Terrorism: The Word

My name is Austin Bream, and I write a blog called How Underdogs Win. Today, I’m going to guest write here, and give language a shot. I guess today I’m the underdog.

As I sat down to write this blog post, I didn’t expect the events I was writing on to become the base of one of the most terrifying weeks in America. Yes, of course I’m referring to the Boston Marathon attacks, and subsequent manhunt. But what captivated me in the attacks, besides the deeply unsettling casualties and historical shutting-down of Boston (fascinating recap), was the language surrounding what had actually happened.

For the most part, news sources informed the public of these attacks, referring to them as “acts of terror”. One person did noticeably avoid the phrase. President Obama. As I listened to his first speech, made Monday night, I noted the absence of what has unfortunately become too common a phrase. Why was Obama not using the phrase “act of terror”, especially when so many others were, including a White House Official who spoke immediately after Obama with a clarification on the absence of the phrase in his speech?

The best point to begin with is the word’s history and connotation. First popularized during the French Revolution, the word had positive implications, a government initiated system to restore order amidst chaos through the use of terror (think guillotine). History also shows us that terrorism was organized, heavily planned in advance, a characteristic taken into account by the CIA definition, which describes terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. It was only through the anti-colonialist sentiments after World War II, which fueled attacks against European powers, that the word took on its modern connotations of attacks against a government and not by it.

This information aids in understanding Obama’s decision. At the time he gave his first speech, he did not know if political motive existed. And with the memory of his phrasing of the attacks in Libya and the controversy there created, he wished to be deliberate in his words. But the next day he spoke again, and used the word terror in describing the attacks. However, he also clarified that the motive and actors were as of yet unknown.

The language surrounding the attack continues to be important through the crazy events that have followed the attacks. The actors in this attack have been called “devout to Islam” and hail from Chechnya. Yet whether they wished only to cause damage or had a more political motive is still unknown. And thus, dubbing the attacks terrorism is not precise. And it is risky. For in so doing, their home region and religion instantly becomes associated with acts of terror, hate crimes occur, and more fear arises. But if their motives were not political, and even if they were not related to religion or homeland, then no terrorism occurred. Thus the phrase acts as a trigger for more fear, more violence.

To conclude, should we ever use the word terror? It seems to me that as soon as the label is given to any act, the action gains further success. Let me explain. A terrorist wishes to incite terror, to use the attack to fuel instability and collapse. When, after an attack, we enter into a period of fear and become unstable, we aid the attacker. And using the word terror incites this fear. Furthermore, the word is tricky as to its correct usage, high risk with little reward. Thus, I don’t see merit to using the word terror, but I do recognize the importance of language in terrorism. And how terrible it can be.

To all the victims of the attacks in Boston: You are in our hearts and prayers, our thoughts and wishes. This is a reminder of how great America can be. Not in our fall, but in our ability to rise and come together again. As we stay together through tragedy, we ensure those wishing to destabilize us through violence do not succeed, and what could be terrorism isn’t.

The Birds and the Bees 2.0

Contrary to popular belief, speech and words weren't magical gifts thrust upon our ancestors by the gods. Instead, according to MIT's Shigeru Miyagawa, it was due to these guys:

    

While the explanation for the origin of human language varies from the bow-wow theory to the pooh pooh theory (they're real!), Darwin couldn't have better put it when he said that the origins of words may have come from singing, which gives rise to words with emotions as well.

Simply put, human language comes from the combination of elaborate songs of birds and the more utilitarian, information bearing types of expression found in other animals. This, therefore, leads to the idea that human language in essence has two different layers. The first layer is called the "expression" layer, or the fluidity of order of the words. The second layer is called the "lexical" layer, or the core content of the sentence. For example, take the sentence "Bob saw a bird". The expression layer is revealed as we could manipulate the order of the words and even add other words to ask, "When did Bob see the bird?". However, the lexical layer is that the main content of the sentence remains the same, "Bob," "see," and "bird."

So, how do the birds and bees play a role?

According to Miyagawa and Chomskey, birdsong contains the expression layer of human language. Rather than containing actual content in the songs, birds simply use melodies that simply have one meaning, such as mating or territory. Nightingales are known to be able to recite from 100 to 200 different melodies. (Listen to some of those soothing bird calls here.) Whereas the communicative waggle of bees, resembles the lexical layer. For example, bees communicate through precise waggles in order to share with other bees the location of food, while other primates use a range of short sounds to indicate threats.

Humans have simply put the two together to create language that contains both expression and content. Darwin even goes to suggest that humans first developed the ability to sing, and then learned to apply the lexical layer to the singing. Thus, developing the ability to communicate in essential information in melodious, flexible structures.

Parents all around the world will have a hard time explaining this "bird and bees" story.

Disney is Eating the Next Generation

With women like Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandburg encouraging women to embrace their inner Hermione Grangers, it seems our society has graduated from the days when women couldn't vote and receive an education. 

Although we have come a long way, seeing the familiar faces of Disney, the cornerstone of most of our childhoods, we might not be as transformed as we might think.  

However, what is it about these pretty in pink creatures that make them so dreadful? According to Peggy Orgenstein's Cinderella Ate My Daughter, language plays a big role in infiltrating the minds of wishful seven year olds. Language in songs especially unconsciously embed in our minds that women are weaker, less intelligent, and less capable than men. 

Back when I was 3 foot and 5 inches, my favorite princess had to be Mulan. She is a brave warrior who sacrifices her comfortable life in order to save her father. One of my favorite songs that I loved to sing, "I'll Make a Man out of You", and still sing sometimes today, inadvertently diminishes our quest to equalize our society.  

So, I recently went back and listened to the song again.
Here's one quote from "I'll Make a Man Out of You" that particularly spoke to me: 

• "Did they send me daughters, when I asked for sons?"

Through a feminist lens, the first quote revives the patriarchal society that we've been trying to shed for decades. The outright comparison between men and women immediately paints the picture that women are incapable of fighting and far weaker than men. As author Orgenstein puts it, "it prompts girls to simply wait for princes they've never met to rescue them from misery". This mentality at a young age allows girls to lower their expectations by convincing themselves that in the end, they'll marry a rich man and live happily ever after.

We may say that these words don't really affect us. We're intelligent. We can filter out the messages. However, according to the New York Times, "Studies have long shown that media messages have a pronounced impact on childhood risk behaviors." Words matter, especially words with catchy tunes. 

We have made such incredible progress in creating an equal society, but we're stuck at the crossroads. Do we keep a childhood cornerstone such as Disney? Disney has managed to capture our every dreams in hour long movies, but if we keep feeding Disney to our future generations, Disney will keep feeding them words and ideas that advances notions that it's acceptable to keep women in the kitchen, that women are weaker than men, that women can be treated differently.

You decide. Do we keep feeding Disney to future generations?