Language democratization a must<\/p>\n
By A. Chaedar Alwasilah<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Since Soeharto's downfall people have been
\nnoisily calling for democratization in all walks of life.
\nProtesters now enjoy freedom of speech, which was absent for the
\nlast three decades in the country. There is at the moment a kind
\nof euphoria that leads to communication chaos in our political
\nand social discourse. Many now abuse the magic word "reformasi"
\nas an excuse for protesting almost anything. In this case the
\nword reformasi has been defined differently by different people.
\nAs far as communication is concerned this phenomenon is alarming,
\nbecause successful communication presupposes agreed referents, or
\nmeanings, of the words used.<\/p>\n
In the last three decades our political discourse has been
\ncharacterized by an excessive use of political jargon
\nintentionally generated by bureaucrats as a symbol of their power
\nand domination. The jargon is then faithfully repeated by lower-
\nrank bureaucrats as part of their political allegiance, thus
\nmaintaining the status quo of the bureaucracy as a whole.
\nFurther, the jargon is publicized by the mass media at no cost at
\nall since the bureaucrats are virtually the source of all news.
\nThis being the case, people at the grassroots level jump onto the
\nlinguistic bandwagon. The jargon is interpreted and used
\ndifferently by different participants in communication. The
\nmajority of them do not realize that they are being
\nlinguistically victimized by the regime.<\/p>\n
As early as 1982 Evert Vedung believed that manipulation of
\nlanguage occurs in a political context in all countries, but that
\ndictatorships tend to be particularly systematic in these
\nmachinations. The Javanese phrases mikul duwur mendem jero
\n(respect the living and honor the dead) and lengser keprabon
\nmadeg pandito (to abdicate and become a sage) for example, thanks
\nto systematic top-down bureaucratic machinations, are already an
\ninseparable part of our political discourse nowadays. Media
\nKarya, a monthly Golkar-sponsored magazine, periodically
\npublished a Kamus Kader (cadre dictionary) section to propagate
\nsuch political jargon. These examples substantiate the hypothesis
\nthat language is a medium of domination and power.<\/p>\n
Inherent in political reform is linguistic reform vis-a-vis a
\nchange in manipulating the language. There is collective
\nawareness among the people that the Soeharto regime has
\nunilaterally imposed their own interpretations of the state
\nideology Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, as indoctrinated
\nthrough the state-sponsored Pancasila Propagation Programs,
\npopularly called P4, for college freshmen and newly recruited
\ncivil servants. There was virtually no room for counter
\ninterpretation and criticism. Staunch critics took the risk of
\nbeing arrested under the Subversion Law.<\/p>\n
Linguistic reform refers to collective efforts by all the
\npeople, including government officials, to use the language as
\nthe medium of social and political communication in natural and
\ndemocratic ways. Effective and natural communication meets the
\nfollowing criteria: first, both parties as interlocutors stand
\nrelatively the same chance of expressing ideas. When government
\nofficials do not listen to their critics, or consider them as a
\nthreat to their status quo, communication is not natural. The
\ngovernment unilaterally imposed its views and there was no
\nnegotiation. Our political discourse has been characterized by a
\ncommunication imbalance between the executive and the legislative
\nbodies. This imbalance reflects relationships of unequal power.<\/p>\n
Second, both parties as communicators use the same code or
\nlanguage for interaction. It is common that government officials
\nat the lower levels of bureaucracy tend to employ political
\njargon as their subordinates do. The jargon is often contracted
\nin the form of acronyms such as kelompencapir, kukesra,
\ngentamasekdas, sadarkum, and so on and so forth. Acronyms
\nnaturally simplify the concept they refer to, but when they are
\noverly used the real message is corrupted, or at least, some of
\nthe message is missing.<\/p>\n
Besides the acronyms, political discourse is also
\ncharacterized by the use of euphemism, which is "telling it like
\nit is not". When used by bureaucrats, it hides the essence of the
\nissue, and at worst it is deliberately aimed at avoiding public
\nresponsibility. Consequently, the people become less sensitive or
\nindifferent to social problems. Instead of saying kelaparan, for
\ninstance, government officials are apt to use the phrase rawan
\npangan, which is semantically the same, namely hunger.
\nPragmatically the two expressions carry dissimilar social
\nmeanings.<\/p>\n
Our research on bureaucrats's political language publicized by
\nthe Kompas and Republika dailies during the period between March
\nand September 1997 shows that 82.44 percent of political jargon
\nis euphemistic. This is deliberately employed to insinuate. This
\nphenomenon suggests that government policy is subject to multiple
\ninterpretations, thus indicating no certainty and certitude in
\npolitics.<\/p>\n
Third, for communicating with bureaucrats people should be
\nempowered to utilize the linguistic resources available. Speech,
\nwriting, poetry reading, stage performances, etc. should be
\nperceived as media of natural communication. Freedom of speech,
\npress and arts are basic for human beings, and for cultivating
\ndemocracy. Political reform should be enhanced by language
\ndemocratization. This suggests that there must be a revolution in
\nthe outlook of language as a medium of politics and social
\ninteraction. Bureaucrats should realize that overuse of political
\njargon and euphemism pollutes the truth and honesty of the
\nmessage and confuses the people at the grassroots level.<\/p>\n
All the account described above reminds us of the importance
\nof language education as an inseparable part of political
\neducation. Language not only reflects people's thoughts, but also
\nshapes their thoughts. Euphemistic language as used by
\nbureaucrats and popularized by the mass media, to a certain
\nextent, makes citizens less critical beings. Political jargon to
\na certain extent shapes citizens' minds and the ways of political
\nlife. To ensure effective and democratic communication, the
\nbureaucrats and the people should have common understanding of
\nthe language used. The mass media should play the role of
\nmouthpiece of the people at the grassroots level. Their opinions,
\nconcerns and hopes are worthwhile and should be reported.<\/p>\n
Language education should be tailored to make citizens
\ncritical of both political jargon coined by politicians and
\nlanguage in general. It should enable them to tell the difference
\nbetween semantics and efficiency, to uncover the hidden truth,
\nand to distinguish facts from opinions, hypotheses from premises,
\nand particulars from universals. Political education is, as a
\nmatter of necessity, language education. Language and political
\neducation underscores language democratization as a revolution of
\nunderstanding language as a medium, practice and representation
\nof power. David Green (1987) asserts that the history of
\npolitical language is a history of struggles to shape the
\npublicly accepted meanings of these key terms.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at Bandung Teachers Training
\nInstitute.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/language-democratization-a-must-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}