a world where everything can be called anything else
TRANSCRIPT
A World Where Everything Can Be Called Anything Else
Mark Olson
Honor’s Thesis Professor McGuffey
2014/15
2
Introduction
All words like Peace and Love, All sane affirmative speech,
Had been soiled, profaned, debased To a horrid mechanical screech.
-‐W.H. Auden1
It seems to go without saying that our ability to use language to communicate
with people is a human faculty of the utmost importance. Speech is, after all, what
distinguishes us from other species, and was a key reason for human development.
However, if one impartially observes everyday mainstream political discourse, or
the speeches of politicians, it becomes apparent that something is amiss. The
marketplace of ideas seems to be functioning as the theory suggests; ideas are being
freely exchanged at a dizzying speed on the relatively unrestricted Internet and
elsewhere. But a cursory glance at the various political ideas being exchanged
reveals that certain political words have various meanings, depending on who is
using them, and these various meanings often “cannot be reconciled with one
another.”2 How does this happen? And would it be appropriate to say that some
people are abusing, or misusing, political words? Or is using political words
however one pleases just the “natural” result of a democratic society that cherishes
freedom of speech?
1 W.H. Auden, “We Too Had Known Golden Hours.” Quoted from Hannah Arendt’s speech that was delivered upon receiving Denmark’s Sonning Prize in 1975, and published in Responsibility and Judgment. Page 10. 2 Orwell, George. George Orwell Essays. “Politics and the English Language.” page 959
3
The issue of words having irreconcilable meanings does not seem to be a
problem, for example, in the physical sciences. It would be strange for a physicist to
adopt a new meaning for the word gravity without any kind of coherent reasoning;
this would go against the standards that are put in place in the physical sciences.
Thus controversy surrounding the meanings of the words in the physical sciences
rarely happens, and attention is mainly focused on the competing theories within
the given field of science. However, this issue is not always the case in the political
world. For example, the socialist literature of the 19th and 20th century expressed
socialism to mean a system in which the workers own and control the means of
production, consumption, and distribution. Yet it is common to hear people in right-‐
wing circles say that President Obama and the Democrats are implementing
socialism in America. Has the meaning of socialism changed? It would be difficult to
justify a claim that President Obama is creating policies that hand over ownership
and control of America’s businesses to the workers. What makes it even stranger is
that those who consider themselves socialist are saying that President Obama and
the Democrats are implementing policies that are anything but socialism.3 How can
there be such a stark difference between the two points of view on the meaning of
one word?
The partial answer is that many political ideas are still contested within the
political world and have not reached a consensus that is shared by all, unlike how
the concept of gravity, or other aspects in the physical sciences, eventually reached a
3 The “World Socialist Website” is a place where today’s socialists publish their perspectives. A quick glance at the various articles quickly reveals a starkly different picture of President Obama and the Democrats. www.wsws.org
4
consensus and became scientific law. And because of the contested nature of these
political ideas they remain in competition in the marketplace of ideas; that is, a
person or an institution can argue that socialism is X, Y and Z, while another set of
people can argue that socialism is actually A, B and C. The theory of the marketplace
of ideas suggests that the truth will emerge from a free and fair competition. But
what kinds of standards exist within this marketplace of ideas? And would it be fair
if a group of people with greater resources and access to mass communications
could attempt to undermine the meaning of a political idea so that their idea will
gain an advantage in the marketplace of ideas?
What begins to become apparent is that the standards in the political world
are much looser than the standards used in the physical sciences. In other words,
there is no permanent committee that regulates and approves of the meanings of
important words used in mainstream political discourse.4 But neither is there in the
physical sciences. This seems to suggest that the contested nature of political ideas
might be more of an issue because politics mainly deals with the unsettled, and
often turbulent, question of Who rules Whom?
The important question of who rules whom thus may reveal why political,
economic, and religious ideas seem to be in a continuous competition. The
proponents of various political, economic, and religious ideas seek to offer their
adherents the best explanation of a complex, diverse, and continuously changing
world, and also believe their ideas offer the best strategy for the future. But why do
the meanings of certain political words also have to fall prey to the continuously 4 Point of clarification: when I speak of the standards in mainstream political discourse I am excluding the standards that exist in academia.
5
changing world? Why can’t we just create new political words to represent the new
ideas, or evolving ideas? It would be one thing if the contested meaning of a political
word were a new concept, but many political words have been around for over a
century, some much longer. Thus one of the consequences of the contested nature
of political ideas is that the meaning of the words used to describe them, like
socialism, are abused and become victims, so to speak, in the struggle over how the
world should be ruled. This problem then creates a situation in which words
become ambiguous and indeterminate.
How do political words become indeterminate? Was this a problem in pre-‐
modern times, or is it just a problem that arose during modernity? In this essay I
will explore these questions and argue that the abuse and misuse of political words
by various political actors are creating indeterminate political words, which leads to
the degradation of political discourse. An example of the abuse of political words
would be people’s using them more as pejoratives to attack political opponents. The
use of pejoratives in speech is often used to conceal facts and divert attention away
from much needed arguments, rather than to explain and understand the various
issues. And an example of the misuse of political words would be ordinary people’s
inappropriately using words through lack of understanding and/or mimicking the
talking points of their trusted sources for understanding politics. This is a problem
because it causes confusion throughout society and hinders our ability to find
common ground. I am not going to suggest that I have the solutions to the problem;
rather this essay will explore the various causes of the misuse and abuse of political
language by highlighting the insights of four prominent political thinkers on
6
language: Plato, Alexis de Tocqueville, George Orwell, and Hannah Arendt. My hope
is that this exploration will help contribute to, and deepen, the discussion regarding
the degradation of political discourse.
In the first part of this paper I will be using the insights found in Hannah
Arendt’s work to discuss the importance of speech for political life, and how words
are something that we use to appropriate nature and the various things we produce
in this world. Arendt argued that not only was language common to us all, but that
nature and the innumerable amount of things in this world were common to us all
as well – even though our relations towards these things varies from person to
person. Arendt also believed that speech and action are the single most important
conditions of human life, so much so that life without them would not be life at all.5
The second part of the essay will then explore how the degradation of
language happens in the political world. To do this I will again use the insights of
Arendt on what she saw as people failing to make important distinctions when
engaging in political discourse, and a phenomenon that she called “the
functionalization of all concepts and ideas.” The functionalization of concepts is
when a person starts labeling a distinct concept by using another distinct concept’s
name because they believe the two different concepts serves the same function in
society. For example, people sometimes call communism a religion because the
adherents of communism supposedly worship the idea of communism like religious
adherents worship their respective religious dogmas. Arendt believed that this
5 Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Page 176.
7
leads to confusing the issues because people no longer make the important
distinctions between the concepts and ideas.
The second part of looking at the degradation of language will then use the
insights of George Orwell and his observations on the abuse and misuse of language
in society. Orwell observed that society appeared to be moving away from the use
of concrete language and toward the use of abstract language. He also saw how the
use of indeterminate political words and vague language had a special ramification
for the political world by highlighting how partisans used these words.
And the third part of the essay will then explore possible reasons for the
degradation of language by looking at the insights of Plato, and also of Alexis de
Tocqueville. Both of their observations seem to complement Arendt and Orwell’s
observation on language, and might even suggest that the degradation of political
discourse may be a permanent, and unfortunate, feature found in democratic
countries. And the final part of the essay will be a case study that uses the insights
of the four political thinkers to show how today’s media play a prominent role in the
debasement of political discourse. The case study will focus on how the word
socialism has come to have two starkly different meanings throughout society. Also,
throughout the paper I hope to show how the degenerative state of political
discourse is not the result of a handful of actors, but is a problem to which we all
contribute.
8
Political Life and the Importance of Language
It can safely be argued that the whole process of creating words and using
them in speech is what distinguishes us from other species. Language is what
allows us to understand and make sense of our world. Hannah Arendt saw words as
“carriers of meaning” and believed that “the creation of words” is how the human
world appropriates and identifies nature and the things of this world.6 It is
important to point out that what Arendt meant by the things of this world is related
“to the human artifact” and the “affairs which go on among” the people who inhabit
this planet.7 An example of the human artifact would be books and buildings, and an
example of human affairs would be the ideas we share through human discourse
and historical events that happen between people.
The creation of words to designate and identify objects (both of nature and
the things of this world) helps dis-‐alienate each new generation from the world and
each other.8 What Arendt meant by being dis-‐alienated from the world is that the
words we use to give meaning to the things of this world help us create a common
understanding of them. We are all unique beings with differing perspectives, but
through socialization and education each of us comes to know, for example, what a
book, or a tree, or water is when we see them. And even complete strangers will at
least have the accepted meanings of the things of this world in common. This point
6 Arendt, Hannah. The Life of the Mind, page 99. 7 Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition, page 52. 8 Arendt, Hannah. The Life of the Mind, page 100.
9
may seem trivial to even bring up because it would be almost unfathomable for a
person, or a group of people, to decide to start calling books, trees, or water by other
names. And one could image how difficult it would be to go to a foreign country
without knowing a single word of the foreign language; it would no doubt leave you
feeling alienated from them. This example also shows us how the appropriation of
words, and people’s adherence to the most basic meanings of these words, create a
commonality between all those who understand the given language.
Language and the overwhelming majority of the things of this world were
given names a long time ago. The process of how each of us acquired our language
as children is a complex study that linguists are still debating, and is not something
that needs to be examined in depth for our purposes. But we do know that every
person is socialized through a language that came into existence long before we
were born. Children usually learn the basics of language and can communicate even
before they enter school. The beginning process of learning what the things of this
world are for children is often done through a simple method, like pointing to a dog
in amazement the first time they see one. The parent will then say, “Yes, that is a
dog. Can you say, dog?”
Language socialization does not stop after children learn to talk, and
continues on as they learn to use language in new ways through their education and
other various social interactions. During primary education children begin to learn
about math, science, and English composition, and later will get exposed to some
sort of basic civics lesson on government and politics. All of this helps children
expand their understanding of the things of this world.
10
Arendt would go one step further than just the idea of people sharing a
language with common meanings. She argued that the things of this world, in
themselves, are common to us all. We may each have differing perspectives and
relations toward the things of this world, but they will always be something each of
us has in common. For example: the beautiful state capitol I pass by everyday in my
city is something that is common to every person who passes by it as well. But my
relation to it, or my perspective about it, is likely different from, say, those of the
politician who works in the building, or somebody who might hold different political
views about the government. Arendt noted that the world is like “a table [that] is
located between those who sit around it.” The table gathers us together and creates
a commonality among strangers, but it also separates and “prevents our falling over
each other, so to speak.” Thus the things of this world are located between us and
create a two-‐fold nature because they both relate and separate us.9
The two-‐fold nature of the things of this world partially reveals why humans
organize and create states, laws, contracts, and other institutions. This two-‐fold
nature is also why Arendt believed “politics arises in what lies between men and is
established as relationships.”10 In other words, the innumerable number of things
in this world and the almost infinite ways in which they relate and separate us
create the necessity to establish rules, or laws, and institutions to help humans come
together in an orderly way. In private life, or family life, the things of this world
often do not separate us from family members as much as they might between
complete strangers. But the fact of life is that we all must venture out beyond our 9 Arendt. The Human Condition, page 52. 10 Arendt, Hannah. The Promise of Politics. “Introduction into Politics.” Page 95.
11
four private walls and engage with the social realm, or the political realm, in one
way or another.11 This is because we are not self-‐sufficient and must enter into the
world to survive. Thus we can see the importance of using speech as we eventually
journey out from our four private walls and into the world to engage in
relationships with others.
With language we then use our ability to communicate with others through
speech. And communicating with others is how we come to understand the world,
including our own lives and experiences. As Arendt noted, “[M]en in so far as they
live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because
they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves.”12 What Arendt
meant by “act in this world” can best be understood as human agency; or rather, the
fact that we all have the ability “to take the initiative, to begin… [or] to set something
into motion” through our actions.13 Each person that enters into this world is a
unique being, and it is only through the process of speech and action that we can
actively reveal who we are to the human world.14
In The Human Condition, Arendt expounded on the concept known as the Vita
Activa – which contains the three fundamental human activities: labor, work and
action. She argued that “labor is the activity which corresponds to the biological
process” that is necessary for the survival of the human species. Work is the human
activity that creates the things of this world. And, “action is the only activity that 11 Arendt, Hannah. Responsibility and Judgment. “Reflections on Little Rock.” Paraphrased from Arendt’s point on making the distinction between “the three realms of human life – the political, the social and the private.” 12 Arendt, The Human Condition, page 4. 13 Ibid., page 177. 14 Ibid., page 179.
12
goes on directly between men… and corresponds to the human condition of
plurality.” For Arendt, the condition of human plurality – “the fact that men, not
Man, live on this earth” – is the essential ingredient for “all political life” because if
we were all identical beings there would be no need for political life.15
A person’s actions can be understood without the use of verbal explanations.
Arendt argued, however, it is mostly through speech that a person’s actions become
clear to others.16 In other words, speech is what allows people to explain their
actions. For example, people would be left in confusion if disempowered citizens
decided to take action against a policy they disliked by chaining themselves to the
front door of the state capitol without using the spoken word to explain their
actions. Politicians, and any news that might cover this protest, would understand
that people were chained to the front door of the capitol, but without the spoken
word they would not know why the protesters decided to do so. However, only
through speech would these people be able to reveal the reason why they chained
themselves to the door. Thus with this simple example of speech and action we can
see why language is so important in politics because with “word and deed we insert
ourselves into the human world.”17
However, if the protesters used speech that contained political words that
did not accurately express their reason why they disliked the politician, and his or
her policy, it would create misunderstanding and possible confusion as to why they
were protesting. So, for example, if the protesters were holding signs that stated,
15 Arendt, The Human Condition. Page 7. 16 Ibid., page 179. 17 Ibid., page 176.
13
“Stop the Marxist politicians from implementing communism in America,” but the
politicians were consistent liberals, or progressives, simply implementing a policy
that had nothing to do with communism, those who understand the distinctions
between liberalism and communism would simply write the protesters off as people
who are confused about the issues, or may have been misled into believing that the
politicians were Marxists by other sources. This hypothetical shows us a simple
way in which people can misuse political words (a point we will discuss more
below).
The misuse of words is much less of a problem when we speak to others
about the everyday actions, such as in “I walked the dog this morning.” But
everyday life is not always simple, and we are often confronted by a diverse and
complex world that requires explanation and understanding. Furthermore, we are
faced with the fact that we are all born into a world that has “an already existing
web of human relationships.”18 This web consists of the various social, economic,
familial, cultural, legal, linguistic and political institutions into which we are born.
Thus a person’s actions will always have to confront an “innumerable [number of]
conflicting wills and intentions” that exist within the web of human relationships.19
In other words, the disempowered citizens who chained themselves to the front
door of the capitol might seriously dislike the policy they are protesting, but there
are likely many people who support the intentions and reasons for the policy.
But not only do we confront an innumerable number of conflicting wills and
intentions in this world when we attempt to take action against, or for, something, 18 Ibid., page 184. 19 Ibid.
14
but we also confront the overwhelming enormity of the web of relationships, and
the massive diversity and variety of things (objects, ideas, institutions, etc.) in the
world. This increases the likelihood that we might struggle to find the right words
to describe something that is unfamiliar to us, or fall prey to and believe a so-‐called
expert who feeds us inaccurate information.
The enormity and complexity of the things of this world are one of “the
reason[s] why all our definitions are distinctions [and] why we are unable to say
what anything is without distinguishing it from something else.”20 In other words, if
I were to explain to a person who had only a basic understanding of the American
political system about a foreign political system that was unknown to him or her, I
would have to distinguish the known from the unknown political systems. Making
distinctions is such an important aspect of speech because without it we would not
be able to explain the things of this world to others.
Arendt believed that speech in the modern world was losing its power.21 She
argued that this loss was partially the result of politicians and political writers
misusing political words because they were failing to make distinctions when
discussing complex political concepts. A modern example of this loss of distinction
is how many right-‐wing political writers in America often use the word socialism to
denote something undesirable, or to castigate their opponents. However, when they
do so they fail to make any kind of distinctions between the various types of socialist
regimes that existed in the world. Is the socialism they denounce Norway’s
democratic-‐socialism, or Russian socialism, or Chinese socialism? These three 20 Idid., page 176. 21 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, page 4.
15
examples of socialist regimes have very distinct differences. Thus we can see an
example of how speech can lose its power to accurately explain political concepts
when people fail to make important distinctions.
Arendt believed that the lack of making distinctions was also connected to
what she saw as the “functionalization of all concepts and ideas.”22 This occurs
when people concern themselves only with the functions of certain concepts and
ideas, rather than understanding the intricate details of the ideas. Arendt used an
example that showed how some people often called communism a “new religion,
despite its avowed atheism, because it [supposedly] fulfills socially, psychologically,
and emotionally the same function traditional religion fulfilled.”23 However, she
believed that this functionalizing leads people to confusing the political issues
because people who suggest that communism is a religion will then not concern
themselves with what bolshevism actually is as an “ideology or as [a] form of
government, nor in what its spokesmen have to say for themselves”, but only
concern themselves with the function of communism (i.e., that it provides the same
function of worshiping some higher deity). As she said, “it is as though I had the
right to call the heel of my shoe a hammer because, I, like most women, use it to
drive nails into the wall.”24 Another problem with the functionalization of ideas is
that people can then use their analysis to “draw quite different conclusions from
such equations.”25 For example, Arendt argued that a conservative could then draw
the conclusion that because “communism can fulfill the same function as religion” 22 Hannah Arendt. Between Past and Future. “What is Authority?” page 101. 23 Ibid., page 102. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.
16
that this analysis is “the best proof that religion is necessary.”26 Or, on the contrary,
liberals could draw the conclusion that this analysis proves why only “true
secularism [could] cure us” of the influence of religion on politics.27
The issue of functionalization that Arendt wrote about in the late 1960s is
still very much alive and well today. In some circles of leftist political writings we
can see examples of people suggesting that sports, or war, are the “new religion” in
America. A leftist social critic, Chris Hedges, makes exactly this claim in an article
called “Kneeling in Fenway Park to the Gods of War.”28 The thesis of his article
suggests that the U.S. military and sports are the “new religion” in America, and that
they are as “unassailable as Jesus.” However, in order to make his point he provides
a perfect example of blurring the distinctions between religion, militarism, and
sports when he suggests that the military is fulfilling the same function as not only
religion, but also sports.
Hedges establishes the idea that the military and sports are America’s new
religion with his very first sentence “On Saturday I went to one of the massive
temples across the country where we celebrate our state religion.” The temples are
sports stadiums, and the religion is war and sports. And while visiting these
stadiums we see “religious reverie… used to justify our bloated war budget and
endless wars.” There can be no doubt that over the past few decades there has been
a steady increase in the display of militarism at sporting events; however, as a long-‐
time fan of sports I can remember the days when this linkage was not the case. But, 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Hedges, Chris. “Kneeling in Fenway Park to the Gods of War.” http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/08-‐1
17
Hedges doesn’t make this distinction; on the contrary, he actually suggests that “the
heroes of war and the heroes of sports are indistinguishable in militarized
societies.”
And to show Arendt’s point about how people will then “draw quite different
conclusions from [the] equations” that are put forth by those who functionalize
concepts and ideas we can simply look at the public comment sections of websites
that published Hedges’ article. The examples I read through are from people on a
progressive website, commondreams.org, and in them we see people draw various
conclusions (and I paraphrase): “sports are competitive and are part of the essential
human urge to dominate all others and therefore they should all eventually be
abolished” and “sports trump everything else in society, and it is the reason why the
uphill battle for societal change is so difficult.”
At any rate, Hedges’ article clearly shows how the functionalization process
produces confusion by “blurring the distinctive lines.”29 A person who understands
this process is left with: what exactly is the political problem here? Is it the
Pentagon that uses sporting events to promote militarism? Are sports the problem?
Are both of them the problem? Do war and sports really provide the same function
as religion? Hedges, no doubt, is bringing up an important point about the rise of
U.S. militarism, but in his functionalizing of key concepts we see him ignoring the
intricacies of these three distinct institutions for the purpose of charging the secular
two of serving the same “worshipping” function as religion. As Orwell once stated,
“people who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning – they
29 Arendt. “What is Authority.” Page 103.
18
dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another – but they are not
interested in the detail of what they are saying.”30 Thus in the process people who
functionalize key concepts and ideas unfortunately fail to bring any clarity to the
issues.
Arendt was not the only political thinker to recognize the degradation of
political discourse during her time. George Orwell was another political thinker
who recognized the role that the abuse and misuse of political words, and the decay
of language as a whole, would play during 1930s and 40s. Orwell’s experience of
this temporal phenomenon was quite different from Arendt’s experience, and he
offers us unique insights into the abuse and misuse of language.
In his essay “Politics and the English Language” Orwell argued that the
“political chaos” [of the thirties was] connected with the decay of language.”31 It is
also likely that his observation of the decay of language prompted his now famous
formulation in 1984: “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”
Orwell observed the overall debasement of language in all areas of modern prose.
But he argued that the problem was not “due simply to the bad influence of this or
that writer,” but rather was the result of the overall decline of language in society.32
He argued that one aspect of this decline was related to a trend in “modern prose
[that was moving] away from concreteness” and towards the use of abstract and
vague phraseology.33
30 Orwell, “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell Essays. Page 962. 31 Ibid., Page 966. 32 Ibid., Page 954. 33 Ibid., page 960.
19
Orwell used a verse from Ecclesiastes as an example of concrete language
versus abstract language. The verse states, “I returned, and saw under the sun, that
the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.” He stated that the words
race and battle are examples of “concrete illustrations” because they produce
concrete-‐like images in our minds when we read them. Orwell wrote that a modern
writer would be more likely to write these same lines as: “Objective consideration of
contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in
competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate
capacity.”34 He suggests that this phrasing is abstract and vague because it fails to
usher in a concrete image in the reader’s mind of what the author is really trying to
describe.
Orwell also saw how the use of abstract and vague language is worsened by
the use of indeterminate political words, and that this misuse was especially
problematic in the political world. He argued that many important political words
have become indeterminate because people cannot agree on a given meaning, and
that they use words to bring emotive responses out in people. The capitalist
propaganda says, “Communism is godless and evil!” And the communist
propaganda says, “Capitalism is slavery and exploitation!” Orwell showed how
words like democracy, socialism, and freedom have “several different meanings.”
He then went on to give an example when he wrote, “it is almost universally felt that
when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of
every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to
34 Ibid.
20
stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”35 The endless praise
by American politicians and media pundits claiming America as the greatest
democracy in the world certainly comes to mind here – especially given the recent
studies by political scientists that show America does not actually resemble a
democracy.36
Orwell argued that the other major issue of political writings and speeches,
which contributes to the degradation of political discourse, is that they often
promote the “defense of the indefensible.” Such issues that often involve extremely
difficult choices. For example, the life or death choices that states often have to
make in times of war. As Orwell noted, “the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan,
can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people
to face.” Therefore, political writers, journalists and politicians will instead use
language that “consist[s] largely of euphemism, question-‐begging and sheer cloudy
vagueness.”37 This ploy is used to conceal the brutal aspects of politics, rather than
to bring the argument fully into the light of public discourse. The Bush
administration’s use of torture and calling it “enhanced interrogation” would be a
perfect modern example.
Orwell argued that the abuse of political words, or the use of vague language,
then gets amplified through the use of propaganda and imitation. Political writers
and politicians are mostly attached to a particular political party, or political
ideology. Orwell stated that their manifestos and speeches are all highly similar in 35 Ibid., Page 959. 36 Gilens, Martin. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens.” 37 Orwell, “Politics and the English Language.” Page 963.
21
that one never finds “a fresh, vivid, home-‐made turn of speech.”38 In other words,
politicians use hackneyed words and vague language in their writings and speeches.
This tendency, Orwell believed, recurs because partisanship “seems to demand a
lifeless, imitative style”39 leading faithful followers of parties, or ideologies, to repeat
the same lifeless talking points throughout society. Orwell’s point can certainly be
observed in today’s world. For example, if one influential partisan starts claiming
that President Obama is a Marxist, faithful partisan followers are likely to repeat the
claim.
Both Orwell’s and Arendt’s insights into some of the causes of the
degradation of political language can still be observed in today’s political discourse.
However, before we move forward to look at the degradation in today’s political
discourse we need to see if the abuse and misuse of language were a problem during
any other time periods. In other words, were the abuse and misuse of political
language something that started to appear only during the early 20th Century, and
have they continued up to today? Or does this problem have much deeper origins?
To understand these questions we will explore the use of political language in
Ancient Greece, and then examine the use of political language during early 19th
century America.
38 Ibid., page 962. 39 Ibid.
22
Plato and Tocqueville: Language in Democracy
The most obvious place to start researching whether or not political language
was ever debased during earlier time periods, similar to what Arendt and Orwell
observed, would be to read the ancient works of the Greek political philosophers.
And by doing so one would eventually discover Plato’s views on the debasement of
language during his time. In the Republic, Plato envisioned his ideal utopian state,
and throughout the book he went into great detail about the problems that arise in
the various types of political systems.
The ideal state that Plato wanted to build was a republic that would be ruled
by the elder philosophers. It would be similar to an aristocracy, though it is
important to note that Plato’s aristocrats, or the philosopher rulers, would be people
who were selfless and without property. His viewpoints on why the ideal state
would be a republic ruled by a selfless aristocracy was likely influenced by the fact
that it was the Athenian democracy that had put his friend, Socrates, to death based
on trumped up charges. Thus in the Republic we see Plato’s criticism of democracy
come to the fore.
Plato wrote that democracies have some of the “most beautiful
constitutions,” and that the “free men” living within the city would be “full of
freedom and liberty of speech” allowing men to do whatever pleases them.40
Freedom and liberty of speech is quite the familiar concept to the American, and
would seem like the only way to live. But to Plato such was not the case. He argued
that whenever there is too much regard for the “liberty of action” that man would
40 Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato: “Republic.” Page 419.
23
then “arrange his own private life [in this democracy] just as it pleased him” and
that this mentality amongst all its citizens would eventually destroy the city.41 Plato
argued that this “do whatever one pleases” mentality would result in people’s
mainly pursuing the unnecessary desires and pleasures in life, rather than pursuing
the four cardinal virtues that lead people to truth and reason, to right living and the
good life, which he believed was necessary for an ideal state.
Plato argued that the young children growing up in a democratic state of
affairs would become socialized in “parsimony and ignorance” through their
parents’ “lack of knowledge of right upbringing.”42 As he stated, many of the people
would be “empty of learning and beautiful practices and without words of truth,
which are indeed the best sentinels and guardians in the minds of men.”43 And this
lack of a proper education and of adherence to the four virtues for right living would
leave people susceptible to being manipulated by “liars and imposters” who use
“false words and opinions” to propagate their interests throughout society.44 Plato
argued that many of these liars and imposters would eventually win over the people
as they pushed their false words and opinions, and by doing so they would begin to
debase all truthful speech. Plato wrote, “Shame they dub Silliness… Temperance
they dub Cowardice” and they would then glorify their “licentiousness and
immodesty” and “call them by soft names – Violence is now Good Breeding, Anarchy
is Liberty, Licentiousness is Magnificence, Immodesty is Courage.”45
41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., page 422-‐23. 43 Ibid., page 423. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., page 423-‐24.
24
One cannot help but see that what Plato is describing could plausibly be what
led Orwell to write “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.”
But the important point is the effect that he saw democracy had on language during
his time. Plato was living during a time that saw the demise of Athenian democracy.
There were certainly many factors that led to this demise; however, through Plato’s
insights we can see how language was misused and abused during the ancient
struggles of who should rule whom. Thus we also see why Plato would argue
against democracy, and for a republic that had aristocratic rulers who would
implement a strict censorship of ideas and education throughout society. In other
words, Plato’s work shows us an example of a person living during a time that was
experiencing the ill effects and disintegration of democratic rule, prompting him to
argue for the necessity of aristocratic rule.
So the next question to ask is: did any other political thinker write about the
effect that democracy had on language? The answer to this question will now take
us to the work of Tocqueville and to America during the early 19th Century.
However, it is important that I first point out the obvious difference between Plato’s
observations on language in democracies compared to Tocqueville’s; namely,
Tocqueville was living during a time when aristocratic rule was disintegrating, and
democratic rule was re-‐emerging from its long slumber. Plato, on the contrary, was
experiencing the disintegration of democratic rule and arguing for aristocratic rule.
Thus the difference between these two thinkers gives us an interesting opportunity
to look at the issue of language in democracies from two different angles.
25
In 1831 Alexis de Tocqueville came to America to study its prisons and
penitentiaries. But he would end up observing and studying all of America’s
institutions as well as its customs and manners, and later turned his two-‐year study
into his famous book Democracy in America. His study would also briefly focus on
the use of language in democracies compared to aristocracies. Tocqueville
explained that “few new words are coined” in aristocratic countries because things
rarely changed, and even when new things came into existence the words given to
them would “be designated by known words whose meaning has been determined
by tradition.”46
In democratic countries new ideas and things are constantly coming into
existence. Tocqueville argued that the constant change in democratic countries
ends up “changing the character of the language.” He thought that this change
happens because the new words that come into existence to explain new ideas, or
things, are generally created by a “majority [that] is more engaged in… political and
commercial interests,”47 rather than by the people who are engaged in the study of
languages, philosophy, etc., and who understand the etymological roots of language
(i.e., the dead languages of Latin, Greek and Hebrew). And since the people who
generally create new words often do not understand the etymological roots of their
language, they will borrow words from the living languages and give new meaning
to a word or expression that is already in use. This act creates words with double
meanings and begins to render them ambiguous and indeterminate. I will now skip
forward in time to show a modern example of what Tocqueville was explaining. 46 Tocqueville. Democracy in America. Volume II, Chapter XVI. Page 582. 47 Ibid., page 583.
26
A representative modern example of the process of how words end up with
double meanings is the word libertarian. In the mid-‐twentieth century Murray
Rothbard “coined” the term libertarian to describe his anarcho-‐capitalist economic
theories. However, the term libertarian had been in use since around the 1870s in
Europe by the French anarchists who began to call themselves libertarians to get
around the harsh anti-‐anarchist French laws. To this day libertarianism in most of
Europe is understood as anarchism, an anti-‐capitalist and anti-‐socialist ideology.48
However, in America, and thanks to Rothbard borrowing a word and adopting a new
meaning, libertarianism is understood as an ideology that is staunchly pro-‐capitalist.
With this example we can see how two very different ideologies are now in a
sort of competition against each other over the meaning of libertarianism. We can
also see how the words in democratic countries that are “coined and adopted for”
political and commercial uses will mainly “serve to express the wants of business
[and] the passions of party.”49 In other words, the word libertarian in America is
now often used to express the wants of business (getting rid of burdensome
government regulation) and has also turned into the rallying cry of the Tea Party.
Thus the word, with its new double meaning, has a tendency to cause confusion.50
48 Noam Chomsky’s interview on libertarian-‐socialism, and ways the meaning of libertarianism in America is an anomaly. http://www.alternet.org/civil-‐liberties/noam-‐chomsky-‐kind-‐anarchism-‐i-‐believe-‐and-‐whats-‐wrong-‐libertarians 49 Tocqueville, page 583. 50 A good example of the confusion can be seen when a person calls themselves a “libertarian-‐socialist.” This is a strand of anarchism. However, a person who understands libertarianism to be a staunchly pro-‐capitalist ideology will believe that libertarian-‐socialism is an oxymoron. How could a hard-‐core capitalist also be a socialist, they ask? However, the reason that people call themselves libertarian-‐socialists is because they adhere to the much longer held tradition that understands
27
Tocqueville thought that this outcome was one of the more “deplorable
consequence[s] of democracy”51 because it creates just as “much confusion in
language as there is in society.”52 He believed that “harmony and uniformity” in
language were an important aspect of clear communication. However, what was
happening with language in democratic countries was beginning to create prose
usages that “obscure[d] the thoughts they [were] intended to convey”53 because the
thoughts were surrounded by ambiguous and indeterminate words.
Tocqueville would also study the press and observed how journalists greatly
affected public opinion. He argued that the problem of the abuse and misuse of
language in America were amplified through the freedom of the press. When
writing about journalists he noted that they had a tendency “to assail the characters
of [political] individuals” rather than engaging in any kind of reasoned political
argument. Tocqueville thought that this choice was “deplorable” because of the
media’s immense influence on public opinion.
He also wrote that individuals who were held in “high esteem of their fellow-‐
citizens [were] afraid to write in the newspapers.” Though he doesn’t specify,
Tocqueville is most likely describing American intellectuals, academics, and highly
regarded politicians. He does not address the exact reasons why they are afraid, but
he does write that the highly esteemed people in society would generally “only write
in the papers when they choose to address the people in their own name; as, for
libertarianism as a form of anarchism. There is a variety of anarchist literature that writes of this problem. 51 Tocqueville, page 584. 52 Ibid., page 586. 53 Ibid., page 587.
28
instance, when they are called upon to repel calumnious imputations, and to correct
a misstatement of facts.”54 The absence of intellectuals and academics writing in the
press created an intellectual vacuum and allowed journalists and editors to fill the
vacuum by publishing “knowledge of certain facts,” but often doing so in a way that
“alter[ed] and distort[ed] those facts [so] that a journalist [could] contribute to the
support of his own views,” rather than writing an objective analysis.55 Furthermore,
the vacuum was filled with a large variety of newspapers and publications that
circulated throughout America. Thus the harmony and uniformity of language that
Tocqueville believed were so important for clear communication was basically non-‐
existent in America.
To make matters worse, Tocqueville observed an American public that had a
propensity to adopt the media’s “propositions without inquiry” and that the public
would then “cling to their opinions from pride” and also “because they exercise their
own free-‐will in choosing them.”56 In other words, the press had a tendency to push
personal views in order to appease the populace or sell subscriptions; and the
populace had a tendency to cling to these opinions, rather than investigate the
media’s claims. The people’s repeating what they hear without inquiry certainly
complements the point Plato was making in regard to some people’s being won over
by the “liars and imposters” who spread their “false words and opinions”
throughout society. Furthermore, it complements Orwell’s insights into how the
faithful followers of political parties and ideologies will repeat the same lifeless
54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid.
29
talking points of their respective parties or ideologies. Thus we can see an example
of how the press and political propaganda amplify the degradation of political
discourse.
Tocqueville doubted that there was anything that could be done to reverse
what was happening to language in democratic countries, but he still felt it was
necessary to highlight the effects of democracy on language. So it would seem
appropriate to ask: was Tocqueville against democracy, like Plato? Or were there
any redeeming qualities to be found in democracy? And how do Arendt’s and
Orwell’s insights into the degradation of political language relate to Plato and
Tocqueville’s views on the issues of language in democracy?
The answer to Tocqueville’s position on democracy is probably similar to
Plato’s position: they both observed that democracy had positive and negative
aspects. However, the purpose of Tocqueville’s work was not to praise democracy
in America, nor to build an ideal utopian state, like Plato, but was to observe and
study democracy in action. In her work on Tocqueville, Arendt pointed out that his
studies in America, and his experience during the turbulent times of the French
revolution, might have ended in his despair for the new emerging world. Arendt
wrote, “For what else but despair could have inspired Tocqueville’s assertion that
‘since the past has ceased to throw its light upon the future the mind of man
wanders in obscurity?’”57 Arendt argued that this despair is likely why Tocqueville
went on to suggest that “a new science of politics is needed for a new world.”58 In
other words, the emerging new world of democracy was severing the hold that the 57 Arendt, Hannah. Between Past and Future. “The Concept of History.” Page 77. 58 Tocqueville, quoted by Arendt in “The Concept of History.” Page 77.
30
aristocratic and monarchical traditions – the very traditions that had guided
humanity through so many centuries – had previously enjoyed, and a new science of
politics was needed to understand the new and rapidly changing world.
Arendt’s work would also suggest that she might have been in agreement
with Tocqueville about the loss of tradition and the need to find a new science of
politics that anchored us into something more stable. Arendt wrote that “with the
loss of tradition we have lost the thread which safely guided us through the vast
realms of the past, but this thread was also the chain fettering each successive
generation to the predetermined aspect of the past.”59 This insight by Arendt seems
to create a paradox, and one that Tocqueville may have been struggling with too
when he argued for the need of a new science for politics.
However, for Arendt, the paradox lessens if we understand that she was
mainly concerned about the loss of tradition because she felt that it endangered “the
whole dimension of the past.”60 The reason that Arendt was concerned about saving
the past, rather than tradition per se, was that she believed that “[f]or human beings
thinking of past matters means moving in the dimension of depth, striking roots and
thus stabilizing themselves, so as not to be swept away by whatever may occur.”61
This point complements Plato’s argument on how people in democracies can
become ignorant and easily manipulated by the liars and imposters, who push false
words and opinions in society, because the people had failed to properly learn how
to reason and understand the greater truths – an understanding that requires 59 Arendt, “What is Authority?” page 94. 60 Ibid. 61 Arendt, as quoted in Young-‐Bruehl, Elizabeth, “Hannah Arendt: For the Love of the World.”
31
thinking of past matters. Arendt’s point also complements Orwell’s main reasoning
for writing about the decay of language: to raise awareness about the degradation of
language in the hopes that people would free themselves “from the worst follies of
orthodoxy”62 that spread by imitation, and would thus begin the “necessary first
step towards political regeneration.”63
Arendt also recognized that tradition often passed down the lessons of the
past to each successive generation. However she was not suggesting that
democracy did not work, or that we should go back to aristocratic rule, or that
saving tradition would inform us how we should live; rather, she meant that
understanding the past would offer insights and ways for us to think through the
modern political questions that continually seem to perplex us. Furthermore,
Arendt argued that one of the most important things that we can do when we gather
around the political table to discuss these complex issues is to remember to make
distinctions. If there was one tradition that Arendt likely wished to save, it was
probably traditional political thought because, in her opinion, it still offered many
insights useful for understanding today’s political problems. Are Plato’s and
Tocqueville’s views of what happened to language in democracies not parallel?
Case Study: Modern Media and the Parroting Effect
Now that we understand a little more about the importance of language for
political life, and the effect that democracy has on language, I would like to move to
the final part of the essay to show the role that the modern media play in amplifying 62 Orwell. Page 967. 63 Ibid., page 955.
32
the debasement of political discourse. There are plenty of current examples to show
how political language is abused and becomes degraded on a large scale through the
amplification by the press in America. On a daily basis media pundits can be seen
habitually distorting and altering facts to support their ideological views, and in
some cases attempting to give new meaning to political words already in use, rather
than giving any sort of reasoned and balanced analysis. A great source to observe
the parroting effect this distortion has on average people can easily be observed in
the public-‐comment sections of online news sources and other social media sites.
A specific example will bring us back to the original question of how the
word socialism has come to have starkly different definitions throughout society. In
the past few years, right-‐wing media pundits frequently have called the Democrats
socialists, or claim that President Obama is a Marxist. In fact, if we take a quick
glance at the websites of people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, we see article
after article that instructs their audience that President Obama and the Democrats
are socialists. And if we look at the comment sections of online news sources there
is example after example of people parroting the talking points of Beck and
Limbaugh.64 The assertions that President Obama is a Marxist are clearly not
coming from academia because this claim would not be considered as serious. So
where else could people possibly be getting these assertions?
Glenn Beck has dedicated numerous shows to attempting to prove why
President Obama is a Marxist. In one, he gives us an excellent example of 64 To prove this point about people parroting the idea that the Democrats are socialist one only needs to visit websites like www.foxnews.com, or www.breitbart.com, and read through the comments sections of the various news columns that are critical of President Obama, and the Democrats.
33
Tocqueville’s point about the press. Within the first minutes of his show Beck starts
to “track [President Obama] into private life [in an attempt to] disclose all [his]
weaknesses and errors.”65 Beck believes that in order to understand the “political
structure” of President Obama we need to take a look at his “foundation” (i.e., his
family and his upbringing). Beck suggests that if we do so we will be left wondering
how President Obama did “not become anything but a Marxist with [his]
childhood.”66 In other words, there are so many early life connections to supposed
Marxists that one should believe it would be strange for President Obama not to be a
Marxist.
Immediately after Beck tracks President Obama into his private life, he
proceeds to give us another example of Tocqueville’s insight by “altering and
distorting” facts to “contribute to the support of his own views.”67 One of the facts
that Beck attempts to distort is the sound bite of President Obama telling Joe the
plumber that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Beck
then tells his audience, “Marx said that. Madison never said that. Our founders all
warned against that.”68
It is a fact that President Obama has suggested on numerous occasions that
spreading the wealth around is good for society. However, Beck distorts this fact by
simply removing the context. The context is that President Obama is speaking of
65 Tocqueville quote from above. 66 Ibid. Glen Beck, transcript printed on Foxnews.com: The first part is Beck showing “Obama’s Foundation” http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/04/06/barack-‐obama-‐foundation/. 67 Tocqueville, same quote from above. 68 Glenn Beck, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/04/07/glenn-‐beck-‐barack-‐obama-‐socialist/
34
spreading the wealth around by reintroducing a progressive taxation system. And,
yes, as Beck and other critics have mentioned elsewhere, it is also a fact that Marx
and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto that one of the “generally applicable”
measures for a communist revolution would include implementing “a heavy
progressive or graduated income tax.”69 However, is the progressive taxation
system found only in Marxism and communist ideology? Or can it be found in other
political ideologies and political systems, indeed in capitalist ones such as in
Europe?
The short answer to the last question is yes. In fact, the progressive taxation
system was first introduced in America by the United States Congress in 1862, and
signed into law by President Lincoln, in order to raise money for the Union. Over a
half a century later President Roosevelt implemented a steep progressive taxation
system as part of the New Deal measures. Thus the logic of Beck would also mean
that he would have to denounce President Lincoln and President Roosevelt as
Marxists. Of course, that claim would reveal the absurdity of Beck’s argument,
which is simply the result of his failing to make relevant distinctions and falsely
portraying that the progressive taxation system provides the same function as
communism.
69 Marx and Engels. “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” found in The Marx-‐Engels Reader. page 490. It is important to note that the ten steps that are frequently cited by people like Beck were steps that would “be different for different countries” and that they were temporary measures that would be used to bring about the end goal: the dissolution of classes and class antagonisms, and a utopian communist world “where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
35
Furthermore, through Tocqueville’s perceptiveness we can see a clear
example of how a popular media pundit abuses political words and degrades
political discourse by trying to give new meaning to the word socialism (i.e.,
socialism is what President Obama and the Democrats are doing). And because the
populace has a propensity to cling to a favored journalist’s opinion, rather than
investigate the claims, we see how political discourse gets degraded on a large scale;
possibly millions of people now believe that the policies of President Obama and the
Democrats are “socialist.”70 And, sadly, we can also see how this false claim diverts
people from having honest conversations about why things like the progressive
taxation system were introduced in America by the New Deal Liberals, and not
Marxists, during the Great Depression. So why do Beck and other pundits make
false claims?
The answer to the last question is not something that we can concretely
answer. But we can safely assume that Beck plays a role in the competing nature of
the various narratives found in party agendas and the antagonistic ideologies found
throughout society. Beck openly speaks of his “free market” position and his
support for the Republican Party. Thus Beck’s interest is to denounce the
Democrats and any ideologies that are in a sort of competition with his ideology and
party agenda. In other words, Beck is part of the same phenomenon that Arendt and
Orwell observed that led to speech becoming degraded during their time. Thus the
next question would be: does he know the depiction to be false but uses it anyway?
70 Again, the proof of this can easily be observed by checking out the comment sections of right-‐wing online news sources.
36
When Orwell made his point about euphemisms as well as words used as
pejoratives, he suggested that these were “often used in a consciously dishonest
way” by politicians and political pundits. He wrote that “the person who uses
[euphemisms and vague language] has his own private definition, but allows his
hearer to think he means something quite different.”71 Orwell’s view also
complements the point Plato made about the “liars and imposters” who pushed
their “false words and opinions” in society in order to win people to their side. In
other words, does Beck use the term Marxist and socialist in a consciously dishonest
way to demonize his opponents? Or is he unconsciously helping to degrade political
discourse through the bad habits and imitative style of political partisans?
At this point the only way to answer the first question would be to speculate
because there is no hard evidence to prove that Beck is being consciously dishonest.
Suggesting that Beck is a liar, or an imposter, might not be an appropriate
accusation to make without the proper evidence. However, there is no need to
understand Beck’s personal motives, or to make accusations about his character, to
show how he abuses political language and helps degrade political discourse. The
fact is that he is spreading false words and opinions throughout society in order to
win people over to his side. It is no coincidence that Marxists and socialists
uniformly disown and harshly criticize President Obama, calling him such things as
“a toady of capitalism” and “political front man for the imperialist war machine.”72
These caricatures are arguably equally misleading. Most political scientists reject
71 Orwell. “Politics and the English Language.” Page 959. 72 World Socialist Web Site. “Obama’s Drone Warfare: Assassination Made Routine.” https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/25/pers-‐a25.html
37
the ideology-‐inspired depictions of both sides. In other words, the people who have
spent years objectively reading and studying Marx, Marxism and other socialist
literature, and who understand the world that Marx wanted to create through his
work, reject the ideological motives of Beck. It really is as simple as reading and
understanding Marx’s work to see why Beck is spreading false words and opinions.
Conclusion
So can anything be done to stop media pundits and politicians from abusing
political words and degrading political discourse? Plato would likely respond that
only censorship and a world ruled by the philosopher rulers provide the answer to
this problem. And, unfortunately, as Tocqueville wrote, “in order to enjoy the
inestimable benefits which the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit
to the inevitable evils which it engenders.”73 In other words, the freedom of the
press is too beneficial to alter because of the abuses by a relative, though influential,
few. The main reason Orwell wrote his essay was that he believed the problem was
reversible and that people could rid themselves of the “bad habits [that] spread by
imitation.”74 If people took care to correct these bad habits it would be possible for
a person to “think more clearly.”75 And if people could think more clearly, they
would likely put people like Beck out of business because they would stop listening
to his false words and opinions.
73 Tocqueville, page 211. 74 Ibid., page 955. 75 Ibid.
38
Arendt argued that one possible way to correct these bad habits would be to
remember the importance of spoken words, and the meanings that we have given
them. When encountering the variety and complexities of the things of this world
we can at least remember to make distinctions while trying to understand the
various political concepts and political systems in the world. It is only through
making these distinctions that we will be begin to understand the world in a clearer
and more accurate way. Political words should be common to us all, like how the
word water, or tree, is common to us all. Words do not care about our personal bias,
ideologies, or the political parties that we support; they are simply the tools we use
to understand each other and the things of this world.
It certainly is possible for us to reach agreements on the meanings of words
we use to understand the political world without giving up our partisanship. This
practice, in fact, is common in academia. And I’d argue that we would all be the
better for it because we could finally have meaningful conversations about our
diverse and complex world. The diversity of our world can be a wonderful thing.
But believing that a world where everything can be called anything else will only
lead to confusion and the prolongation of the debasement of political language.
39
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. Between Past and Future. “The Concept of History.” New York: The Viking Press. 1961. Arendt, Hannah. Between Past and Future. “What is Authority?” New York: The Viking Press. 1961. Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1958. Arendt, Hannah. The Life of the Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1971. Arendt, Hannah. The Promise of Politics. “Introduction into Politics.” New York: Schocken Books. 2005. Arendt, Hanah. Responsibility and Judgement. “Prologue: Arendt’s speech at Denmark’s Sonning Prize in 1975.” New York: Schocken Books. 2003. Beck, Glenn. “Obama’s Foundation.” www.foxnews.com Chomsky, Noam. “Interview on Libertarian-‐Socialism.” www.alternet.org Gilens, Martin. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics, Volume 12, Issue 3, 2014. Hedges, Chris. “Kneeling at Fenway Park to the Gods of War.” www.commondreams.org Marx and Engels. The Marx-‐Engels Reader. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1978. Orwell, George. George Orwell Essays. “Politics and the English Language.” New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 2002. Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato. “The Republic.” New York: New American Library. 2008.
40
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. New York: A Bantam Classic. 2000. Young-‐Bruehl, Elizabeth. Hannah Arendt: For the Love of the World. Yale University Press. 2004. World Socialist Website. www.wsws.org