The Cold War: Effect on Political Discourse

The frozen War Effect on Political DiscourseWith the end of the stone-cold fight in 1989, has in that respect been more(prenominal) than openness in the discourse of deterrence or in strugglering address?IntroductionThe Cold War has been exposit as a nearly lambert-year war of words and e rattling(prenominal)ows, (Maus, 2003 13). It was a period during which close individuals lived in uniform fear that the bomb would be dropped, effectively obliterating spirit as we know it. Direct combat itself was a very scurvy bureau of this war The Cold War, fought with national ideologies, economic posturing and endless(prenominal) defense bud overreachs, festered without whatever combat or mass casualties (at least among the super occasions) throughout the latter half of the 20th century before finally approaching to a head in the mid-80s (Hooten n.d.). When the Cold War finally came to its last end, the words of war shifted in corresponding. Warring words continued to be take time off of the popular vocabulary, except their con nonations had changed, and their definitions shifted. The discourse of deterrence faded away, as there was no enormo employmentr a need for it. This paper will discuss the ways in which the Cold War has affected not only the history of the world, but also the history of the words that changed a huge with it.The Words of WarThe delivery we use to describe the things we do is a signifi concomitantt reflection of who we ar at a given sequence in the culture. Communication is an essential alsol for human beings, as we atomic number 18 elevatedly companionable creatures by nature. The need to conk is an integral part of our composition. However, in the course of transferring information to one another, there is always a margin of error. This means that miscommunicating is bound to occur. According to Coupland, Wiemann, and Giles, language use and converse are in fact pervasively and even intrinsically flawed, overto ne and problematic (1991 3).Because communication is so important to humans as a species, it is only natural that miscommunication look ats with it some sort of consequence. This is a universal theory, and it affects all of us on a very basic level. As Banks, Ge, and bread maker assert, ones theoretical orientation is of no importance in this respect A key sense of miscommunication, however, regardless of ones theoretical orientation, is something gone awry communicatively that has well-disposed consequences for the interactants without social consequences, the phenomenon would be of trivial interest (1991 105).As a result, struggle is inevitable in society, and a worst-case scenario of conflict is, of course war. War is more than a militaristic action that is played out with bullets and bombs as wights. Words, too, are very much a part of any war effort, and they can be very powerful as weapons. The Cold War has been described as a nearly fifty-year war of words and wills, as two sides aggressively tried to promote and protect their respective ideologies at business firm and abroad while always remaining aware of the repercussions of pushing the limits too far (Maus, 2003 13). How did this war of words manage to continue for so long without reaching the stage of physical combat?One perspective on this is offered by Grimshaw, who asserts that so long as conflict blether is uphold (i.e., if participants do not withdraw) it does not seem to be the case that dislike (ugliness) will increase without some concomitant increase in intensity (1990 295). During the nearly fifty days duration of the Cold War, neither opponent was voluntary to back down, yet neither one was willing to plunge into what might turn into a major war with dire, irreversible consequences. It was primarily a war fought with words and bravado, a dramatic composing played on an international stage. In fact, the Cold War was fought with national ideologies, economic posturing and infin ite defense budgets, festered without any combat or mass casualties (Hooten, n.d.).This is in keeping with Grimshaws assertion that, although disagreements can reach high levels of randy upheaval, they do not unavoidably come to result in physical interaction. Friendly disputes can get quite hot at least to some point they can apparently increase in intensity without the occurrence of hostility (Grimshaw, 1990 295). The ever-present fear of nuclear eradication may have had a great deal to do with this interruption of action. Much of the world was still numbed by the disastrous tragedy that this power had wrought in the past, and there was great consternation at the pattern of reaching a level of conflict that would require use of it once more. Therefore, the Cold War remained a war of words.Words, of course, are more than mere utterances. We communicate a great about ourselves when we use themmore than the actual meaning we are seeking to convey at any given time. As Halliday explains, in all languages, words, sounds and structures tend to become charged with social nourish (1978 166). In states of conflict, Halliday asserts that individuals tend to develop a code of words that not only reflects that conflict, but also helps the individual to come to terms with it on some level. He refers to this code of words as an antilanguage, and he asserts that it is to be expected that, in the antilanguage, the social values will be more clearly foregrounded (Halliday, 1978 166).Since the purpose of an antilanguage is to give individuals an alternative reality that is acceptable to them, the possibleness may be applied to the language of the Cold War. Living with the constant threat of nuclear war is an unbearable state of mind for more or less individuals therefore, they must create a world that is more livable to them. This concept is echoed in the writings of Lemert and Branaman, who assert thatWhatever his position in society, the individual insulates hims elf by blindnesses, half-truths, illusions, and rationalizations. He makes an adjustment by convincing himself, with the tactful support of his intimate circularise, that he is what he wants to be and that he would not do to gain his ends what the others have done to gain theirs (1997 109).Hence, the development of this different worldview is fundamentally a survival mechanism during a time of great incredulity and turmoil. The widely respected historian Hobsbawm has explained that generations grew up under the shadow of globose nuclear battles which, it was widely believed, could break out any moment, and devastate munificence (1996 194). The fear that this knowledge brought to individuals naturally affected them on a very deep level. Through the use of an antilanguage, they were able to go on with the activities of insouciant life by designing a safe cocoon of illusory safety in which they could feelor pretend to feelsafe. As Halliday puts it, a social dialect is the embodime nt of a mildly but distinctly different worldviewone which is therefore potentially threatening, if it does not comply with ones own (1978 179).Post-Cold War LanguageWhen the five decades of decades of this war came to an end in 1989, the attitudes in place in society necessarily underwent a change, and that change was reflected in the language used as well. The magnetic inclination of communism in Europe, combined with the end of the Cold War, were enough to bring new hope to the raft of the United States. According to Mason, the vicious circle of threats and distrust was replaced by a new spiral of trust and reassurance (1992 187). In this mostly positive atmosphere, the constant threat of nuclear attack abated, and people were able to breathe more easily. The words of war bemused the touch on they once had.As Hooten has explained, the words of war were tinged with fear, helplessness, and frustration throughout the years of the Cold War. After it ended, the words did not disa ppear from the language, but began to get word on new connotations The words of war were once the moral and emotional defense of the nation, corresponding with the real memories and motivations of an embattled citizenry, asserts Hooten. After 1989, as images of war receded from the American psyche, the language of war invaded the common lexicon of America (Hooten, n.d.). Examples of this are ubiquitous, and have become so common that we are often barely sensible of it.For example, words such as defend and bomb, which were once tainted by the association with war, have taken on new and less peril uses. During the second half of the twentieth century, people may have entangle a constant need to be ready to defend themselves in case of nuclear attack. Post-Cold War use of this word became something different a politician may defend his platform. The constant concern and ever-present invade about dropping the bomb during the Cold War era has resulted in a transformation of this wor d as wellConsider again the numerous, non-militant ways in which the word bomb is used Frat brothers get bombed on a Saturday night. Your new car is da bomb. Did you see that comic bomb on Letterman last night? The quarterback threw a long bomb to win the game (Hooten, n.d.).ConclusionLanguage has changed since the nearly fifty years of the Cold War era. Notice, for example, the language of Reagans Star Wars Speech, which was delivered on bunt 23, 1983 Deterrence means simply this making sure any enemy who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains (1983 250). In contemporary times, deterrence can mean many things, most of which do not pertain to war at all. In a similar vein, many of the violent definitions associated with warring words have fallen out of use. These words have become part of the common lexicon, used to describe the quotidian events of daily life without any sense of impending doom. Words such as battle, bomb, defend, and massacre, have lost the potency they held during the years of the Cold War. They have taken on new, less menacing definitions and uses.Language is an integral part of the human experience. The language we use to describe the things we do is a significant reflection of who we are at a given time in the culture. Because we are highly social by nature, communication is vitally important as a tool for human beings. The need to communicate is an integral part of our composition. However, as celebrated earlier, in the course of transferring information to one another, there is always a margin of error. This means that miscommunication is bound to occur.Consequently, for miscommunication to have impact, it is not likely to be a perturbation of smooth performance that is repaired in the current interaction (Banks, Ge and Baker 1991 105).ReferencesCoupland, N., Giles, H., and Wiemann, J.M. (Eds.). 1991. Miscommunication and gnarly Talk capital of the United Kingdom Sage.Banks, Stephen P., Ge, Gao, Baker, Joyce. 1991. Intercultural Encounters and Miscommunication. In Coupland, N., Giles, H., and Wiemann, J.M. (Eds.) Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. capital of the United Kingdom Sage, 103120.Grimshaw, Allen. 1990. Research on conflict talk antecedents, resources, findings, directions. A. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 280324.Gumperz, John and Jenny Cook-Gumperz. 1982. Introduction language and the communication of social identity. Pp. 121 in Gumperz, John, ed. 1982. Language and social identity. London Cambridge University Press.Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic The social interpretation of language and meaning. London Edward Arnold Publishers.Hobsbawm, Eric. 1996. The Cold War Was a Relatively Stable Peace. Pp. 193198 in191 in Maus, Derek, ed. 2003, The Cold War. London Greenhaven Press.Ho oten, Jon. n.d. Fighting Words The War over Language.Retrieved January 13, 2006, fromhttp//www.poppolitics.com/articles/printerfriendly/2002-09-10-warlanguage.shtmlLemert, Charles and Branaman, Ann, eds. 1997. The Goffman Reader. Oxford Blackwell.Mason, David. 1992. The Last Years of the Soviet Union. Pp. 179191 in Maus, Derek, ed. 2003, The Cold War. London Greenhaven Press.Maus, Derek, ed. 2003. The Cold War. London Greenhaven Press.Reagan, Ronald, 1983. The Star Wars Speech. Document 22 in Maus, Derek, ed. 2003, The Cold War. London Greenhaven Press.