The Politicization of Linguistic Research

Abstract

Language is crucial for research in international politics, and the latter cannot do without insights from the former. In (applied) linguistics, scholars talk of a ‘political take on language’ or language having a ‘political dimension’ (Joseph, 2006: 1–2), while in international politics one can see expressions such as a ‘linguistic turn’ (Lapid, 1996: 241). For others, the study of language should not be carried out by researchers in IR, and thus language should not be considered at all by IR scholars. In particular, political realism has been reputedly suspicious of the utopian and liberal overvaluing of words, and it prefers to approach international politics as it ‘really’ is. Therefore, research in international politics in the realist strand has not focused a great deal on the forms and effects of spoken and written language in the field of politics (see Beer and Hariman, 1996: 1). Anti-linguistic postures in IR have made several charges against the application of linguistics to the study of international politics. The most serious challenge posed by anti-linguists is the growth of confusion that linguistic approaches may bring to the field of international affairs. The ‘linguistification of political theory’ is the label used for the process of influencing international politics with linguistic concerns, leading to ‘heterogeneous manifestations of the “linguistic turn”’ (see, for example, Dallmayr, 1984; after Arnold, 1993: 16).