During a war,
is collateral damage as bad as civilian casualties? The point here is, does
the language we think with affect the contents of our thoughts, and do the words
we use affect the impression we have of people, events and objects? There is
a great debate within the field of psycholinguistics and psychology as to whether
different languages have an effect on thinking.
Some people believe that the press and media use different words to project things a positive or more negative light. Until recent years, people looking for refuge in the UK from oppressed countries were referred to as refugees, and helping them was viewed in a good light. However, as right-wing newspapers began political campaigns against the influx of newcomers to the country, the term 'asylum seekers' replaced 'refugees'. The connotations of asylum-seekers are, of course, far more negative than those of 'refugees'; asylum being linked to places where the insane were kept, and seeking having connotations of greed and want.
The vocabulary
of news programmes and papers during wars is interesting to look at with respect
to vocabulary influencing our thought. When countries take military action,
the need for a sense of unity is generally enforced by newspapers, and the oppression
of allies tends to be down-played. Examples include 'collateral damage' which
is synomynous with the guilt-inducing 'civilian casualities'. When the Serbian
government of the 1990s adopted a policy of mass murder, it termed it 'ethnic
cleansing' until Western media picked up on this as being comparable to the
Holocaust.
Access hundreds of theories, approaches, study and experiment overviews, plus a range of psychology guides including Body Language Reading and How to Interpret Your Dreams.
Dream Interpretation Guide
Learn to interpret the hidden meanings in your dreams.
Learn more »
Learn psychology skills and access premium content with a site membership:
