The foundations of politics

Have you ever stopped to think about why you like what you like? Or more importantly, why doesn't everyone like what you find fascinating?

In El Rincón del Pato Cojo we have articles on geopolitics, hydropolitics, national politics in Spain or the participation of women in the political chessboard. But to talk about all these issues we need an element that we seldom pay attention to. Something that is always there but never seems to be, a crucial element. Words.

We are neither linguists nor will this be an article about the origin of language, that is not our style. We talk about politics and the political, that is why today we want to talk about words.

In the book “What does it mean to speak?” Bourdieu raises a question that, as obvious as it may seem, does not cease to be interesting. According to the author, “the greatest ideological effects of religion and politics derive from the possibilities contained in the polysemy inherent in the social ubiquity of legitimate language”. That is, the great ideological debates and conflicts are given by words, which shape ideas and ideas, in turn, represent people.

For Bourdieu, all words have an ideological and political value and connotation, and that is precisely what we see every day in the news. There is less and less common space for the polysemy of words as there is more and more polarization between different political positions.

After Trump's speech, his supporters stormed the Capitol | Photo Credit: Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images

Bourdieu states that “The origin of the objective meaning that is engendered in linguistic circulation is to be sought in the first place in the distinctive value resulting from the relationship acted by speakers, consciously or unconsciously, between the linguistic product offered by a characterized social speaker and the linguistic products simultaneously proposed in a given social space”.

Basically, what the author presents is that the objectivity that is intended to be generated in the public debate must be sought in the relationship between the speaker himself, what he says and what his rivals respond to. In a way, there is no objectivity in a Platonic sense. There are no immutable truths, if objectivity is constructed with the elements raised here.

But what about the receivers? The author states that “the interpretation schemes that the receivers put into practice in their creative approval of the proposed product may be more or less distant from those that have oriented the production”.

In other words, while the speaker launches a political product to the market (a concept, an idea, a word), his rivals do the same from their “subjective objectivity” and the receivers analyze both and buy the one closest to their beliefs.

To go to extremes, for a Podemos voter the concept of family is antonymous to the same concept for a Vox voter. For the former, the family encompasses such a broad spectrum that it ranges from same-sex couples with adopted children to the traditional family, including single mothers. On the other hand, for a Vox voter this concept is more reduced and, most likely, it only includes the traditional family.

The existence of this kind of words can lead to simpler and somewhat empty speeches. Campaign slogans such as “communism or freedom” are also proof of this. What is freedom here? Whatever the receiver wants to understand as freedom.

If a political leader launches a message like the following: “They want to steal our freedom, prevent us from living a decent life and sweep away everything we have built”. Here all the work of discursive construction and identification with the speaker falls precisely on the receiver of the message. Who are they? What freedom do I defend? What is decent? or even what is it that we have built?

Words alone already have an ideological meaning, weight and capacity for identification. There are some that are key to identifying a person's ideology; nation, taxes, family, security, etc. With increasing polarization the space for understanding has shrunk.

Demonstration in defense of the traditional family | Unknown Author

In politics and politics there is less and less room for debate. Even in the United States, confrontation and demonization of the adversary now prevail. Gone are the days when politicians were able to leave their party behind in order to reach an understanding with the members of the other party.

Either you are with me, or you are against me.

In this context, the polysemy of words is especially visible and is very useful and comfortable for politicians. It is not necessary to have a great argument or even data to support one's position. Nor is it essential that what is said agrees with the truth, the only thing that matters is that the recipients perceive as an enemy those who do not think like them. Turning ideology into a sect in which even rational arguments and data have no place if they do not agree with the discourse.

A very interesting example is that of Isabel Díaz Ayuso. The president of the Community of Madrid has won the loyalty of her voters with incendiary declarations that make the left come out in a flurry to attack her and try to discredit her. On the other hand, her voters and those who do not agree with a left-wing government, even if they do not fully agree with Ayuso's statement, will come out in defense of the president out of antagonism to the rival.

This makes that every time the message can go beyond more and more limits since the defenders are more and more accustomed and are able to buy and defend political products that before they would not have been able to.

A year ago the Nazi salute was taboo in much of the world, now it is a symbol of identification of the right and extreme right and a mockery of the “left is paranoid”.

Elon Musk speaks at the Inauguration Day event at Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C. | Eric Lee/The New York Times

All the changes in the world, all the advances and setbacks, all the disputes. Everything is built with words, hence their importance. From now on, do not just listen to the speeches, listen to the words. Then you will know where you stand.