GLENN DIESEN: I was wondering, have you seen academics and journalists emulate the language of the state? I find it interesting — Orwell wrote very much about how propaganda creates a separate language for “us” and “them.” I see this in academia as well, especially in political science. For example, we have “policies,” but our opponents have “behavior.” There’s this pedagogic framing where our job is to socialize them. This was very much built into the idea of the EU and NATO after the Cold War — that the role of the West was to socialize everyone else, like a new civilizing mission.
I noticed in academia all the language is organized accordingly, the way politicians speak — they argue that others will threaten us, but we don’t threaten, we punish or reward, like a teacher would. That’s NATO: it will reward good behavior, it will punish bad behavior. This whole assumption of a socializing role gets incorporated into the language, and it’s used very uncritically by many academics as well. If the Chinese refuse to compromise — when we refuse to compromise, we’re principled. Others interfere in domestic affairs; we promote democracy. They go to war; we intervene. The Russians seek influence in neighboring states; we’re just promoting the “European path.” You have this kind of language where you don’t have to make arguments anymore — the wording replaces arguments, which is strange, because the whole point for academics should be to unpack these words, to discuss them.