, trash removal, fly swatting, pest removal, and urban hygiene, have been invoked to garner broad-based support for police and death squad activities against them. (New Internationalist, October 1997: 21) Abstract Language and ideology as an instrument in the hands of the powerful has an overarching hold on people. It would be very difficult to find a site of social practices where language and ideology do not play a/the major role. Despite its various and at times contradictory definitions, the consensus remains amongst the philosophers of ideology that its aim is to affect the political economy of social relations. The relationship of language and ideology is so ingrained and basic that it would be difficult to see them operate in isolation from each other. It is through the combine of language and ideology that status quo is maintained in society and truths and falsehoods spread and crystallized. As can be understood from examples collected by some of the foremost voices of our time, the transformative power of language of ideology or ideology of language is vast, strong, and lasting. Keywords: colonialism; consciousness; hegemony; ideology; imperialism; presentation/ re-presentation; religion; problem of definition; propaganda 1. Introduction In a purely language and ideology context, ideology is understood in its role as (i) a promoter of one language at the cost of another language, and (ii) a political-economic weapon in the service of oppressive forces (class, colonial, imperial). Strategies like deception and hegemony are employed by one group or class against another. In Chesnokovs words No exploiting class can do without deceiving the people and fabricating a public opinion that allegedly expresses the real interests, aspirations and views of the majority of the population. (Chesnokov, 1969: 359) language;
71
Language of ideology/ideology of language: Notes on theory and practice, Abbas Zaidi JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Hence, this paper is concerned with ideology as a tool which sanctifies one language on some noble assumptions, but in fact conceals religious, political, or economic agenda of exploitation behind these assumptions. 2. Ideology Before trying to understand the notion of language and ideology, a few concepts should be clarified. Ideology is itself a complex notion. It is only natural that the paper should begin by dealing with the notion of ideology itself. 2.1. Definition Nobody, says Terry Eagleton, has yet come up with a single adequate definition of ideology (Eagleton, 1991: 1). Eagleton may be right as far as the wording of the concept of ideology is concerned.1 However, scholars generally agree on the social nature of ideology: it is about social relations, consciousness, and power struggle which play important parts in carrying out ideological objectives. Ideology, thus, is also about the consciousness of those relations (Kelle and Kovalson, 1973; Gouldner, 1976; Thompson, 1984; Fairclough, 1989). OSullivan, Fiske, Hartley, Montgomery, and Saunders refine the above views on ideology thus: The social relations of signification (knowledge and consciousness) in class societies. . . . Ideology is seen as any knowledge that is posed as natural or generally applicable, particularly when its social origins are suppressed. . . . Hence. . . ideology is seen as the practice of reproducing social relations of inequality within the sphere of signification and discourse. (OSullivan et al, 1994: 139-140) Ideology, it can be argued, is one mechanism by which a ruling group tries to deceive and control the ruled. In the words of J.B. Thompson (1984: 4), ideology is linked to the process of sustaining asymmetrical relations of powerto maintain domination. . . by disguising, legitimating, or distorting those relations. One important definition is provided by the Encyclopedia Britannica is that an ideology is a form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones; is a system of ideas that aspires both to explain the world and change it (Vol. 20. 1985: 768). This otherwise comprehensive definition can be criticized on one ground: it makes no explicit reference to religion as ideology or part of an ideology.
1
He gives 23 different definitions of ideology that are vastly different from one another (See Eagleton, 1991: Chapter 1).
72
Ideology in the West is almost always understood in negative terms (Althusser, 1977; Eagleton, 1989; Fairclough, 1989). Fairclough notes that in the United States, ideology and totalitarianism are taken to be the same, as totalitarianism is a superordinate term which subsumes fascism, communism, Marxism (Fairclough, 1989: 94). Because definitions of ideology have as their context the Western society and its politicaleconomic problems and issues, it would be relevant to consider non-Western perspectives on ideology too. For instance, in the Islamic context, ideology is not a negative concept. It is, indeed, an exceedingly positive, inspirational notion which governs peoples lives. From the Islamic point of view, ideology and religion do not exclude each other: ideological truths are religious truths and vice versa (Fitzgerald, 2003). Islamic scholars have claimed that there is no difference between the Islamic and the ideological (Nasr, 1994). For an Islamist a statement like, The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force (Marx and Engels, 1974: 64) should be meaningless. The positive image of ideology in Islam can be understood from the fact that the most influential Islamic scholars of the twentieth century have argued that Islam is not a religion, but an ideology. For example, Parwez (1959) denounces the very term religion and says that Islam should not be called a religion, but an ideology. Maududi (1960) and Ahmed (1960) also take the same stand. These Islamic scholars came from the Indian subcontinent. The Egyptian Hasan al Banas 2 formulation of Islamic ideology has inspired almost every Islamic political movement in the world since the early decades of the 20 th century: The Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our Guide; death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition (cited by Hiro, 1989: 63). In Islam, there is no matter-soul schism (Iqbal, 1977[1944]). The Prophet Muhammad was both the political ruler and the religious leader of his people. The mosque is not just a place of worship, but a place of political deliberation too. The haj is not just a religious ritual, it is a great occasion for the Muslims from all over the world to come together and discuss their sociopolitical problems (Arjomand 1987; Mandaville, 2007). Gods laws as laid down in the Scripture must be obeyed. The here and the hereafter are two aspects of the same unity. Gods signs are everywhere without exceptions. With the above discussion in view, I venture to present a definition of ideology as: A legitimated, normative, and systematic exercise of power by a group in order to achieve specified collective objectives embedded in an impersonal entity or system.
2
The founder and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
73
Ideology finds its verbal objectification in manifestos that ideologues articulate, its physical correlative in the struggle or movement that people carry out, and its psychological realization in inner satisfaction or reformation. 2.2. Ideology: raison d etre Ideology endeavors (or claims) to change a situation/system (e.g., Lenin in the former Soviet Union, Castro in Cuba, the Ayatollah in Iran). But once a system has been established, the same ideology can be used as an instrument to maintain the status quo ante. The Bolsheviks in the former Soviet Union, Chairman Mao in China, and Ayatollah Khomeini claimed to move into new eras of change, prosperity, and equality (Beetham, 1991); hence, the centrality of the role of the systematic use of power and myth-making in ideology. Ideology, says Lemberg, is synonymous with myth because both are systems of ideas which constitute and pilot the large power blocks of our society (Eugen Lemberg cited by Wodak, 1989: 140). By systematic exercise of power is meant that an ideological movement or struggle is based on a definite line of action, and is not random. Power is the production of intended effects (Russell 1995 [1938]: 25), or ones ability to produce intended effects upon the world around them (Beetham, 1991: 43). When we speak about ideology, we also speak about power whether we explicitly say it or not. As I will try to show later, power and ideology cannot be bifurcated. My view is that without power an ideology will not be more than a set of beliefs, or a socio-philosophical treatise. Ideologues without power are no more than pious well-wishers.3 Change, physical, mechanical, or else, is the result of power exerted in a certain way. Power does not have to be visible; its just there.4 Gals description of power and ideology is also informative: Power is more than an authoritative voice in decision making; its strongest form may well be the ability to define social reality, to impose visions of the world. Such visions are inscribed in language and enacted in interaction. (Gal, 1991: 197) 2.3. The scope of ideology Is ideology all-embracing? Meszaros (1989) answers in the affirmative: . . . the plain truth is that in our societies everything is soaked in ideology, whether we realize it or not. . . . In Western capitalist societies liberal/conservative ideological discourse dominates the assessment of all values to such an extent that very often we do
3 4
That is why they want to grab power to put their ideological principles and claims into practice. For details, see Andersons discussion of the notions and existence of power (Anderson, 1990: Chapter 1).
74
not have the slightest suspicion that we are made to accept, quite unquestioningly, a particular set of values to which one could oppose a well founded alternative outlook, together with the commitments more or less implicit in it. (Meszaros, 1989: 3) Writing two years after Meszaros, Terry Eagleton has an opposite view. He does not believe that ideology affects every part of society: Any word which covers everything loses its cutting edge and dwindles to an empty sound. . . . The force of the term ideology lies in its capacity to discriminate between those power struggles which are somehow central to a whole form of social life, and those which are not. (Eagleton, 1991: 7-8) If we take the Islamic view of ideology, we would have to prefer Meszaros to Eagleton. Voloshinov was perhaps right when he spoke of the overwhelming presence of ideology in society: Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present (Voloshinov, 1973 [1929]: 10). 2.4. Hegemony Hegemony, in Frasers words, is the attempt to provide authoritative definitions of social needs, and the power to shape the political agenda (Fraser, 1991: 100). Raymond Williams credits Antonio Gramsci with refining the notion of hegemony as it is understood today. Williams says that it was Gramsci who made hegemony central to the operation of ideology in a given system (for details, see Williams, 1977: 108-114). Hegemony refers to the way a ruling group secures the consent of the subordinate classes. Hegemony, in Gramscis own words, is a continuous process of formation and superseding of unstable equilibria. . . between the interests of the fundamental group and those of the subordinate groups. . . equilibria in which the interest of the dominant group prevail. (Gramsci, 1968: 182) He argues that it is through common sense that people in a society organize their lives and experiences. Common sense equals good sense, and ideological truths are taken for granted. Hence, instead of coercing the subordinate groups into accepting the authority and ruling ideas of the ruling class, hegemony naturalizes these ideas so that their acceptance goes unquestioned. Since social systems continue to evolve, the permanence of the acquiescence of the subordinate classes cannot be guaranteed. Hegemony, then, has to reproduce and reinvent the ruling ideas to maintain the hold of the ruling classes. In Gramscis own words : Every philosophical current leaves behind it a sediment of common sense; this is the document of its historical effectiveness. Common sense is not rigid and immobile but is
75
continually transforming itself, enriching itself with scientific ideas and with philosophical opinions which have entered ordinary life. Common sense creates the folklore of the future, that is as a relatively rigid phase of popular knowledge at a given place and time. (Gramsci, 1971: 362) Williams reading of the above Gramscian passage is this: hegemony is a process, and not a system or a structure. In his own words, hegemony is a realized complex of experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and changing pressures and limits. In practice, that is, hegemony can never be singular. Its internal structures are highly complex, as can readily be seen in any concrete analysis. Moreover, it does not just passively exist as a form of dominance. It has continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified. It is also continually resisted, limited, altered, challenged by pressures not all its own. We have then to add to the concept of hegemony the concepts of counter-hegemony and alternative hegemony, which are real and persistent elements of practice. (Williams, 1977: 112-113) Hegemony commands consent of people. Consent is not always a conscious choice; in a hegemonic institutional dispensation, peoples acquiescence may be unconsci ous. Fairclough expresses this point thus: Institutional practices which people draw upon without thinking often embody assumptions which directly or indirectly legitimize existing power relations. Practices can often be shown to originate in the dominant class or the dominant bloc, and to have become naturalized. (Fairclough, 1989: 33) Auerbach (1995) points out inculcation, which is employed in the service of ideology. He defines inculcation as a mechanism in the hands of the power holders which tries to naturalize those practices which help the power holders preserve their power. A great deal has been written on how hegemony is used by dominant classes to secure consent of dominated classes. Fairclough calls for taking a different perspective on hegemony. He argues that the dominated classes are not always helpless in a hegemonic system; they can find ways of defiance. He says: In research terms, it is important to focus not only on how hegemonic domination is secured and reproduced at the expense of transformation, but also how subjects may contest and progressively restructure domination through everyday practice. (Fairclough, 1992: 34-35)
76
3. Language and ideology The language-ideology nexus is so strong that Joseph and Taylor think that the very nature of linguistic theorizing is ideological (Joseph and Taylor, 1990). The most significant part that ideology plays in a sociolinguistic setting is to privilege one language over another language or languages. Such privileging is done on a number of pleas, all of which are claimed to be good even for those whose language(s) become prey to an ideological language. This has historicalcolonial roots. In Belgian, English, French, and Portuguese colonies, indigenous languages, so far as officialdom was concerned, were considered unfit for use in a civilized community. The French language and civilization were one and the same thing; thus in the name of human progress the native languages were pushed to the periphery in favor of French (Adegbija, 1994; Fishman, 2001). A number of scholars have documented how hidden ideologies have undermined postcolonial societies. Some time back, a survey was carried out on the language situation in a few African countries. In Nigeria, for instance, local languages are not deemed fit for information dissemination. All the thirty states that make up Nigeria publish newspapers in English, and only four states publish newspapers in indigenous languages. Sub-Saharan countries present a gloomier scenario. Says Foster, Over most of Africa. . . so far, a vigorous publishing in local languages has failed to develop. . . . A low level of demand. . . imposes both quantitative and qualitative constraints on publication (Foster, 1971: 608). Angolas case is very poignant. After it gained independence, the matter of replacing Portuguese, the colonial language, came up. However, the native languages had through centuries of oppression been so maligned that they were thought, by their own speakers, to be low status language (Adegbija, 1994). Why is it so? Phillipsons answer to this question is that this is so because of the legacies these postcolonial countries have inherited. In his words: This is the legacy of linguicism in which the colonized people have internalized the language and many attitudes of their masters, in particular their attitudes to dominant language and the dominated languages. (Phillipson, 1992: 128) In recent years, it has been suggested that a study of assumptions and representations which underlie language beliefs is important in order to understand how hidden ideologies mediate meaning for social purposes in order to legitimate social order. Arguing that ideologies of language are not about language alone, Woolard maintains that these beliefs underpin the very notion of the person and the social group, as well as such fundamental social institutions as
77
religious ritual, child socialization, gender relations, the nation-state, schooling, and law (Woolard, 1998: 3). Besides, whenever people interact/communicate, they construct relationships and hierarchies. Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson in their study of language use found that the most significant aspect of communication is its being relational in which people not only share meaning, but also negotiate their relationships: people seek to define who is in control (Watzlawick, et al, 1967: 51). 4. Language and ideology in practice: Some examples There is a great body of literature which tries to show how language and ideology cover almost every area and subject of human inquiry (see, e.g., Fowler, Hodge, Kress, and Trew, 1979; Fowler, 1991; Hodges and Kress, 1993; Wright 1998). However, George Orwell was one of the earliest writers who in prose and fiction tried to show the nexus between language and ideology. In his oft-cited essay Politics and the English Language, he says : . . . political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. (Orwell, 1984 [1945]: 362) 4.1. Language in the service of duplicity and falsehood: Orwells world Orwells two works of fictionbased upon the Soviet systemstand out as prime examples of the way language is used to propagate ideology. In his novel Animal Farm (1973 [1946]), Orwell deals with the issue of language and ideology. In his Why I write Orwells offers an insight into the novel, Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole. (1984 [1945]: 12)
78
In Animal Farm, three pigs, Major, Napoleon, and Snowball (symbolizing Marx, Stalin, and Trotsky, respectively) take over a farm run by a human, and then appropriate all political power in the interests of the farm animals. After Majors death, Napoleon emerges as the undisputed leader of the farm and becomes an absolute dictator. In order to hold on to power, he employs language to dupe, blackmail, and terrify other animals. Language is given a strange twist in the name of equality: All animals are equal, but some are more than equal (Orwell, 1973 [1946]: 114). This ideological expression of equality has now become a classic in political and literary discourse. Orwell gives more examples of announcements that are remarkable for their simplicity, commonsense, and straightforwardness, but hide ideological agendas: 1. Napoleon announced that there would be work on Sunday afternoons as well. This work was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half. (p. 53) 2. Once again all rations were reduced, except those of the pigs and dogs. A too rigid eq uality in rations, Squealer [a dog] explained, would have been contrary to the principles of Animalism. (p. 79) 3. Napoleon had commanded that once a week there should be held something called Spontaneous Demonstrations. (pp. 97-8) In the words of Roger Fowler (Fowler, 1995: 164-65), . . . a major theme of the book is the perversion of language by an oppressive dictatorship. In Orwells second work of fiction, Ninety Eighty-Four, we come across Thought Police and the Ministry of Truth whose task is to change history books and newspapers to create, or recreate, an ideologically correct accounts of events. The reason behind this rewriting of history is that whosoever controls the past controls the present and vice versa. The most effective language-and-ideological weapon in the hands of the Party is Newspeak, a weapon that is Whorfian: in the name of reducing complexity of thought and abstraction the Party dishes out a new language to the masses. But in fact the purpose of Newspeak is to reduce the masses to a subhuman level where language, divested of its grammar and surface syntax, cannot be used for critical analysis or enunciations. Syme, who is tasked by the Party to write a dictionary of Newspeak proudly (proudly, because he too is ideological ly brainwashed by the Party) says: Dont you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? (Orwell, 1962 [1949]: 44-5).
79
On the implications of Newspeak John Shotter comments: For, although, our surroundings may stay materially the same at any one moment in time, how we make sense of them, what we select for attention or to act upon, how we connect those various events, dispersed in time and space, together and attribute significance to them, very much depends upon our use of language. (Shotter, 1993: 2) 4.2. Chomskys critique of language and ideology in the US In his numerous political writings Chomsky shows how language is employed in the service of ideology. He argues that from the Cold War onwards the United States has been interfering in every part of the world in the name of human rights and democracy, but in fact these interventions are meant to destroy indigenous oppositions to American exploitation. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the United States has promoted highly emotive theses such as human rights and crimes against humanity in order to demonize anti -American resistance. However, behind this faced of humanitarian concern is American pillage if indigenous natural resources. Thus slogans like the evil empire, Islamo-fascism, and the axis of evil are but a cover for an ideology of intervention. Chomskys work on ideology, in the words of Rai, consists of exactly this: revealing the hidden assumptions of mainstream critics. (Rai, 1995: 36) Here are a few relevant observations from Chomskys corpus on language and ideology: 1. In the case of Cambodia reported atrocities have not only be eagerly seized upon by the Western media but also embellished by substantial fabrications which, interestingly, persist even long after they have exposed. The case of Timor is radically different. The media have shown no interest in examining the atrocities of the Indonesian invaders, though even in absolute numbers these are on the same scale as those reported by sources of comparable credibility concerning Cambodia, and relative to the population, are many times as great. (cited by Rai, 1995: 28) 2. One would have to search a long time to find a favorable word about Syria, South Yemen, etc., or any word at all. Such coverage as there is uniformly negative, generally harshly so, with no mitigating elements. (Chomsky, 1989: 152) 3. For the past twenty-two years, I have been searching to find some reference in mainstream journalism or scholarship to an American invasion of South Vietnam in 1962 (or ever), or an American attack against South Vietnam, or American aggression in Indochinawithout success. There is no such event in history. Rather, there is an American defense of South Vietnam against terrorists supported from outside (namely, from Vietnam), a defense that was unwise, the dives
80
maintain. . . . Within the mainstream, there is no one who can call an invasion an invasion, or perceive the fact; it is unimaginable that any American journalist would have publicly called upon South Vietnam to resist the American invasion. (Chomsky in Peck, 1987: 225) 4. The basic structure of the argument has the childlike simplicity of a fairy tale. There are two forces in the world, at opposite poles. In one corner we have absolut e evil; in the other sublimity. The Cold War as projected by the American media was this: on one side of the conflict was a nightmare and on the other, defender of freedom; the fundamental design of the Kremlin is the complete subversion or forcible destruction of the machinery of government and structure of society; the fundamental purpose of the United States is to assure the integrity and vitality of our free society, which is founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual; since a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere, no corner of the world, however tiny and insignificant, can escape our ministration; in order to defeat the Soviet Union we must overcome weaknesses in our society, such as the excesses of a permanen tly open mind, the excess of tolerance, and to distinguish between the necessity for tolerance and the necessity for just suppression. (Chomsky, 1992: 9 -12) 5. . . . our primary concern [in writing the book] here is not to try to establish the facts with regard to postwar Indochina, but rather to investigate their refraction through the prism of Western ideology. . . (Chomsky and Herman, 1979: 139f) 4.3. Deceiving and demonizing: Said on Iran Edward Saids Chapter 2 of Covering Islam (1981) is a critique of how the West has seen Iran from an ideological-linguistic point of view resulting in lying, duplicity, and war-mongering. After the Iranian students took American hostages in 1979, the entire American media print and electroniclost all objectivity and demonized Iran and the Iranians without paying regard to facts. Said says: The ideology of modernization produced a way of seeing Islam whose apex and culmination was the image of the Shah of Iran, both at is zenith, as a modern ruler, and when his regime collapsed, as a casualty to what was looked upon as medieval fanaticism and religiosity. . . before he left office President Carter allegedly advised the State Department to focus all public attention on building up a wave of resentment against the Iranians. (Introduction: xii-xxi). Some of the examples from the mainstream media provided by Said (1981:75-125) are:
81
1. Let there be a rage and revulsion in those first hours of release [of American hostages] ( The New York Times). 2. What should have been done? Mining harbors, or landing marines, or dropping a few bombs might frighten rational foes. But was Iranis Iranrational? (The New York Times). 3. Newsweek lied about torture that had nothing to do with the facts. 4. The Washington Post claimed that Irans hostage-taking was a war against civilization by terrorists. 5. The Washington Post pleaded for blocking the truth about Iran in order to demonize it to the American people. It said that the Iran obscenity [i.e., the hostage -taking] had raised the possibility that freedom of press, which presented news about Iran, might be perverted into a weapon amid directly at the heart of American nationalism and self-esteem. 6. The New York Times published a report that under the garb of calm objectivity and expert knowledge of the Iranian culture referred not to Iran but the Persian psyche. The report made the following points: (i) Persian proclivity to resist the very concept of a rational negotiating process; (ii) Iranians are overridingly egotistical, and for them reality is malevolent; (iii) and, Iranians have the bazaar mentality that urges immediate advantage over longtime gain. Said (Said, 1981: Introduction, xxvii) comments that The New York Times text is rather ideological statement designed, I think, to turn Persian into a timeless, acutely disturbing essence, thereby enhancing the superior morality and national sanity of the American half of the negotiations [over the American hostages in 1979]. . . the effects of the Iranian revolution are set aside in the interests of the relatively constant. . . cultural and psychological qualities underlying the Persian psyche. He also makes a very sharp comment on the ideological framing of Iran: So strong was the ideological commitment to the idea of a monolithic and unchanging Islam that no note was taken of the political processes within this particular Islamic country (Said, 1981: 94). 4.4. Ideology and censorship: Pilger on East Timor John Pilger in his Distant Voices (1994) offers a convincing account of how language and ideology played a vicious role in the reporting of Indonesias genocide in East Timor. When he consulted the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) regarding his proposal to cover the events in East Timor, he came across some interesting facts: he was told that whereas a journalist was not supposed to distort or censor material, they must use circumspect language and
82
discreet understatements in reporting events in East Timor ( 1994: 261-262). Pilger argues that in order to ward off the so-called communists taking over East Timor and at the same time make money in Indonesia, Australia, Britain, and the United States, and the major media outlets in those countries joined hand. For example, the New York Times constantly referred to East Timor as Indonesias 27th province in which Jakartas human rights record is said to improve; the paper made no mention of the genocide in East Timor (1994: 297). The reporting of Australian newspapers (overwhelmingly owned by the far-right ideologue Rupert Murdoch) was no different. Ignoring that Indonesia was busy wiping out the East Timorese, the United States increased supplies of arms to Jakarta. At the same time the American government said that Indonesia offers excellent trade and investment opportunities for US companies [that are] too good to be ignored. The British government was not to be left behind. Only a few months before the Indonesian invasion the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) announced that Indonesia presented enormous potential for foreign investor ( 1994: 301). Pilger argues that for ideological purposes (anti-communism, corporate investment, lassie-fair), the countries which never tire of monopolizing human rights, allowed the Suharto regime exterminate one-fourths of the East Timorese. Pilger concludes: . . . the very concept of human rights, . . . has become part of the language of post -Cold War politics. Clintons expressions of concern for human rights are reminiscent of those of President Carter, who described human rights as the soul of [American] foreign policy while increasing American arms supplies to Indonesia at the height of the slaughter of East Timor (p. 300). 5. Conclusion It may be noted that although ideology has been defined and discussed at length in this paper, no such attention has been paid to language. This is true. Language is as natural and basic to humans as breathing, and yet it has been hard for even linguists to define it in a way which can comprehensively account for its a vast functional scope. We can take a look at a few definitions of language: According to Collins English dictionary, language is a system for the expression of thoughts, feelings, etc., by the use of spoken sounds or conventional symbols (1991: 875). This is a conventional, lexicographic view of language and has little bearing on the discussion we have had in the preceding pages. Here is a definition from two well-known sociolinguists. According to Fasold and Connor-Linton, language is a finite system of elements and principles that make it possible for speakers to construct sentences to do particular communicative jobs
83
(Fasold and Connor-Linton, 2006: 9). Whereas this definition focuses on the communicative aspect of language, it is not of much help in understanding the conflictual side of language. We will not understand how language is used as a weapon of one group against another. A definition of language with a wider scope is given by Bussmann who defines language as: Vehicle for the expression or exchanging of thoughts, concepts, knowledge, and information as well as the fixing and transmission of experience and knowledge. It is based on cognitive processes, subject to societal factors and subject to historical change and development. (Bussmann, 1996: 627) This definition includes cognitive-societal aspects of language in both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. However, it essentializes language in idealistic terms: as if experience and knowledge are a neutral, hygienic monolith. It fails to account for the process where language is more of a re-presenter than a representative of experience and knowledge. Language has its own laws of operation, and it is through language that all social practices can be understood (Coward and Ellis, 1977). Language creates its own reality; thus all languages (even registers) in their various contexts are ideological sites. This is why, it is not easy to define language. Whether it is language of ideology or ideology of language, the result is the same: production and reproduction of the (human) subject and social practices which are of transformative nature, and where all means of communication are under the yoke of the ownership (Barthes, cited by Coward and Ellis, 1977: 7) of powerful interests who define and decide what are truths and falsehoods, good and bad, and legitimate and illegitimate. Biography Abbas Zaidi is a Pakistani writer and journalist based in Brunei Darussalam where he teaches English at Sultan Saiful Rijal Technical College. He is the author of Two and a half words and other stories, published by Classic Books, Lahore. References Adegbija, Efurosibina E. (1994). Language attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A sociolinguistic overview. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ahmed, Khurshid. (1960). The religion of Islam. Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd. Althusser Louis. (1977). For Marx. Trans. B. Brewster. London: Verso.
84
Arjomand, Said Amir (1987). Revolution in Shiism. In William R. Roff (Ed.), Islam and the political economy of meaning: Comparative studies of Muslim discourse (pp. 111-131). New York: Social Science Research Council. Auerbach, Elsa Roberts. (1991). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power and pedagogical choices. In James W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 9-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beetham, David. (1991). The Legitimation of power. London: Macmillan. Bussmann, Hadumod. (1996). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. (Translated and edited by Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi). London: Routledge. Chesnokov, Dmitrii Ivanovich. (1969). Historical materialism. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Chomsky, Noam. (1989). Necessary illusions: Thought control in democratic societies . Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Chomsky, Noam (1992). Deterring democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S. (1979). After the cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the reconstruction of imperial ideology. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Collins English dictionary (1991). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers. Coward, Rosalind and Ellis, John. (1977). Language and materialism: Developments in semiology and the theory of the subject. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eagleton, Terry. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso. Eagleton, Terry. (1989). Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Fairclough, Norman. (1989). Language and power. Longman: London. Fairclough, Norman. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fasold, Ralph and Connor-Linton, Jeffrey. (2006). Introduction. In Ralph Fasold and Jeffrey Connor-Linton (Eds.), An introduction to language and linguistics (pp. 1-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85
Fishman, Joshua A. (2001). Can threatened languages be saved?: Reversing language shift, revisited : A 21st century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fitzgerald, Timothy (2003). The Ideology of religious studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foster, Philip J. (1971). Problems of literacy in sub-Saharan Africa. In Thomas A. Sebeok (Ed.) Current trends in linguistic (pp. 587-618). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Fowler, Roger. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press . London: Routledge. Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G., and Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fraser, N. (1991), The uses and abuses of French discourse theories for feminist politics. In P. Wexler (Ed.), Critical theory now (98-117). London: Falmer Press. Gal, Susan. (1991). Between speech and silence: The problematics of research on language and gender. In M. di Leonardo (Ed.), Gender at the crossroads of knowledge: Feminist anthropology in the post-modern era (175-203). Berkley: University of California Press. Goulclner, Alvin W. (1976). The dialectic of ideology and technology. New York: Oxford University Press. Gramsci, Antonio. (1968). Prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Hiro, Dilip. (1989). Holy wars: The rise of Islamic fundamentalism. London: Routledge. Hodges, Robert Ian Vere and Kress, Gunther R. (1993). Language as ideology. Routledge. Iqbal, Sir Muhammad. 1977 [1944]. Speeches, writings, and statements of Iqbal. Compiled and edited by Latif Ahmed Sherwani. Lahore: Iqbal Academy. Joseph, John Earl and Taylor, Talbot J. (1990). Introduction: Ideology, science and language. In John Earl Joseph, Talbot J. Taylor (Eds.), Ideologies of language (pp1-8). London: Taylor & Francis. Kelle, Vladislav and Kovalson, Matvei (1973). Historical materialism: Outline of Marxist theory of society. London: Central Books. Mandaville, Peter. (2007). Global political Islam. London: Routledge.
86
Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick. (1974). The German ideology. Edited by C.J. Arthur, London: Central Books. Maududi, Sayyid Abul Ala. (1960). Towards understanding Islam. Translated by Khurshid Ahmad. Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd. Meszaros, Istvan. (1989). The power of ideology. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Nasr, Seyyed Vali (1994). The vanguard of the Islamic revolution: The Jamaat-i Islami of Pakistan. Los Angeles: University of California Press. OSullivan, Tim, Fiske, John, Hartley, John, Montgomery, Martin, and Saunders, Danny. (1994). Key concepts in communication and cultural studies. Routledge: London. Orwell, George. 1962 [1949]. Nineteen eighty-four. London: Penguin Orwell, George. (1973 [1946]). Animal farm. London: Penguin. Orwell, George. 1984 [1945]. The Penguin essays of George Orwell. London: Penguin Books Peck, James (1987). The Chomsky reader. New York: Pantheon Books. Perwez, Ghulam Ahmed. (1959). Islam: A challenge to religion. Lahore: Talu-e-Islam Trust. [Also available: www.Sociology of illiteracy\islam-a-challenge-to-religion-by-gaparwez.pdf] Phillipson, Robert (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pilger, John (1994). Distant voices. London: Vintage. Rai, Milan. (1995). Chomskys politics. London: Verso. Russell, Bertrand. (1995) [1938]. Power. London: Routledge. Said, Edward W. (1981). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Shutter, John. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language . London: Sage. The new encyclopedia Britannica. (1998). Macropedia. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Thompson, John B. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
87
Voloshinov, V.N. (1973) [1929]. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Watzlawick, Paul, Bavelas, Janet Beavin, and Jackson, Don De Avila. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W.W. Norton. Williams, Raymond. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wodak, Ruth. (1989). Introduction. In Ruth Wodak (Ed.), Language, power, and ideology: Studies in Political Discourse (pp. xiii-xx). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Woolard, Kathryn A. (1998). Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry. In Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (3-47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, S. 1998. Language and conflict. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.
88

Language of Ideology-Ideology of Language-Notes On Theory and Practice

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Language of Ideology-Ideology of Language-Notes On Theory and Practice

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies ISSN No.

1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)

Language of ideology/ideology of language: Notes on theory and practice

The founder and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai