How does use of language affect our attitude to immigration?

For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email [email protected]

Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, produced by me, Fraser McGruer, for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Chris Wragg and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights, and this week we're discussing how language affects our attitude to immigration. Chris, you're going to kick us off. Off you go.

Yeah, so this is really following the recent resignation of the British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, following a lot of criticism about her handling of the treatment of long-standing Caribbean migrants who came over in the sort of 50s and 60s, the so-called Windrush generation, how there's been a great deal of criticism about the hostile environment that was created in her government department towards immigrants, and how also off the back of that, there's been talk around how we talk about or how we use language in relation to immigrants into this country. And there's been a suggestion that instead of referring to them as illegal immigrants, we might use other phrases, one of which has been mooted is the term irregular migrants, and that this change of language or a softening of the language around the way we talk about these people might help change our attitudes towards them, our policy and the political discussion around them generally.

Okay, so for the moment, rather than asking you what you think of that change, whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, what sparked your interest about this? What's the Aleph angle

here? Well, yeah, I mean, I think it's really a broader debate around to what extent changing language genuinely changes attitudes, whether it does, you know, if you take the Orwellian school of, you know, the fact that language is thought effectively, and that by changing your language, you are changing your opinions and your thinking towards something, whether that holds true and is demonstrably true, or whether the opposite is true, and that actually, it merely brushes

prejudice under a rug. Well, we'll come to Nick in a moment, but well, let's answer that if we can, what do you think? Do you agree? Or which side of the fence do you fall? Well, as always with Aleph,

I sit on the fence. So, you know, my view is that, you know, dehumanising language has been, you know, previous talk by politicians about swarms of migrants coming and floods and marauding, you know, marauding hordes of migrants, that kind of dehumanising language, I think is rarely associated with, you know, a sort of rational political discourse about what the appropriate policy is. It's very emotional, and it leads to emotional decision making. So I can see not using that language and not getting swept up in that kind of discourse. Is it is probably a positive thing. But I also don't think just by not using certain words, you are sort of removing prejudice from a from a system. I think it's still possible to use all the correct phrases, but still, still be prejudiced.

But it's about the this is about the idea of a thought crime, that if you removed the idea of the word, you know, freedom, that people would no longer desire to have it because they're unable to think about it. Anyway, I think we can pretty firmly say, on the basis of what we understand about how language develops, that Orwell was wrong on this particular topic, right about everything he meant, I think, and the intention, no one would dispute that what he's trying to get at. I mean, yeah, if we look at the history of euphemism, people as far back as Edmund Burke, you know, been complaining about the use of euphemism. Edmund Burke talked about the fact that, you know, people sometimes call massacres agitation or effervescence or excess. It's clearly something that people get worked up about, you know, the use of terminology that either is meant to diffuse emotion in the case of these sort of neutralising words, like pacification, which is one that Orwell refers to, or to, you know, to inflame emotion with the dehumanising language that Chris talked to. And there's no doubt about that. In, you know, when you look at the evolution of genocides, almost always the first step in a genocide is dehumanising the people who are going to eventually become victims. And a lot of the way that that's done is through language by referring to them as vermin or rats, or, you know, talking about swarms of them. So that it works, right? Dehumanising language definitely does work. This sort of thing works. But as a matter of fact, from what we understand about the way that language evolves and emerges, is that you cannot simply sort of stop people's access to words, and thus deny them access to thoughts. And the very, very simple, you know, observations will confirm that if you look at deaf children put together, but not taught language will evolve, will develop sign language. And children in places where they're very sort of, you know, multinational places where they, there is no common language, but children who grow up together will evolve a new language, which is called a Creole. And, you know, so that language will emerge, it will find a way to come out. And if you think about it, if we were constrained in what we thought by the words we knew, we would never, A, be able to learn new words, or B, ever have that feeling of thinking, well, what do I want to say? How can I best express what I'm trying to say? That thought would be meaningless, because you would be expressing exactly the words you had. Yeah, so I think we can, and I mean, but bear in mind that this theory that words constrain thought has a reasonably respectable heritage. I mean, you know, it's sometimes called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It's very popular among people with a sort of relativist cast of mind who want to suggest that, well, you know, the way that we think is not driven by some objective facts about the world. It's driven by, you know, our language and our upbringing and our culture. But as a matter of fact, there isn't much evidence for that. So, yeah, I mean, in terms of the side of the fence that I'm on, there's no doubt that thought is independent, not totally, but independent of language. So then we have to say, well, what's going on here then? Right, how is it that we do seem to be able to change the words that are used, you know, through the use of political euphemisms and somehow achieve a change in attitude? And I think here we've got to think about the distinction between denotation and connotation. So denotation is what a word literally means, like the things it refers to, the facts that it proposes are the case, versus connotation, which are the things that it invites you to infer. So for example, you know, there's someone called, a guy called Scott Alexander, who writes a very popular blog called Slate Star Codex, talks about, you know, in the sort of, I care about the poor, you're pro-welfare, someone else is a bleeding heart, I'll protect national security, you expand the military, he's a warmonger, you know, things where you could almost say, well, they mean the same thing. And in this case, you know, an irregular migrant means the same thing as an illegal immigrant. Literally, they refer to the same group of people. So the question is, what's going on, right? What is happening? When we, how can it be that we are meaning the same thing, yet somehow importing, we're importing a sense of, if you say illegal immigrant, it means the same thing as a regular migrant, but you're importing a bunch of assumptions about people maybe being feckless, or scroungers, or criminals. But they're not literally implied, by the way.

The denotation is the same, it's the connotation that's different, is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's right. Chris?

Yeah, I think there are two things. I think one is that part of it is just about ditching the baggage associated, the emotional baggage associated with a word for a period of time. It's why the phrases for, you know, minority groups who are subject to, you know, sort of prejudice over time, they shift. So, you know, you'll use one word will become acceptable for a group, but eventually over time, because it becomes associated with all the prejudice against them, you then, it then becomes unacceptable to that group and to society at large. So I think there's an evolution in these terms, and it works for a certain period of time, you know, you drop the baggage, but then it picks it back up again, because society hasn't changed, and its attitudes towards that group haven't changed. I think the sort of second point, I've completely lost now.

Well, I'll give you an example of exactly that. Oh, who's the fabulous Tory MP who looks like Walter the Softy, what's his first name? Jacob. Jacob Rees-Mogg. I think he's recently in a small, a very small amount of trouble for calling someone else a cretin. I can't remember who's the victim of this. Some cretin. Scathing, scathing. Maybe a moron. A verbal blow, but yeah, and he was criticised because cretin is obviously a sort of old-fashioned term for a mentally disabled person. But the interesting thing about the word cretin, actually, is that it comes from Swiss French for Christian, a Christian, a Christian person. And so apparently it was, there were various genetic disorders in Switzerland because they live in small, isolated communities, quite a lot of inbreeding. And it was sort of a nice way, a nice way of referring to people who were, you know, might otherwise have been called simpletons or whatever, was to call them a Christian in the sense of a sort of poor, benighted fellow. So cretin started out as political correctness. It was the politically correct way of describing someone who was a simpleton. And obviously through its sort of regularisation became well-known and applied and thought of as the, just the word, the word that you use for people like that. And then of course it becomes used as an insult. Perfect, right? It's a perfect insult because people don't realise it's a politically correct term anymore. You know, and then now, of course, then we abolished words like cretin in the, you know, throughout the 20th century because they were considered insulting because people were using them as insults. Now, you know, whatever word you come up with, it will not stop people refashioning that word as an insult. And eventually you'll have to get rid of that and move on to a new unsullied word. But the point is that it's not the word doing the damage, which is how it feels. People feel like it's the word that's bad, but it's the thought that's bad. And simply giving people a new untried weapon doesn't mean that they won't test it out and eventually discover a way to use it, which is going to be

hurtful and we'll have to find something new. And I think, you know, it is, you know, there are certain words which are, you know, refer to groups that are still taboo. And, you know, I would argue rightly so because they carry, you know, connotation. So the, you know, the two-syllable N-word is a word which has so much history associated with it that, you know, and in, you know, in polite society, you would automatically exclude yourself from that polite society by using that word in almost any context because of the way it's been used historically. And I think there's something about that act of making a word taboo and not being used that is symbolic in some way of sort of saying, right, everything that, you know, was attached historically to that word is wrong and we accept that that's wrong. And by making the word toxic and ditching it, we're acknowledging that. That doesn't mean that you've got rid of racism, right? Obviously, you haven't. But part of the process of trying to deal with racism, I think there is a place for some words which are rightly taboo.

I don't think we're sort of getting below this. I think we're still being a bit superficial here. So, so far, I mean, I think I'm sure most sociologists and or linguists would say something along, to paraphrase, we're saying, you know, language is fluid. There are certain things that will always be taboo. There are certain, yeah, the meaning of words can change. I think we've gone

two levels deep here, right? People think the intuitive thought that people have is that language merely serves our thoughts, right? And that we describe the world using language. And if we need to, we can invent a new word, right? If you go a level deeper, you go, oh, hang on a minute. Our thoughts are conditioned by language now. We discussed that and said, well, in the strong sense that we literally can't think things that we don't have words for, that's not true. But in the sense that connotation is an important element of language, that is true, right? So we've gone, we've gone, that's, that's a level deeper. But then, but then we've gone beyond that. We've gone beyond that. And now we're discussing... So we are being deep. I think we, I think we have got, we, I mean, because look, it's like, you know, we, we push through two, two stages of theoretical development here. We've come all the way from the natural intuitive concept of language through the relativist thought is constrained by language to the, you know, the postmodernist interpretation,

which is, well, it's a bit of both. Well, okay, before Chris comes in, I forgot what I was going to say. There's a lot of this going on. Yeah. No, but thinking, but thinking about... This is about when you, when you, you had a word and now it's gone. This is, we're losing words. But what about, what about, so bringing it back to how we started out with the government

instituting a new vocabulary? So, so yeah, well, I, so I think it is particularly important, language is particularly important in the context of policy and especially in the context of law, legislation, because for example, like if you take the, the US debate around the term marriage, okay, what, what does marriage mean? What does it mean legally? That's when, you know, that's when you, you really are into the issue of, okay, this isn't, this isn't just about, you know, the, the, the meaning of a word now. This is about what, what people are legally allowed to, you know, allowed to do. Are same, same-sex couples going to be granted the same set of legal rights as, you know, different-sex couples? And, and in that context, and policy is not, it's one stage removed from legislation. And the way we frame things does actually start to drive real-world events. So I think in that context, language is very important. And in fact, the whole legal profession, you know, is, is about gaming language is all about, you know, what, how can, you know, here's the law written down,

how can we subvert that or, you know, make advantage from, from that? I just, I completely disagree. I think this is, this is a sort of overly cynical view of what law is about. I feel like law is about you subverting, if you want to describe it like that, logic, or at least using the logic of a particular set of laws to prove that something is the case in a particular case. But if you take, you know, right, and it isn't about language, it's about what that language means. And that's why legalese is so tedious, because it really, really tries to leave no ambiguity at all. And the problem is that language is full of, is full of ambiguity, because, you know, we don't always have a completely clear denotation. If you take marriage, now, the problem here is you could just describe, you could just say, look, we're not, you can call it marriage, if you want, but we're just going to call it relationship X. And it's a legal status that you have. And it is voluntarily entered into two people. And here are the things that you get, just like any other contract, you get this stuff legally, if you enter relationship X. Now, the problem is, and I mean, I can't really see what's to stop people entering into that relationship contractually anyway, regardless of whether the law calls it a marriage or not. But clearly, the fact that it's called a marriage seems to be a big deal here. And I think it's to do with the fact that people think, well, a marriage, that's a man and a woman at a church, and the woman's wearing white, and there's lots of people there, and they're dressed nicely. And that's what a marriage should be like. It shouldn't be two guys. That's ridiculous. That's just preposterous. I kind of guess that that's what's behind people's opposition to same-sex marriage. Because if you just said, well, look, there is legal relationship X, and two men can enter into it, it feels to me that there would be no emotional attachment at all, any more than the two men having a flat share together or legally jointly owning a house or something like that.

Here's where I think dog whistling comes in. The debate is around the definition of a word, but it's not about the definition of a word. It's about the restriction of rights to a particular group. So you make a fuss about it being, oh, well, it's merely about my understanding. Nobody is actually emotionally invested in the actual meaning of...

I think here we have a factual disagreement about what it is people are trying to achieve. Now, shut up, Fraser. I'm gay. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Listen. Make it quick. It is quick, right? So you appear to believe that all gay couples want is to have the same legal status, in some sense, as heterosexual couples. I deny that. And I think that if they had said, right, we're not going to call it marriage. What we're going to do is we'll call it, you know, cabbage or something. And it's a made up thing. But all the legal status is the same. It's exactly the same. But we're just not going to call it marriage. It's going to be a new law, which is identically reproduces the effect of marriage. Then I think gay people would still object to that. Because there's a new law, so it's not about legal rights. It's about they want the connotation of marriage. They want it to be like a marriage. Briefly, Chris, come back. And all the other things we

think of. Well, yes. So they want they want the legal status and they want the societal acknowledgement of their relationship, which, you know, is part of the process of being, you know, viewed equally with their, you know, different sex couples.

Listen, we need to wind up. But before we do, there's just I want to get on to talk about language. I want to talk about bad language. Specifically, I want to talk about swearing. All right. Yeah, let's do it. Now, just think of yourself as on a scale of zero to 10, across and across all situations, because obviously, we behave differently. We talk differently in different situations. We don't swear. We don't swear on podcasts, for example, usually. But from zero to 10, zero never swearing, 10 swearing every other word. Across most situations, where would you class yourself? Think about that for a second. Nick, I'm not going to take a guess. I think you're about a seven. What do you say?

No, the average is totally meaningless because it isn't true anyway. I mean, it is. I mean, you know, like me, like the three of us, actually, we've all got kids. We've all trained ourselves to stop swearing at home. I've got a guilty secret. But anyway, yeah. Well, I mean, you know, what I mean is... Okay, let's put it another way. Are you a bit of a swearer or not, do you think? I'm perfectly happy to swear like mad. Yeah. For completely incongruous reasons. In fact, often, I'll just be sweary in a context just because it's out of context. Right.

Chris, are you a big swearer or not? I don't think you are. Well, there you go. That shows how well you know me. No, so we have a jar at home, and when we do things that are positive, you get to put a thing in the jar and we fill it up. And the main thing I get points for... What? Shouldn't you get stuff back out of the jar when you do something positive? Right. So when the jar gets full, the family get a collective treat. Right. But if you... Go on, carry on. Anyway, the point is, my... You can all swear at each other or something for half an hour. My main reason for getting things is prohibiting myself from swearing because I swear so loosely in front of my children, and it's something I'm trying to curb. So they award me something when they hear me...

Okay. Wow. That's interesting. I'm surprised.

Whereas I'm gradually upgrading my swearing. I'm now saying bullshit and balls in front of the kids. Whereas I think when they're a bit younger and less able to realize that that's transgressive, I was able consciously to not do that.

Yeah. Because I actually get... I'm a bit of a swearer. I'm actually quite turned off actually by people who swear in the wrong way, by which I think some people do it with a lack of finesse. I think you're right. Unlike myself. But I actually get quite a bit of a guilty kick out of swearing in front of my kids because I like the shock that it causes. And they sort of freak out and go, Daddy, you're not meant to say those words. And I say them. I just say them. You madman. Lock him up. But also I know there's a frustration from their side, which is quite comical because they know that they can't say it. And then afterwards I have to go through this big thing of like going, right, but you never say it. I'm sure there's something... Hypocrisy. Yeah, absolutely. I was about to say there's something deeply wrong about this, and I think you summed up in one word, hypocrisy. Okay. Yeah, I'm not sort of sure what sort of conclusion we've got to there other than we all quite like swearing. I feel like we got to some firm conclusions. I mean, were you on this podcast or not? Yeah, I mean, yes. But okay. What was nice is that you two were disagreeing at the end. That was nice. But I just don't think... But no swearing. No swearing. Thank fuck for that. Right. Okay. We're going to wrap up there. So thank you, as always, for listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. Until next time, goodbye.