Even the White House is cautious with terminology

1594

White_House_02How many of us are used to the expression “Radical Islam”? How many of us daily read this same expression in newspapers or on the TV screens? We have done the math for you, seeking through the search engines: Google shows an amount of more than 4 million results, while Bing approximatively goes for 2 million. These are just a few examples of a standardized, systematic titling that you can find lately on the press, here from The Atlantic, from The Wall Street Journal, and from the World.Mic. (Not to mention the results the fear-mongers and haters fill the internet with). Do you notice something wrong? Well, you should not use terms as “Radical Islam”. Nor “Radical Islamists”. They are not accurate, and moreover they legitimate terrorists as representatives of a Muslim faction which doesn’t actually exist, or it exists at a ridiculously low extent, if compared with the total amount of faithfuls.

The suggestion comes surprisingly from The White House. In this case, Washington is showing a great deal of a diplomacy, while most of the mass media apparently don’t. Raising awareness through language and precise terminology not to offend a community of more than a billion people, working for a peaceful assimilation. That’s the purpose of White House’s prudence. Something that we can only approve, as terminologists, liguistists, and people in favour for integration. If it’s true that language shapes the world in which we are living, being cautious in its usage is a wise move indeed. The political correctness of the White House is smart for another reason, which is political. It will help the United States to gain the trust of the American Muslims, that can represent a helpful support in Washington’s campaign. And American Muslims reacted very well, with a comprehensible sense of relief.

What terms should we use then? Josh Earnest, White House spokesman, is pretty clear about that: Radical Islam should be replaced by “Violent Extremism”. Two reasons for this are mentioned during his speech, that was quite a strong stand because it was delivered immediately after the shocking attack of Charlie Hebdo. The first one is being more accurate. Something similar happened in 2013, when the AP (Associated Press) decided to avoid the use of “Islamist” to describe “an advocate or supporter of a political movement.” AP is famous for its numerous “wars of words”, which led to some sues and controversies concerning the bans and the suggestions for a proper language to adopt in the media. It is anyway a powerful and respected association that publishes each year a “stylebook” (the most updated and correct journalists’ terminology) from which thousands of television channels, newspapers and networks take inspiration and material. The White House made another step in the very same direction. But Josh Earnest went even further. He underlined very strongly that accepting the terrorists’ language in describing themselves is a dangerous choice, the aim being to delegitimize their claim to represent an entire religion. Avoiding the religious “nuance” of the concepts helps us to separate terrorism from religious beliefs, creating a climate of common hostility against criminal acts who search the disguise in an easy generalization.

You can find the full interview here

Matteo Poles

Social Media Specialist

Communication Trainee at TermCoord