The immediate raison d’être for this contribution are public comments from Turkey’s Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ aimed at Turkish politicians and media representatives that are by now being referred to as “verbal threats,” including criticism directed at comments by the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen’s Association’s (TÜSIAD) new chairwoman, Ümit Boyner. Why use foul language? Should citizens perhaps be prepared for more military involvement in civil society by having its representatives sow the seeds of a more “militaristic” language, including verbal warnings and often verbal threats? Does militaristic jargon on TV or in print media make ordinary citizens more “violent”? I would say “yes, it does.”As the verbal threats are directed against politicians and the media but not directly towards the citizenry I suspect an underlying, intentional motivation to fragment society. I argue that language should be used differently, and that valid comments can always be formulated in a language of understanding and compromise.
At the same time ignoring verbal threats is no option as we can not assign our military a place in a “media ghetto” as this would result in even more misunderstandings; the term “misunderstandings” itself is inherent in the world of language and linguistics. I shall establish a link between violent language and violence in society.
Let me start by saying what studying a language means: It implies studying both its linguistics and literature. Additionally, learning how to use it appropriately according to situation, context and location is the fine art of communication. University students would be required to study linguistics -- for example how to form a grammatically correct sentence -- alongside reading and interpreting its authors by learning about prose and literature, style and experiencing Shakespeare -- or in the case of the Turkish language the works of its world-famous Nobel Prize laureate Orhan Pamuk.
Turkish public figures and elected officials, as in any other democracy, are required to act as linguistic role models, as democracy expects frequent public discourse by politicians and stakeholders in society. The Turkish language, for example, has become much more aggressive as well as more polarizing in recent decades.
I strongly argue that a more polarized language leads to more polarization in society itself. Let me share with our readers a few non-military-related recent examples first.
Think of a recent exchange of verbal attacks in Parliament: As if verbal attacks were not enough a fistfight erupted amongst lawmakers. How can we explain this to our children who should look up to, not down on Parliament?
Computer games are another source of violence and violent language, and even children’s movies in our cinemas seem to overstep the limits of bad versus good taste. I recently went to see “Garfield” with my five-year-old daughter, and we left at the interval. I was surprised by the level of violence, for example turning human “cartoon” beings into a person with a piano as its head. The movie is for sure not apt for under-10-year-olds, as far as myself as a parent is concerned.
Turkish soap operas spring to mind as well, with a constant display of men dominating women and getting away with it while the women as depicted accept their role as an accessory in the best instance. Macho imagery, violence, use of guns: You name it.
Have you watched today’s news? I often feel appalled to realize that the news is broadcast with dramatic music in the background, similar to the Star Wars saga. Once citizens understand news as being a kind of movie and that dramatization is what is required, they may tend to “dramatize” their own everyday relations, too.
Let us now approach the second train of thoughts for this contribution of language and linguistics: its military dimension.
While some would argue that during peacetime generals and representatives of the military should not hold weekly press briefings unless a significant positive development has occurred (for example the hiring of 1,000 new paid-up recruits or having acquired the latest weapons technology), I do not wish to distinguish between peace and war times, as particularly during a period of crisis elected politicians must be in the lead, and not the army. Winston Churchill springs to mind as someone who fulfilled this role perfectly, or the United States president in his role as commander in chief.
Language matters should be reflected in trends in society. One such example is in West Germany, where the terminology concerning conscientious objectors over time was changed from “War Service Opponent/Objector (KDV or Kriegsdienstverweigerer)” to “Social Service Provider (ZDL or Zivildienstleistender).” Another example is today’s British government, which had announced last week that with regards to terror the country “is at war.” No general would make a similar statement unless asked to do so by his elected government.
My suggestions are of course of a personal nature, but I would hope that as fast as reasonable representatives of the Turkish armed forces and the military in general adhere to stricter linguistic norms and standards when they go public as well as drop any threatening vocabulary. The Turkish government must consider when and how often press briefings by the military are justified in the first instance. A much awaited new civilian constitution should reserve a chapter for this issue of civilian-military (public) relations.
