Is language to blame for the militarization of society?

SPC David S. — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:01:24 -0500

In examining the effects of war I was curious about any possible consequences of “linguistic relativity” when applied to military terminology. While linguistic relativity has been abandoned and criticized by many over the decades some psychologists and anthropologists continue to argue that differences in a language's structure and words may play a role in determining how we think. While terms and acronyms like CoC, IC, and C2 are rather benign and more obscure to the civilian population there are other terms that convey a heavier, more militarized message like rules of engagement. This is actually the title of a TV sit-com that has absolutely nothing to do with war. Due to constant coverage such terms have become common place within our sociolinguistics on a global scale. I’m curious if our language has played a part in either supporting the insurgency narrative as well has had any societal impacts due to the enculturation of military terminology. Are we speaking the language or love or our we speaking the language of war?
https://qz.com/847577/our-casual-use-of-military-jargon-is-normalizing-the-militarization-of-society/

Our casual use of military jargon is normalizing the militarization of society

“ASAP,” “on standby,” and “good to go” are all common army idioms.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2017 12:07 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:07:05 -0500

No Liberals are people who fear militarization are to blame. Getting an mrap having uniforms with sapi plates having militarized clothing that don't have the same color as the military is not a big deal but to Jane Fonda types and those who were paranoid it is a problem. The police had to be protected as you saw police who didn't wear body armor got blown away in one instance by one gunman in 2016. The SWAT teams and special tactical units have a military-style uniforms if it intimidates the populace too bad. The police have to protect themselves intimidation is part of the deterrence to stop crying and to cause Hooligans to disperse. If police walked around with roses in their hands and waving hands at people who want to fight it's not going to work.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2017 12:09 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:09:11 -0500

The language of not knowing the language and the language of Rebellion and thinking we're going to turn into a police state like the movie 1984 horror The Hunger Games what feeds into some of this lack of understanding. The people should look at police states of Russia China and even turkey as an example of how good we are generally compared to countries that oppress their citizens

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 17 at 2017 12:11 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:11:21 -0500

Which society are you talking about? Which language?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2017 2:09 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:09:44 -0500

An interesting concept and I fully understand what you are getting at. IMO I would say there is an effect, but would not say it's to blame.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2017 4:49 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:49:33 -0500

Sadly, everyone is fluent in violence. it's because it is easy. Understanding another person's language or culture takes time and effort. We are currently in a society that wants everything right this minute, not wanting to work for it. This includes accepting another's viewpoint.

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Jan 17 at 2017 8:21 AM

1SG Al Brown — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:21:03 -0500

Military based language or acronyms are used to manipulate or dramatize a condition that may require future caution or additional actions, i.e. the constant public use of "high alert" echoed from school teachers to presidents. Civilians understand very few military phrases, but they understand that things may not be normal if they hear the militarized phrases or acronyms. As far as the militarization of our society; we were attacked multiple times in the 90's and islamic terrorists finally succeeded in killing 3000 of our citizens because they hated us for being us. Terrorism continues and still isn't taken seriously by our citizens. If you compare the movie films produced shortly after WWII, and compare the action of the hated Nazi's checking papers at rail stations, it matches security in American airports in 2017. This behavior was tyranny 60 years ago. Now we live in a militarized society, but very few notice. What happened to us? P.S. Sorry this turned into a rant, but some things irritate me.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jan 17 at 2017 8:48 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:48:54 -0500

Interesting question. I think the US has always had a more fluid language than the UK, for example, because we value history very little and are always seeking the next "cool, edgy, salty" way to express an idea. But overall, I have not seen a one-dimensional morphing toward militaristic speech. It is moving towards new-tech and multiculturalism generally, but then it depends on where you live after that. Do we hear it more because we live in mostly military communities? I know when I visit family in Mpls-St.Paul (not much mil presence), it seems to me that military jargon is used much LESS than it was during the Vietnam era, when body counts were shown on NBC nightly news.

Response by COL John McClellan made Jan 17 at 2017 11:24 AM

COL John McClellan — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:24:03 -0500

Interesting question. Probably not by itself, but I don't think it helps when we use "militarized" speak to describe many things that don't rise to the life-and-death reality and utter destruction unleashed by war. It's especially true in our political / civilian leadership circles - it started with phrases like "a war on poverty" or "a war on drugs" - well intentioned perhaps, they were trying to draw a parallel that connoted how serious this societal problem or that was; but there's the rub: nothing else is really like war. So now, it's used very casually... we're going to "declare war" on trivially things in our lives... meanwhile, we haven't actually declared war in ISIS, for example.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jan 17 at 2017 12:23 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:23:09 -0500

SPC David S.,
First, for your question of 'Is language to blame for the militarization of society' we would have to believe we are see the 'the militarization of society' and I do not see that at all. I might give you that we are seeing the radicalizing of segments of our society, but that is greatly different than militarization? As a military forum, picture in your own mind how most...all...these radical would do in a military setting?
I think the militarization or radicalizing has very little to with 'military like' language, and this confirmed with realization that the number of veterans within our society continues to plummet reducing the amount of 'military like' language. In regards to language, the lowering of the levels of language standards across the spectrum may be the real problem...but could also just be an example of a total lowering of standards across the culture? People today, in my opinion, have lower grasp of the English language, 'OMG, can U beleave what he just said?', and no regard to the actual consequences and responsibility of what they post in a public forum?