Words that paralyse thought

A technique used by political managers or administrative 'spinners' to give the appearance of action is that, whenever they want to impose another untried recipe for doing something, they dress it up with abstract nouns — words with no substance that make people feel good or certain about what is being said. For example, 'evil', 'truth', 'freedom', 'wealth', 'change', 'choice', 'respect', 'potential', 'innovations', 'modernisation', 'spiritual', 'values', 'principles', 'progress', 'success', 'quality', 'enterprise', 'ethics', 'standards', 'democracy', 'terror', 'aspirations', 'education', 'equality', etc.

These words are called nominalisations by linguists. They actively muddle clear communication because, by pretending to refer to something concrete, the people using them create a feeling in the listener that something meaningful is being said when it isn't.

Political speeches are marinated in nominalizations. Who could fail to agree with the leader of the opposition Michael Howard’s fatuous policy declaration, "I believe it is natural for men and women to want health, wealth and happiness for their families and themselves"?[48] Or Prime Minister Tony Blair in his 2001 election manifesto pledge? ("Millions of hard-working families want, need and deserve more. That means more change in a second term, not less — to extend opportunity for all."[49]) And who could not be puzzled by President George W. Bush's assertion that America had "... delivered freedom, liberty and democracy to Iraq"[50] as if these vague, abstract concepts were food aid. (The nominalisations are in bold italic.)

The problem with this type of word is that, because it contains no concrete information or meaning, the reader or listener has to go on an inner search and pattern-match to what it means to them personally, based on their own past experience. Inevitably, such a word will mean different things to different people — one person's 'aspiration' is not the same as another's.

Once the word is pattern matched in our brain we have our own meaning. This becomes a perception that is then automatically 'tagged' with an emotion. Our emotions are stirred but not connected up to anything tangible. However, it is largely an unconscious process and we are not usually aware it is happening. Which is why politicians use nominalisations a lot — they are words that can mesmerize and influence people but cannot serve to pin politicians down. In this way (because they contain no real information) nominalizations hinder thinking and communication. This abuse of language confuses and frustrates those not inoculated against it.

BACK TO TOP                                                                  Read On >>