The Power of Language in Politics
The Power of Language and Political Influence
The term euphemism comes from the Greek eufeme meaning fine speech. Euphemisms traditionally soften or beautify expressions of offensive or sensitive subjects. Though initially motivated by compassion or politeness, their use has expanded significantly.
Today, euphemisms are often employed within political correctness or “wokeism” where they aim to avoid offensive language and reshape reality. Language has granted progressives political power and influence, transcending party lines, a fact repeatedly demonstrated in the Swedish culture war.
Political correctness permeates various societal layers, from academia to journalism, culture, and politics. Adapting to politically correct language has become a status and class marker, signifying one’s ability to navigate civilized spaces—even those laden with metaphorical eggshells.
By altering how we discuss sensitive topics like gender, race, or social justice, political correctness steers discourse in ways that can limit open debate. This approach involves reloading or replacing certain words and concepts to reflect a particular ideological stance, potentially leading to the dominance of new or previously conventional views.
Political Correctness and Semantic Manipulation
In Sweden, leftist euphemisms have spread across all parliamentary parties and into societal values. A clear example is the debate on transsexuality, reignited by the new gender identity law that dominated Swedish news for a month (despite daily news about either children of migrants either shooting or bombing each other or innocent people).
Two of the four parties in the government coalition allowed the proposal to be voted on in Parliament, using support from communists and socialists to pass it. This was despite a significant majority of their own voters and the Swedish public being against the proposal.
The prevalence of transgender identity among youths deserves particular discussion, as language plays a central role in understanding the issue deeply. There has been a noticeable increase in young people identifying as transgender, based on subjective emotional experiences. This psychological phenomenon is especially common among young girls, many previously diagnosed with autism and depression. Despite their serious illnesses, a majority of Sweden’s members of parliament have opted to normalise the aforesaid’s dysphoria by implementing legislation that legitimizes their condition.
From Words to Reality
The problem with the gender identity law did not begin when children wanted to change gender. The issue arose when adults started to believe and tell children that men can become women and vice versa. A lie does not become true just because Orwellian newspeak is written into legislation. However, lies and word choices can alter our perception of reality. This is the underlying issue with the trans debate.
Progressive language on transsexuality aims to be inclusive and nuanced. Unlike common language, the new terminology is considered to allow for nuances and a whole gender spectrum on which everyone can find themselves. Here, biological sex is no longer relevant but a secondary matter.
In practice, however, this newspeak is misleading rather than nuanced. The language excludes what aligns with reality: that sex is a biological fact, not a psychological identity that can change over time. If women can become men by identifying as trans men, "trans” would not be needed; they would simply be called men. By its own logic, the proponents reveal that they know the truth but have adapted the language to fit their desired reality. This pattern can be seen in several established concepts.
Social justice sounds like a variation of the immemorial concept of justice, but it often refers to anything but justice. The same applies to the term political correctness. It is hardly correct, which is why the word political is placed before it.
When a debate starts from such fictional terms, proponents can set new conditions for reality and what is considered true. Euphemisms allow them to change conventional language to better align with their ideological beliefs, regardless of their truthfulness.
Language thus gives them the power to diminish what people usually consider very serious and amplify the significance of what the ideologues themselves want to emphasize. Euphemisms are repeated until opponents themselves start using the terminology. When this happens, they have naively walked into a linguistic minefield from which they can hardly find a safe way out. This has happened in large parts of the center-right parties in the Swedish parliament.
Gramscian View on Language and Political Realities
Antonio Gramsci, a Marxist thinker and politician imprisoned during the fascist rule in Italy, is best known for his musing and thoughts on the concept of cultural hegemony. A revolution cannot be carried out under any circumstances. Rather, it requires broad popular conviction. The revolutionary organization depends on many people, active in various sectors like government, civil society, business, and politics, sharing and driving these values, often without being fully aware of their role.
Gramsci believed that control over language is crucial for shaping societal norms and collective perceptions. Unlike today’s right, he understood that the power of language lies in its ability to subtly influence our worldview. Language is thus a powerful tool for those who want to maintain or challenge the existing system.
We must recognise that conscious language use enables not only communication, but also the steering of opponents, altering their perceptions of reality, and formulating values that impact societal debate.
In the 1980s, Swedish author and philosopher Lars Gustafsson introduced the concept of problemformuleringsprivilegiet which translates to “the privilege of framing the debate” or “agenda-setting privilege”. This concept, derived from Gramsci's reflections on cultural hegemony, has been widely used in Swedish public debate to discuss how media and political actors formulate issues in ways that affect public perception.
The Social Democrats have dominated Swedish politics largely due to their control over these information producing sectors: media, cultural institutions, and education. This has allowed them to set the agenda and frame the issues for public discourse. Even if few would admit it, right-wing individuals are also influenced by these sectors.
Summary Reflections
Our use of language is crucial for ensuring that our political and cultural struggle succeed. We must not forget that language is power.
Many right-wing debaters and parties have adopted language from generated by the media, authorities, popular culture, and their education in their youth. These sectors are today controlled by progressive actors with political agendas. Blindly following new and fresh language risks cementing oneself in a limited perception of reality, often different from actual reality. Due to this tendency, right-wing debaters often lose the ideological tools to navigate controversial culture war issues.
Understanding who or what ideas are favoured and what one is fighting for when using certain language is essential. In the gender identity law debate, for instance, children’s best interests are rarely at the centre of politicians’ agendas; instead, premium is place on other interests and factors.
Language is not just a communicative tool, but also a means of ideological control and cultural influence. Thanks to the power of language, key actors in Swedish politics changed their perceptions and, against the will of the people, passed a law based on woke ideology. It is surreal that this occurred under the current government, which proclaims itself as the most conservative in 100 years in Sweden.
As Andrew Breitbart famously stated, “Politics is downstream from culture”, but I would add that both politics and culture are downstream from language.