Name: Culture warriors are weaponising language in their bid to dominate British public life
Brand: telegraph.co.uk
SKU: telegraph-co-uk-245
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Culture warriors are weaponising language in their bid to dominate British public life

preview

As the last week, “reaction was both positive and divided”, according to The Guardian.Yes, it is a very odd sentence. Of course, those responding to the news might have been divided by the extent of their positivity. Some might have believed the judges’ decision unprecedented in its brilliance and wisdom; others merely satisfied that the best authors had been identified.But this was not, as the report implicitly confessed, the explanation of the division. The response to the shortlist was welcomed by some but criticised by others, because the nomination rules are controversial. Until 2014, the prize was awarded to writers from the Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland. Since then, it has been available to any author writing in English and published in the UK. Critics worry the Booker will be dominated by Americans and lose its diversity.Diversity, that is, in the true sense of the word. For concern about “diversity”, in its narrow, modern sense, is the reason behind The Guardian’s linguistic gymnastics. Its reporters felt compelled to claim that reaction to the shortlist was “positive” and not just “divided”, because the nominated authors form “the most diverse line-up in the prize’s history”. And diversity, in their sense, is an article of faith for the liberal Left.Incessant talk of diversity is as misleading as the phrase “positive and divided”. For the liberal Left, diversity means racial, cultural and gender diversity, and certainly not diversity of geography, social class, or opinion, belief or perspective. This is why Labour viciously attacked Conservatives from minority backgrounds joining the Cabinet – “selling their souls and self-respect to get there” – and claimed, the Home Secretary, “used her heritage” to “silence” other minorities. It is why The Guardian can call the Booker shortlist diverse, despite five of its six authors coming from, or living in, the United States.This abuse and debasement of language is growing more common as the culture wars crank up, and politics become&nbsp;yet more polarised. And so the BBC described London’s Black Lives Matter protests as “largely peaceful”, even as the violence left 35 police officers injured. In America, CNN reported on “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” as cars and buildings burned behind their correspondent in Kenosha, Wisconsin.Public authorities are succumbing, too. The police confirm that they are considering changing the way they describe terrorism. Instead of referring to “Islamist terrorism”, officers would prefer alternative language, such as “terrorists abusing religious motivations”. Their purpose, they explain, is to avoid causing stigma for Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism.Yet Islamist terrorists act in the name of Islamism, and indeed Islam, however horrified this makes most Muslims. Islamism is a widely recognised term that describes the ideology that drives the greatest terror threat we face. If we choose not to see this ideology, we will be unable to recognise its threat. But the police and other authorities now view language – and the information they provide to the public – as a means of concealing and changing inconvenient truth, with all its complexity and challenges.Language has become an important front in the culture war for another reason. For the post-modernists who fight this war from the Left, discourse is a means of oppression. They see discrimination and harm everywhere, from our history and tradition through to contemporary culture and language.This explains the incredible new guidance used by the BBC to help sports reporters avoid causing offence. Football commentators must not, for example, focus on the power and speed of the Wolverhampton Wanderers winger Adama Traoré, because it might perpetuate racial stereotypes. For those unaware of his talents, Traoré is one of the Premier League’s most muscular players, and also its fastest, having once clocked the same speed as Usain Bolt. But in the culture war, the relationship between language and reality matters little, and the pursuit of something, anything, by which to be offended continues.And as it does, double standards abound. In NHS public-information campaigns, women have been called “people with a cervix” to avoid offending transgender activists. Woke corporations have begun spelling “women” as “womxn” because this new word “explicitly includes non-cisgender women” and is therefore “more inclusive and progressive”. Feminists who point out that non-cisgender women are men, and that trans rights often mean a loss of rights for women, are shouted down, abused and threatened with violence.And what is true of sex is true of race. Last week the BBC defended a black comedian , on the grounds that her “joke” was told on a “satirical programme” aired after the watershed. Of course, if the joke had been made about any other racial group, the BBC would have refused to broadcast the programme and banned the comedian from its stations for good. But even with a Conservative Government breathing down its neck, the very future of the licence fee in doubt, and a new director-general promising to move the BBC back to the mainstream, its answer was to stick two fingers up at those who pointed out the hypocrisy. Like other institutions, the BBC proved it fears radical activists more than it respects its customers.But this is the way things work in this modern war of words. And what drives it is the culture war. A culture war is vital and total for its protagonists because, while political power can be determined by elections, shared and handed over from one side to another, the battle to define a culture is different. There are no set and regular events like democratic votes to determine who decides. There is only ever one long, hard and unforgiving fight. Ungoverned by rules, and lacking even a referee, everything falls prey to the vicious battle to control culture, including, most important of all, the words we use.Dictate our language and control our culture. Control our culture and dictate our future politics. Nothing less is at stake.Related TopicsThe Telegraph values your comments but kindly requests all posts are on topic, constructive and respectful. Please review our.You need to be a subscriber to join the conversation. Find out more.Show commentsAdvertisementRelated TopicsWe rely on advertising to help fund our award-winning journalism.We urge you to turn off your ad blocker for The Telegraph website so that you can continue to access our quality content in the future.Thank you for your support.Need help?Visit ourpage.Close

As the last week, “reaction was both positive and divided”, according to The Guardian.Yes, it is a very odd sentence. Of course, those responding to the news might have been divided by the extent of their positivity. Some might have believed the judges’ decision unprecedented in its brilliance and wisdom; others merely satisfied that the best authors had been identified.But this was not, as the report implicitly confessed, the explanation of the division. The response to the shortlist was welcomed by some but criticised by others, because the nomination rules are controversial. Until 2014,...

public

Nick Timothy

Think ahead with the latest news, comment, analysis and video. Subscribe here: https://telegraph.co.uk/customer/subscribe

Culture warriors are weaponising language in their bid to dominate British public life

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS