Quote:
Originally posted by Phaenx
Is that a problem? I can't imagine that it is, but lets say we change it to something more descriptive, I'm not seeing it have an impact on preventing friendly fire, but anything in general really.
Maybe I'm wrong though, what would you suggest?
|
I don't really know if I'm suggesting anything--I just think it's important that we realize how language shapes our perception of reality.
To the soldier in the field and a civilized population that ordinarily disdains war and murder, using neutral phrases allows us to conduct ourselves in ways we deem necessary but would otherwise be constrained from doing due to social norms (beliefs).
One disadvantage, however, is that we do so at the expense of empathy for the people we have to label as our enemies. In this particular case, where we are fighting one segment of the population on the behalf of another segment of the population, we will inevitably harm our allies and, unfortunately, engender hatred and misunderstanding even as we attempt to do something beneficial to the indigenous population.
I guess that if I'm suggesting anything it would be that, given this information, you weigh the costs of these types of discursive practices against the benefits. Not that you wouldn't still think we should continue using such practices, but that you then are not surprised by the "collateral damage" that will definately occur in response to our actions.