The totally great and excellent bleaching of political discourse
Those ads want you to be against something, not for it.
I was in a store last weekend and overheard a woman say to her companion, “I mentioned something about politics and she immediately called me a ‘socialist.’ I’m not a socialist. I’m just a Democrat.” In the midst of thousands of other conversations leading up to the mid-term elections, I can only assume the same is happening on both sides of the political aisle: “I’m not an insurrectionist. I’m just a Republican!”
I personally don’t know a single card-carrying Socialist or Fascist. I doubt you do either. This country is far more centrist than the media wants us to believe. So how did we get to a place whereby simply identifying as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent evolved (or devolved) into using words like “socialist,” “Trumper,” “libtard,” “fascist,” or “snowflake” to describe our fellow Americans?
Coincidentally, this amping up of political labeling is aligned to another trend in the American English language: overused superlatives. How many times today did you hear the words, “great!” “amazing!” “outstanding!” or “excellent!”? Probably too many. After that apparent socialist checked out and it was my turn, the checker said, “you saved $1.17 on your purchase today.” To which I instinctively responded, “AMAZING!” Was saving a bit more than a dollar on a $50 purchase really, truly, actually… amazing (defined as ‘causing great surprise or sudden wonder’)? Was it amazing in the same way watching my wife give birth to our first son via c-section after his umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck was amazing? Not even close. But that’s the language cycle we’re in - and it’s being leveraged for political gain.
At some point, a portion of American society came to the conclusion labeling another person as a “Democrat” or “Republican” wasn’t strong enough - in the negative sense. In linguistics, this process is called ‘grammaticalization,’ or ‘semantic bleaching,’ and follows a predictable cycle. When a word used to describe something doesn’t carry sufficient bite, we collectively seek a word with a little more…teeth. If society adopts the new word, the frequency of usage increases. At some point, if the new word doesn’t carry the same bite as the old word, the process starts again.
To prove this, tune into Fox News or MSNBC after 8 p.m. tonight and watch some opinion talking heads (this is the only time I’ll recommend watching that divisive, angry drivel). Every time a talking head uses an overly negative term when describing a Republican or Democrat, ask yourself, “could they have made the same argument if they weren’t so amped up in their use of language?” Maybe. But would it keep you watching?
Cycles of semantic bleaching are normal. However, this is where the increased use of superlatives and the intensity of political name calling diverge. Because negative terms tend to have more staying power than positive ones.
A 2019 study published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology showed that while negative language is powerful, negative language that is intensified (i.e. harsher) is both powerful and tends to stick in our minds longer. In fact, it’s more powerful and sticks longer than positive intensified language. Experiments were conducted across a number of platforms, including online reviews, political ads, journalism, and workplace communications. According to the study:
“Because negativity is often associated with fear or danger, and positivity with security and safety, at a cognitive level, a person automatically pays more attention to unpleasant (negative) than to pleasant (positive) information.”
Watch the political ads this cycle. How many implore you to vote for a candidate or issue versus those that implore you to vote against a candidate or issue? And in intense, almost terrifying language? It wasn't always this way - but in today’s divisive climate we’re closing in on “peak bleaching.” Instinctively, this makes sense. We know the power of negativity. And yet, we allow ourselves to be pulled into the vortex of intensified negativity when it comes to a subject that should be, on its surface, somewhat procedural and wonky: in which direction do you want your country to go for the next two, four, or ten years, and what’s the best way to get there…together?
I believe our discourse can improve if we recognize how and why it’s being manipulated, and what the incentives are for those who are manipulating it. If you agree with me, let me know in the comments. Any feedback would be amazing. 😝