Language & How We Label Criminals

In the following clip, Steven Pinker (a American experimental psychologist) discusses how we use language to show (and sometimes politely “mask”) our emotions and true intentions. He gives the example of a man who is trying to seduce a woman will propose “Would you like to come view my etchings upstairs?” instead of directly asking for sex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU

His basic point is that language is not always direct. And for a good reason to! For one reason or another (emotions, cultural norms of politeness and etiquette, or institutional rules and requirements) we can not always be direct in our speech. We can not, when pulled over by a traffic cop for speeding, immediately and directly offer him a bribe in return for being let off the hook.

This same indirectness in language and how labels can influence the way we think was discussed in Stuart Hall’s piece that we read, “The Social History of a Moral Panic”. In this piece, Hall’s main point is how the term mugging was adopted by the British from the Americans and led to misperception about a “new wave” of crime that was occurring, all due to the fact that the media adopted the new term “mugging”.

I think a modern day example of how a new term can lead to a misperception of a “new wave” of crime is terrorism. In the past two decades, terrorism has been the go-to word in any foreign policy debate or discussion. Any Islamic, Arabic or Middle Eastern/Asian looking male who commits a crime on western soil is immediately thrown under the label of “terrorist”. However, as we saw with the Norwegian “gunman” Anders Breivik, the media constantly labelled him a “serial killer” “gunman” “assassin” but almost never a “terrorist”!

Why? This could be for many reasons. A superficial analysis of this would lead us to say that the media is racist and only labels brown people terrorists. But this only scratches the surface. One could argue that the media of any market based country has an agenda to cater to the interests of those in power, as Noam Chomsky would argue (this does NOT mean that it caters to those in power in that country specifically. The media could be catering to the interests of a larger, looming superpower). Thus, when Norway’s media fails to label Anders Breivik as a terrorist, it is possible that they are doing so to continue perpetuating a concept of “terrorist” throughout the country of Norway (and the world) as a brown, most likely Islamic fundamentalist who is anti capitalist, anti western and through heavy media implications, anti-freedom and ultimately anti-“good” and therefore evil.

To label Anders Breivik a terrorist then would be mislead to the masses and go against any neo-conservative interventionist agenda to “spread democracy” around the world. This is because terrorist is portrayed as an exogenous threat, that can be solved with the correct institutional building and good-seeking cultural influence from the USA and its followers. Terrorists are NOT portrayed to seem like they can come from next door. And this is why Anders Breivik has not been generally labelled a terrorist. Even though he did terrorize his own people and his argument was ideologically and irrationally based, he is still a westerner. And it would be inconsistent on the media’s part to label him a terrorist.

I think that the video I showed hits on an important point. At minute 3:30, Steven Pinker discusses Alan Fiske and his concept of how language is used in 3 different universal settings of 1) dominance 2)communality or 3)reciprocity. I think this selective use of the term “terrorist” fits under communality as it is used to help the masses interpret an event in a certain way, according to the best ways seen fit by those in power.

Its hard to fit my thoughts into the 250 word limit (which I clearly surpassed) but the discussion continues! Its interesting to see how language plays an important part in how we view crime, both domestically and internationally.

-Nikhil Wagh