Almost half a century ago Marshall McLuhan observed that
“The Medium Is the Message.” Although I believe that the observation remains
valid today, it seems to have evolved beyond this point. In fact, it looks to
me like the syntax is now making a difference in this post-McLuhan age. I began
to see that something like this may be happening when I encountered the bad
translations which resulted when going from one language to another. I could
not discuss the subject, however, because it would have been understood only by
the people who spoke both languages – and most of my readers did not speak the
other language.
Lucky for us, something happened which opens the door for a
discussion on the subject without having to resort to a second language because
it can all be done in English. And you won't believe who we have to thank for
this opportunity. Let me tell you who that is; it is Dorothy Rabinowitz who
wrote a column under the title: “Chuck Hagel's Defenseless Performance” and
published it in the Wall Street Journal on February 4, 2013.
There is much political stuff that can be articulated about
this matter but I have written a great deal about it already, and I shall not
take up any of the points that Rabinowitz makes except for one. I do so not to
discuss the political implications that flow from it but to discuss the
different philosophical dimensions that may result when we choose to structure
a phrase or a sentence this way or that way – what we call the choice of syntax.
The salient point here is encapsulated in the word
“containment.” Originally, the word was used to refer to the policy which
America and its NATO allies maintained during the Cold War with regard to what
they (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be the attempt of the Soviet Union to
rely on its military power – including the deterrence effect of its nuclear
arsenal – to keep expanding. Containment meant to make it clear to the Soviets
that they could not make an aggressive move that will not trigger an appropriate
response from NATO.
In more recent times, the word containment was used in
reference to the nuclear ambitions of Iran . Some people suggested that
the Iranians could have nuclear weapons if they so wished because America and its
allies could still contain them the way that the Soviets were contained. No,
said other people, you cannot do with the religious Iranians what was done with
the secular Soviets because they are two different breeds.
What seems to have happened as a result of that debate is
that America
stated something to the effect that the Iranians will not be allowed to develop
nuclear weapons, period. This meant that the policy of containment no longer
applied, thus became a moot subject. In consequence of this, when Chuck Hagel
was asked a question about the subject, he said that he supported the
President's position on containment.
This was a clear statement and everyone understood it except
for an aide who took it upon himself to hand a note to Hagel advising him that
he misspoke because, in reality, America did not have a policy on
containment. Believing that he did make a mistake, Hagel retracted what he
thought he had said a moment ago, and stated instead that America did not
have a policy on containment.
This being even more confusing than before, Senator Levin
who chaired the meeting, was forced to intervene and state clearly that America had a
position on containment which is that it did not favor it.
We can see what the problem has been in this case. It is
that there is a negative which some people attributed to one thing while other
people attributed to another thing. Was it that America had NO position on
containment? Or was it that America
had a position of NO containment?
In this age of multi-tasking; of short attention span and
brief-speak, the way that you phrase a response can mean one thing to one
person, and another thing to another person even if both speak your language.
Now imagine what can happen when you translate from one language to another.
There are those who will tell you it can sometimes be
difficult to even reset the relationship with an old adversary who has become a
friend when the author thinks in terms of one context, and the translator
thinks in terms of another context.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian
counterpart had a brush with a situation like this not long ago. Now imagine
what can happen when you translate something into English from Arabic or Farsi.