Table of Contents
Epithets from Homer to modern politics
There’s an interesting technique used by some political figures that is similar to the ‘political epithet’, but not quite the same.
It is not quite a technique either, as I don’t think that it is premeditated enough to qualify as such. So instead, I will call it a ‘discursive practice’.
The practice involves seizing the opportunity to attach very concise definitions to complex terms every time they are mentioned. These concise definitions function as a sort of epithet. That is, a quality attributed to the thing that, through repetition, becomes almost inseparable from the thing’s name.
These are epithets in a sense similar to the epithets that were already used in Homer’s works. Frequently, when referencing a significant character, their names are accompanied by an epithet. Some of the most well-known epithets in the Illiad are “swift-footed” Achilles, “tamer of horses” Hector, “resourceful” for Odysseus, or “cloud-gatherer” for Zeus.
A common practice in politics is the use of epithets in the form of nicknames. These are constantly uttered alongside the opponent’s name, in an attempt to attach negative qualities to them and produce the stickiness that derisory political slogans require. Another one is the use of epithets to link the subject to a position perceived negatively by a given audience, example being terms like ‘apparatchik’, ‘far-left’, ‘far-right’, ‘radical’, and so forth.
One big exponent of this discursive practice is the current president of Argentina. While, as I said above, political epithets are common in political discourse, I’ve observed that in his way of handling interviews, he employs them in a distinctive manner.
In the case of the Argentine president, although he also employs the common practice of resorting to these types of political epithets, he also uses epithets that do not correspond to nicknames, but instead are slightly longer and have rehearsed explanations nested within them.
The ‘proxy epithet’
These not only include the specific quality that they are intended to attribute to the subject, but also a concise theoretical reasoning that offers an unambiguous definition of that particular quality. In simpler terms, the sequence follows this pattern: first the mention of the subject itself, followed by the assignment of its epithet. The speaker then articulates what the epithet means in a concise, clear way, almost as a recitation. These epithets can be referred to as ‘controlled epithets’ or ‘proxy epithets’ because, being explained again and again every time following every one of its mentions, eventually becomes a discursively economical proxy for that explanation.
That is, the short epithet summons the longer explanation in the hearer’s head, and by virtue of this interchangeability, it saves the speaker time and keeps their discourse within a realistic range of the average audience attention-span, while simultaneously maintaining a higher degree of unambiguity.
Indeed, with the proxy epithet, the politician doesn’t need to explain themselves over and over again when using terms that have a specific definition for them (it is a sad but necessary truth with language that, especially with more technical language that involves complex abstract terms, their proper definition be contested between different schools of thought or ideologies. As a result, what a person says can be misconstrued when the listener, or the pundit, the commentator, etc., decides to predetermine that they mean one particular definition of it instead of another).
For instance, a commonly used epithet by the Argentine president uses when speaking about taxes is “coercive”. Almost without fail, he proceeds to elaborate upon what “coercive” means. He explains that it is an income source for the state that is extracted from citizens at gunpoint. He continues the reasoning by asserting that since these taxes are forcefully imposed and nobody pays for them voluntarily, they amount to robbery. He concludes by using these allusions to robbery to reinforce his core idea of an expansive, regulating state as a criminal enterprise. The key is that the explanation is as concise and easily comprehensible as possible, otherwise it won’t reliably stick to the proxy epithet, almost as if it was the other side of the same flashcard.
The ‘proxy epithet’ for the receptive audience
One potential outcome of this practice is that it can be a tool for reconfiguring what certain terms mean among his supporters or other interested audiences. This is particularly applicable to those who:
1. Only understand the taxation system and the state on a surface level, viewing it as something that’s always been present and that there are taxes that need to be paid or consequences will follow. Thus, their notion of the terms is highly receptive as laden with gaps in their explanations. They lack incorporated knowledge of the historical processes that put them in place, of controversies surrounding the term’s development, of what has been tested, what worked and what hasn’t in the past, the finer details of the system, etc. Due to this state of emptiness, all these gaps can be filled by a convincingly laid out explanation, especially when delivered by a figure that, in the eyes of the person, is invested with a certain degree of moral or intellectual authority.
2. Another reason for being receptive to an epithet-driven reconfiguration of the term is that even if the individual has a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the concept, they may lack a narrative that is compelling or cohesive enough to protect their current understanding of it. In other words, they are not entirely certain of what to do with what they know in the larger scheme of things. Their narrative of what the state and the taxation system are for, and how effective they are, may not be coherent enough, so it will be susceptible to being substituted by more concise, actionable narratives which simplify the concepts. These in turn are more manageable, and are conducive to decision-making with greater determination and reduced perceived uncertainty.
This practice isn’t necessarily a tool for propaganda or indoctrination, as his use of proxy epithets combined with his habit of using and explaining the same definitions for what he means by each epithet become a way of educating the public. As long as there is sound reasoning and that these are supported by legitimate currents of thought, the explanations do not need to be purely ideologically-driven, partial misrepresentations of things (the worst possible consequence being that there is a breakage in consensus regarding the definition of basic terms). They can be intellectually honest explanations, which doesn’t mean that they should shy away from being expressed with conviction, showmanship or value judgements. What is most important is that they are intellectually honest, that they support consensus on a common reality.
A potential use for discourse to be both unambiguous and efficiently longer
Certainly in this specific case of the Argentine president, this is debatable. There is a contentiousness in tone and content that in many cases would not necessarily come hand in hand with critical thinking. However, when viewed in an appreciative light, the use of epithets and attaching well-structured explanations to them can be a cognitively economical way to instill more knowledge in the general consumer. The change is from ‘zero’ to ‘one’. ‘Zero’ stands for lingering on superficial controversies that are not related to the effectiveness of the political plans themselves, or having opinions guided by incomplete information and appeals to emotions. On the other hand, ‘one’ equates understanding with transparency what the politician intends to say, developing your own opinion on it, and then holding them accountable for their deeds down the line.
Not indoctrination or dogmatic redefinition of concepts, but better comprehension by the public
The crucial point is that in public communication, particularly in its form most oriented to ‘the masses’, the majority of the information circulating is not conducive to effective understanding. This is in the sense of building a body of knowledge about what is happening, among representatives and throughout the entire political apparatus1, which enables the public to comprehend the causes of some things and the potential consequences of others.
There needs to be a synthetic approach for politicians and other public communicators to package their ideas, in a way that their messages can be easily understood and less prone to be reliably misconstrued. This would enable citizens to have their decision-making process rely more on evaluating actions, principles and ideas instead of personality games.
What makes this discursive practice of proxy epithet (epithet + explanation) worthwhile is that once the communicator can safely assume that the epithet automatically conjures its explanation in the heads of listeners, they can dispense with the explanation and move on to assembling more complex, fruitful reasoning in their discourse. Alternatively, it allows them to fit a higher number of terms with their proxy epithets within a single interview, speech, post, or other instance of public communication. The key factor here is that both of these new instances are founded upon well-supported assertions. In this sense, complex concepts are broken down into smaller, unambiguous components, which the communicator expands upon according to what he/she really means by them.
What this implies is that in a time marked by shallow media consumption, frequently regarding politicians, there is hope that the limited moments of attention that these figures receive can be used to maximum advantage. The goal is not merely to benefit the political tactic itself, but to enable the public to agree among themselves on what the communicator means and discuss their messages in these terms. Thus, this is by extension beneficial to the common good.
The trick is that not only one politician employs this practice for their advantage, as that would only ‘educate’ the public on one single point of view. Rather, that a wider array of currents of thought should be relayed to the public using this same effective method. And even more, other types of publicly engaged thinkers, intellectuals and specialists could also resort to it.
- The political apparatus, ie. the institutions and organisations that work towards organising (or in its most minimal form safe-guarding) the collective life of a society. ↩︎
✵
Leave a Reply