When morally and ethically damaging phrases are used by political leaders and activists, it is clear that there is a pressing need to examine the semantic role that words play in the public political realm. It’s inevitable that the goal of verbal abuse is to disentangle words from concepts. Words are summaries of ideas, and ideas may be either good or bad. Socio-religious obscurantism, for instance, is often expressed through the use of terms that have been created in a group setting. They represent a chilling intolerance of difference and variety. On the other hand, terms like “inequality” and “injustice” draw attention to the need for their opposites.
The words have no positive connotation because of the prejudice, hostility, and enmity they inspire. Communal and casteist insults, for instance, do not represent good ideals. Generosity and compassion, on the other hand, have a therapeutic tone to them. Indeed, it is a moral problem to choose words that indicate good values, such as tolerance of the other and even the opposing other.
Words with a corrective slant are audible in today’s political climate. They have an almost ascetic value, in that they aim to clean up political discourse and make it more effective for everyone. However, the ascetic value of the words is being eroded by acidic language. When words have a corrupting effect on the moral fibre of those who hear them, they are said to be acidic.
Some political leaders appear to be less constrained in their use of ethically reprehensible language as seen by the present political atmosphere.
These leaders have the mistaken belief that they can win an argument by resorting to nothing but the most extreme use of nasty, abusive, and strident language. Argumentative language is obviously useless when communicating with such folks. The same offensive language is used by both parties. In this light, the performance of the filthy mouth is meant to devalue respectable language or to silence the public speeches of opposition leaders.
The ruling party’s moral leaders have not taken the initiative to discipline or censure party members who are free to use such language regularly. Outsourcing this “semantic filth” to others is actually a profitable and convenient choice for such leaders. It’s successful because it aims to humiliate and delegitimize the opposition for financial gain. The heads of such parties don’t worry too much about the moral repercussions of their members’ filthy language and behaviour. It is possible that the statements said to have no conceptual connection but were said with the purpose to malign the opponents without being influenced by the corrosive logic of what was said.
The increasing political need of those who outsource such phrases, as well as certain leaders’ infatuation with employing filthy language themselves to settle scores with their opponents, has created a climate in modern politics that is inimical to the instructive use of language. When one uses language to educate the public about the value of mutual respect, decency, and equality, that person has become a political force.
Instead, one can’t help but take a perverse pleasure in hearing others use foul language, a phenomenon arguably made possible by certain television channels that have set the stage not for expanding the space for decency by practising self-restraint, but for promoting the use of such language because it guarantees them high ratings.
There is a moral cost to individuals who participate in the outsourced, jubilant, and abusive rhetoric that characterises today’s political dialogue. Responsibility must be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who provide a platform for the outsourcing of such language use. The same holds true for the portion of the populace that finds joy in listening to such comments rather than refraining from doing so.
It goes without saying that language itself does not become offensive. When given a certain interpretation, they become insulting. Those who are serious about fostering a respectable democracy should take responsibility for ensuring that their constituents are not humiliated by phrases that are loaded with pejorative connotations. For the reason that words take on their normative texture and size based on their intended meaning.
