Political Language Murray Edelman
1. The Linguistic Structuring of Social Problems
Consider the political implications of our conventional mode of naming and classifying the most common social “problems”: poverty, crime, mental illness, occupational illness, drug abuse, and inadequate education. We establish separate departments of government to deal with these supposedly distinct problems (departments of welfare, criminal justice, education, health, for example), and staff them with people trained to focus upon a particular set of symptoms and to believe in a distinctive set of causes for each of them. Such a classification evokes beliefs and perceptions that we normally accept uncritically, precisely because they are generated subtly by the terms used to designate them. The classification scheme implies, first, that these various problems are distinct from one another, with different causes, just as they have separate symptoms. (p.26)
CHUNKING ANALYSIS
Consider the political implications
of our conventional mode of [naming and classifying]
the most common social “problems”:
poverty, crime, mental illness, occupational illness, drug abuse, and inadequate education.
We establish separate departments of government
to deal with these supposedly distinct problems
(departments of welfare, criminal justice, education, health, for example),
and staff them with people
trained to focus upon a particular set of symptoms
and to believe in a distinctive set of causes for each of them.
Such a classification evokes
[beliefs and perceptions] that we normally accept uncritically,
precisely because they are generated subtly
by the terms used to designate them.
The classification scheme implies, first,
that these various problems are distinct from one another,
with different causes,
just as they have separate symptoms.
Q: キーワードは？ 何が何をもたらすと言っているのか？
2. Terms like “mental illness,” “criminal,” and “drug abuse” focus attention on the alleged weakness and pathology of the individual, while diverting attention from their pathological social and economic environments ― a belief about causation that is partially accurate at best and therefore a dubious premise on which to base public policies. In consequence we maintain prisons that contribute to crime as a way of life for many of their inmates, mental hospitals that contribute to “mental illness,” as a way of life for their inmates, and high rates of recidivism for all these “problems.” But the names by which we refer to people and their problems continue, subtly but potently, to keep the attention of authorities, professionals, and the general public focused upon hopes for rehabilitation of the individual and to divert attention from those results of established policies that are counterproductive. (p.27)
CHUNKING ANALYSIS
Terms like “mental illness,” “criminal,” and “drug abuse”
focus attention on the alleged [weakness and pathology] of the individual,
while diverting attention from their pathological [social andeconomic] environments
― a belief about causation
that is partially accurate at best
and therefore a dubious premise on which to base public policies.
In consequence
we maintain prisons that contribute to crime
as a way of life for many of their inmates,
mental hospitals that contribute to “mental illness,”
as a way of life for their inmates,
and high rates of recidivism for all these “problems.”
But the names (by which we refer to people and their problems) continue,
〈subtly but potently〉,
to keep [the attention of authorities, professionals, and the general public] focused
upon hopes for rehabilitation of the individual
and to divert attention
from those results of established policies that are counterproductive.
Q:何が問題か？ なぜそうなるのか？ どうすればよいのか？
3. Rehabilitation and rational solution of problems occurs very largely in rhetoric. Such everyday language and the myths it evokes permit us to live with ourselves and with our problems; they also guarantee that perceptions of threats and of efforts to overcome them will maintain social tension, anxiety, and continued susceptibility to verbal cues, that help legitimize government policies regardless of their effectiveness. (p.28)
CHUNKING ANALYSIS
Rehabilitation and rational solution of problems
occurs very largely in rhetoric.
[Such everyday language and the myths it evokes]
permit us to live with ourselves and with our problems;
they also guarantee
that perceptions [of threats and of efforts to overcome them]
will maintain [social tension, anxiety, and continued susceptibility to verbal cues],
that help legitimize government policies
regardless of their effectiveness.
Q: “continued susceptibility to verbal cues”とは、どういった状態のことを言うのか。
4. Prevailing categorization of these problems create cognitive structures intricately. They imply that the inadequacies of the poor and the waywardness of the delinquent are changeable and that governmental and professional rewards, punishments, and treatments will change them; but the classification scheme by the same token defines economic institutions as a fixed part of the scene, not an issue to be confronted. In this way, the name for a problem also creates beliefs about what conditions public policy can change and what it cannot touch. (p.28)
CHUNKING ANLYSIS
Prevailing categorization of these problems
create cognitive structures intricately.
They imply
that [the inadequacies of the poor]
and [the waywardness of the delinquent]
are changeable
and that [governmental and professional] rewards, punishments, and treatments
will change them;
but the classification scheme by the same token
defines economic institutions
as [a fixed part of the scene],
not [an issue to be confronted].
In this way,
the name for a problem also creates beliefs
about [what conditions public policy can change]
and [what it cannot touch].
Q:「分類」と「制度」の関係はどのようなものか？「命名」とはどういう行為か？
5. How the problem is named involves alternative scenarios, each with its own facts, value judgments, and emotions. The self-conceptions that are a part of these contradictory cognitive structures explain the tenacity and passion with which people who are intimately involved cling to them and interpret developments so as to make them consonant with a particular structure; for the choice of a configuration of beliefs has profound consequences for the individual: his role and status, his power and responsibilities, his ideology, and what counts as success for her or him.
CHUNKING ANLYSIS
[How the problem is named]
involves alternative scenarios,
each with its own [facts, value judgments, and emotions].
The self-conceptions that are a part of these contradictory cognitive structures
explain the [tenacity and passion]
with which people (who are intimately involved) cling to them
and interpret developments
so as to make them consonant with a particular structure;
for [the choice of a configuration of beliefs]
has profound consequences for the individual:
his role and status,
his power and responsibilities,
his ideology,
and [what counts as success for her or him].
Q: 人々が社会的事象の呼称（どう呼ぶか）にこだわる理由は何か？