Violent Rationality: How Power Structures Assert Authority through Language
It is possible for language to operate not as a medium for communication or dialogue but rather as a mechanism of dominance.
The Western legal system is an ideological system of autocracy, in which the justification of the exercise of power is the justification of the exercise of power by law, having been transformed into ideology through the process of legal reasoning, which is the process of the application of legal norms to particular cases. Legal reasoning is the process of the application of legal norms to particular cases through the use of principles of legal interpretation. Through the process of legal reasoning, the law becomes the language of power.
The law is supposed to be the written word of justice, and yet the language of the law is of penal torture, which is, extralegally, a crime that violates the body, spirit, and mind. — It is possible for language to operate not as a medium for communication or dialogue but rather as a mechanism of dominance. The rhetoric of national security, notably employed by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, serves as a striking example. In the wake of the attacks, the administration began to use the language of the war on terror to justify a variety of actions that were clearly not related to the war on terror but instead aimed to implement a system of legalized torture and to expand the executive power of the state.
Despite such dramatic performances - US presidential debates constituting another example- that seem to be aimed at winning people over to specific points of view through logical reasoning and persuasion, the reality underneath the theatre harbors no inclination to convince, persuade, or educate. The literary works of Marquis de Sade show us that the true rhetoric of power lies in illustrating that, fundamentally, reasoning itself constitutes a manifestation of violence and domination. It is a violent act to demand that another person adopt a specific point of view.
Whether the reasoning is sound enough to be understood by the public is relevant. Instead, it serves as internal motivation for the actors wielding this power. Just as a person subjected to violence is not meant to enjoy the experience, the deceptive language used by those in power is not meant to be shared or appreciated by its intended recipients. Understanding this complex point becomes clearer when we shift our focus away from individual definitions and toward a qualitative understanding of social relationships. To consolidate my point, the words of the world’s leaders must not be taken at face value but rather analyzed for signs of subjugation and violence.
-The Shultz Report by M. Shultz