Language and Politics for Public Policy- myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theLanguage and Politics for Psychology and Public Policy. Answer: The essay deals with the issue of political correctness and language manipulation where one set of individual is in the position to ban words and language for the illusion of creating a coherent society. The argument is structured into three parts discussing the idea of swear words in a social context, the second paragraph deals with a how societys approach towards these words has altered and third a rationale on how manipulation of language is un-democratic and solely the privilege of one group over the other. Swear words are generally seen as taboo through which people express their strongest emotions. It is a relief button through which people channelize their anger or frustration. The demarcation between amicable and social words is no doubt social constructs which differ from one set of cultural values and social norms from the other. It is society who constructs and associates imageries and symbols with words and deems them as indecent, vulgar or regressive. According to Cavazza Guidetti, (2014) people who have acquired their language without systematic training or observation are prone to vent out their emotions with the usage of swear words. Language is a social variable and is therefore manipulated. Language manipulation is a politics on the part of state since language is considered as a symbol of power and authority shaping concepts, ideas and notions, exerting influence. If we consider politicians their language and discourse differ from private life to that of their personal. Imposing speech codes is not an answer to social problems but is merely an instrument of society to suppress the weaker section. The primary role of a language is to impart information, suppression of language only denotes the privilege over the dominant ideology over the lesser ones. There has been however a radical shift in the society towards their approach to social words and these words are grouped as hate speech consisted of prejudiced languages and vocabulary. Prominent figures opine that it is fundamental in eliminating gender or caste based discrimination and bringing forth a more positive change within the society. The language crusade has striven to change the approach of how one perceives the environment around. While criticizing the concept of swearing, one should realize the socio-cultural context, where linguistic politeness comes to represent a larger society. Therefore swearing can be viewed as a violation of the communitys right to harmony and dignity or in other words somebodys right to not hear it (Kramsch Vinall, 2015). Today swearing is seen as a deliberate act on the part of the people in order to demonstrate power and domination, where speaker is n control of the pattern of discourse. To end the discussion it can be firmly asserted that th e decision to use swear word is a matter of neurological, socio-cultural and psychological process. Swearing is sometimes seen as an act of purposeful reproach (Eccleston, 2018). Considering the facts, social constructs are indeed imposing and fascist (Philipsen Hart, 2015). With the elimination of offensive language a society can never construct the utopian world free of biasness towards caste, language rather it is ammunition used for mass suppression of feelings. A controlled environment would only accentuate the construed implications of swearing which can e used by an individual in multiple contexts. Imposing restrictions on language denotes the rise of speech community with a shared set of norms for communications, interpretation and deconstruction of speech (Kramsch Vinall, 2015). This could be used by the politicians to achieve common goal like suppressing democracy in a group, domination of the minority group and their culture and forcing others to abide by the linguistic norms in order to achieve common good. The inter-relation between language and ideology which is formed by a shared group of notions about the usage of language is highly individu alistic (Philipsen Hart, 2015). Language manipulation can lead to the birth of cultural vulnerability. Therefore it can be asserted that language domination would serve no great cause but lead to a capitalistic regime where the intellectual class in possession of materialistic values have the inherent right to introduce an atmosphere of falsity, where in the words of Friedrich, the other fellows ideas come to dominate the public discourse. Theorists have concluded that it is a form of mass domination and linguacultural ideology is the most conscious and dangerous form of domination which decides somebodys right to get offended (Govers Vermeulen, 2016). The stigmatization of language basically controls the flow of words that an individual produces from different perspectives (Newman, Hartman Taber, 2014). Therefore one can conclude stating that speech restrictions would serve very little but insinuate a reign of dissent and intervention into a person democratic rights. It should be stopped at the outset before it seeps into the subconscious part of every citizen. Reference List: Cavazza, N., Guidetti, M. (2014). Swearing in political discourse: why vulgarity works.Journal of Language and Social Psychology,33(5), 537-547. Eccleston, R. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/warning-contains-coarse-language/storye6frg8h6-1111116556611?nk=a00ce3c15b2c780198bd3a12972c494d [Accessed 23 Apr. 2018]. Govers, C., Vermeulen, H. (Eds.). (2016).The politics of ethnic consciousness. Springer. Jay, T. (2009). Do offensive words harm people?.Psychology, public policy, and law,15(2), 81. Kramsch, C., Vinall, K. (2015). The cultural politics of language textbooks in the era of globalization.Language, ideology and education: The politics of textbooks in language education, 11-28. Newman, B. J., Hartman, T. K., Taber, C. S. (2014). Social dominance and the cultural politics of immigration.Political Psychology,35(2), 165-186.