[ad_1]
If we saw a text of this type on a portal or even in a school newspaper, we would not doubt for a minute that its author was joking. The militaristic rhetoric, transferred to the domestic context, sounds strange and distorts the logic of the events described. Linguistic structures lend an irrational bipolarity to Joniukas’ simple actions, falsify intentions, and as a result present fictitious competition. We no longer see John as a disciple calmly solving a task (that is, participating in his usual activities), but as a hero surrounded by insidious subliminal forces, tirelessly fighting against the unquestionable evil: the “enemy.” Of course, this does not make sense.
But for some reason it is completely ridiculous and it seems perfectly normal that many months of medical work in the media and even in private conversations are described in purely militaristic terminology. What kind of media would you use in front of your eyes: “… in the first line …”, “… in the first line …”, “… in the first rows of the catastrophic virus … . “, etc., and bread.
“Another week, when there is only a very delicate balance in front of this time. The virus fires its machine gun with precision and more and more people are falling on the battlefield. And how would you like the “good guys”, those whites, to get ahead. But there is still a long way to go, people with an invisible enemy are having a hard time fighting, and the number of shots is increasing. Limited but still active forces of doctors and nurses are pulling the seriously wounded out of the trenches. Rescue by placing them in hospitals and resuscitation beds. Easier to shoot himself, retreat to the back, heal and harden. All that remains is to say, nothing new on the Western Front ”, wrote Professor A. Macas on the social network Facebook a few days ago.
No sir. the doctor does not scoff at the language habits of journalists and the public (although I think he can). It uses, as it seems to him, a normal rhetoric that promotes stretching and vigilance, as well as propaganda based on repression. Of course, the images that have become absurd are not so ubiquitous and always so expressive, but the scope of the use of militaristic images in the context of the Covid-19 crisis is huge, and the circle of users is extremely colorful in terms. of intentions and social groups.
The volunteers, who have recently enjoyed talking to journalists, are also happy to describe the fight against the virus with a militaristic dictionary taken from propaganda texts. There are even cases in which a volunteer declares the need to explain his mission through militaristic images and to be seen as a defender of the fatherland, a volunteer soldier: “The word volunteer has always been associated with war for me. “I am a volunteer” means “I am a soldier” to me. (…) Therefore, when I heard about ‘volunteering’ as a social activity, it pierced my ear, it seemed very frivolous to me, ”says A. Romanovskis, president of the Lithuanian Business Confederation, who volunteered at the Santara clinics, on his Facebook account.
It should probably be added here that the description of the fight against the virus in the environment of militaristic images is not only a Lithuanian reality and relevant not only during this pandemic. In our country, however, the phenomenon has acquired an extremely aggressive character, since it has spread to the aggressive and vaccinating vision of the apogee of what is already happening, even if it is in the space of information, the war with Russia, anti-Semitic rhetoric and “good” propaganda tailored. guerrilla fighting; with images of sports broadcasts based on combat topics; with “struggles” against poverty, discrimination, alcohol, abortion, for “freedom”, etc.
Thus, instead of “victory”, we have a curved mirror in which reality, although we perceive it as multifaceted and incomparably more complex, is reduced to the culmination of good versus evil, becoming dipolar and despicably aggressive personal phenomena (and, of course, differences in value) in a confrontational model that does not recognize negotiation tactics.
It didn’t happen overnight. Lengthy processes where opinion and thought were necessary only as accessories resulted in a discussion culture with 0% discussions. Let’s also look at it from another angle: perhaps the militaristic discourse took root so quickly because there was never a culture of debate, just crude imitations based on superior truth and superiority, actually more reminiscent of struggle without rules or natural selection?
Let’s also look at it from another angle: perhaps the militaristic discourse has taken hold so quickly because there has never been a culture of debate, just crude imitations based on superior truth and superiority, really more reminiscent of struggle without rules or natural selection?
No matter what we answer, it won’t help answer the question of what to do with everything. The more so since there is no single center from which this stylistic of language can extend. The impulses are not propagated by a single group of stakeholders, but by an unpredictable and multifaceted whole that has chosen this way of speaking / thinking for different reasons.
For example, for the media it is a primitive, convenient, easy-to-master, attention-grabbing, and effective text preparation system, perfected by predecessors who have established and the media’s relationship to the truth, not yet known. has recovered (as long as it affects). Politicians in military armies can show determination and create their image as brave and “masculine”, attractive to part of the electorate. Grandmothers – remember the town mardaboja, after which diedukas, then another young man, “loaded with wood,” offered to visit the bushes.
Special mention should be made of those who are at the epicenter of complex events primarily for personal gain and, drawing us into the traps of the dipole, confrontational thinking, want to highlight the charm of their personality and the scope of self-narration. : some experts in social networks, some volunteers “Researchers”, etc. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that perhaps the largest number of users of militaristic vocabulary are people who do not reflect figures of speech at all and rely on the informal tradition of portraying any challenge as a tradition of war (thus, paradoxically, both perpetrators and victims).
In any case, I think it is a serious symptom that we have adopted the rules of propaganda language, and it means that it will be increasingly difficult to speak (and think) unprepared every day, due to the dichotomous description of life that highlights and highlights this militaristic discourse. Also due to the weakening of the humanities in general, the ability to use language effectively and unfortunately, freedom is lost; after all, freedom is first and foremost a vocabulary and the ability to open up with its help.
It also means that in this situation, engaging in reducing our language (not only through militaristic rhetoric but also through it), a kind of self-censorship, makes it much easier for us to accept a given enemy without asking why it is a enemy and why we live in the world. It is indicated that the phenomena are antagonistic. Due to favorable geopolitical and cultural circumstances, in the presence of obvious state priorities, the lack of capacity for reflection is not particularly dangerous, but a change in the situation can have catastrophic consequences.
And now let’s go back to Joniukas and the doctors. Jonukas, as we perfectly understand, did not fight against anyone. Joniukas behaved as a good student should be: he solved the task successfully.
Doctors are also not on the “front line” when treating people with coronary heart disease, they are not at risk of “ambushes”; the complexity of the situation is determined by “banal” procedural, systemic and political factors. Lastly, let’s not forget that doctors are working on their beloved hard work, which they have been preparing for for many years, and the pandemic not only provides fatigue, but also invaluable experience, especially for virologists, epidemiologists, etc. We will need it again, scientists say. .
By the way, talk to the doctors: although the situation is not dramatic, many of them can maintain a rational relationship with what is happening.
By the way, talk to the doctors, although the situation is not dramatic, many of them can maintain a rational relationship with what is happening. Of course, they are tired, sometimes they “break”, it costs them. Compassion, support, and volunteer support for them will definitely not be too much. But no one will benefit and no one except social media propagandists will rejoice if we wrap them in a militaristic vocabulary and portray the challenges that take place in the hospital as an apocalypse.
Militaristic rhetoric increases tensions in society, helps to maintain anxiety and insecurity, which creates favorable conditions for the spread of conspiracy theories and delusions, since people, unable to find peace, tend to look for easy answers . In these difficult times, they can only be brought forward by coronavirus deniers, anti-sororists, flatworms, anti-masks, 5G opponents, and unfortunately often populist politicians. By hardening the tone and trying to stifle what stands out by narrowing the field of social metaphors, we open a land for them to multiply.
The recent psychosis of supposedly changing laws to expand the powers of the military police alone shows that the tensions surrounding the imagined state of war, which essentially exists only in language, are realized and, although it is hard to believe now, can have unpredictable consequences in life.
It should be added here that the militarization of language not only increases insecurity and psychological discomfort, but also encourages citizens to “defend themselves” by creating the illusion of a close enemy, thus turning the “defense” of the virus into an avalanche of bullying We experience it as a hatred of otherness and personality. it does not meet the ultra narrow band television matrix, which requires uniform responses. In this way, the ‘fight’ with the enemy essentially becomes a fight against democracy and the values that we have pursued in the fight for freedom and in our fight for Europe.
In conclusion, narrow-mindedness, which is both a cause and a possible consequence of the militaristic image, is of no use to anyone, not even the most narrow-minded, since the constant narrowing of the field of view sooner or later becomes blindness, followed by special guidance or pain.
The war, which will continue intensely in language and mind, must end. Without establishing “peace” at the linguistic level, we will not create it in public culture, on the “front” of the virus, or (although I would not want to simplify this) along national borders.
[ad_2]
