You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
“Ohio.” “Brat.” “Cringe.” “Weird.” Coconut emojis.
Viral memes are omnipresent this campaign season, distilling concepts, images and ideas into simple, replicable formats that spread rapidly online. Once a concept is meme-ified, it becomes easily adaptable, allowing people to create their own versions by adding text or altering content to fit different contexts. This replicability makes memes powerful tools in shaping digital discourse and reflecting how cultural and social identities are constructed in the online world.
The meme “brat,” inspired by Charli XCX’s album, has come to signify confidence and attention-seeking behavior, while “Ohio” has become slang for anything odd or cringeworthy. Memes serve as bonding tools within groups, reinforcing shared identity and creating a sense of exclusivity. This dynamic fosters community in online spaces where people connect through shared content rather than face-to-face interaction.
Memes also establish a clear distinction between those who are in the know (the in-group) and those who are not (the out-group). While memes and slogans alone may not win elections and most voters may not care whether a candidate embodies the brat persona, they play a crucial role in contemporary political campaigns. These tools simplify complex messages, mobilize supporters and shape a candidate’s overall vibe.
In an era when voters are overwhelmed with information and when emotional resonance often outweighs detailed policy discussions, the battle for votes increasingly relies on slogans, catchphrases and vibe-producing memes. Understanding the power of these elements is essential for grasping the dynamics of contemporary electoral politics.
In the digital age, control over discourse has become increasingly vital due to the rapid spread of information, media fragmentation and societal polarization. Politicians, experts, internet influencers and marketers actively shape public discourse to assert influence, achieve goals and manage reputations. With the ability to reach millions instantly through social media and online platforms, those who control the narrative hold unprecedented power over public opinion, policy decisions and cultural norms.
Sophisticated language analysis, coupled with advances in artificial intelligence and big data, have further amplified this emphasis on discourse control. These tools enable microtargeting and the construction of tailored messages, making it easier to spread misinformation and disinformation.
Traditional media once acted as gatekeepers, filtering news and information. However, the rise of the internet and social media has diminished their control, leading to a more democratic yet chaotic information landscape. This fragmentation has resulted in competing narratives, with various groups vying for influence, intensifying the struggle for discourse control.
In a polarized political environment, controlling language is crucial for shaping public opinion. All sides seek to frame issues in ways that align with their values, using language to rally supporters and discredit opponents. For experts, controlling discourse is also about maintaining authority and credibility by shaping the frameworks through which issues are understood.
Language has become a central battleground in the culture wars, as groups compete to assert their worldviews. The words we use profoundly shape public discourse and influence societal norms, giving those who control language a significant advantage in defining debates and shaping perceptions.
Words wield immense power. Language enables us to convey complex ideas, emotions and experiences, structuring our thoughts and shaping our perceptions of the world. Shared language fosters community and cultural identity, while skillful use of language can sway opinions, motivate action and shift public discourse.
Words can be weaponized, politicized or redefined, as in the case of terms like “freedom,” or through euphemisms that downplay contentious policies. Language reinforces social hierarchies, manufactures consent, creates in- and out-groups, and reshapes collective memory and national identity.
Control over discourse is crucial for political partisans and extends to labeling, medicalizing, psychologizing and pathologizing behavior. Jargon asserts expertise and authority, while labeling certain language as unacceptable can silence dissent.
In politics, business, academia, media and social movements, the ability to frame issues, define terms and guide public conversations is a key strategy for gaining influence and driving change.
The heightened focus on discourse reflects broader changes in how information is produced, disseminated and consumed in the digital age, as well as a growing recognition of language’s power to shape perceptions, influence behavior and assert control.
By controlling the terms, narratives and framing of issues, various actors can steer public understanding and debates to favor their interests, impacting consumer behavior, social attitudes and academic discourse. In the academy, discourse shaping can determine which theories gain prominence, allowing influential editors and scholars to guide collective interpretation.
In an age of information overload, those who frame issues succinctly and persuasively can more effectively capture public attention, a crucial factor in marketing, public relations and social activism. As society grows more polarized, the struggle to control discourse intensifies, with ideological groups seeking to define language in ways that align with their values, extending beyond traditional politics to cultural and social justice issues.
For businesses, controlling discourse is essential for managing brand reputation and consumer perception. The ability to control narratives during crises, such as public relations disasters or legal challenges, is critical for mitigating damage and protecting interests.
Social movements use discourse control to assert identities, promote inclusive language and challenge existing power structures and influence cultural norms and values around gender, race, disability and sexuality.
Media outlets, by choosing and framing stories, set the public agenda and influence how issues are understood, extending their power beyond news coverage to the framing of social and cultural issues. In this increasingly high-stakes environment, control over discourse has become a critical factor in modern power dynamics.
The recent focus on the power of language and discourse is a significant reminder that ideas originating in the academy don’t stay confined within its walls—they shape and influence the broader world. Several scholars have been instrumental in shaping our understanding of how language and discourse function as tools of political and professional power. Their work reveals that language is not merely a neutral medium for communication but a potent instrument that can shape perceptions, reinforce social hierarchies and either maintain or challenge power structures. Whether through framing political issues, constructing identities or reinforcing ideologies, the control of language is central to the exercise of power in society.
- Antonio Gramsci introduced the concept of “cultural hegemony” in his Prison Notebooks (1929–1935), explaining how a ruling class manipulates society’s beliefs, language and values to establish its worldview as the accepted cultural norm, thereby shaping public thought and discourse on social issues.
- Roland Barthes, a key figure in semiotics, explored how language creates and manipulates cultural narratives that reinforce dominant ideologies. He argued that what we consider “natural” or “common sense” often results from ideological manipulation through language, influencing everything from personal identity to social norms.
- Michel Foucault, perhaps the most influential scholar on discourse and power, argued that discourse is not just a vehicle for expressing ideas but a mechanism for controlling and organizing knowledge and power. His concept of “power/knowledge” posits that those who control discourse also dictate what is considered true or false, normal or abnormal, and legitimate or illegitimate.
- Jürgen Habermas, in The Theory of Communicative Action (1981), introduced the concept of the “public sphere” as a space for rational-critical debate free from the domination of power structures. He also highlighted how language can both distort communication and reinforce power relations, yet it remains a crucial tool for achieving genuine understanding and consensus in society.
- Pierre Bourdieu, in Language and Symbolic Power (1991), examined how language serves as a form of power that legitimizes and reinforces social hierarchies. He introduced the idea of “linguistic capital,” where certain ways of speaking carry more social value, thereby reinforcing authority, education and social prestige and perpetuating social inequality.
- George Lakoff, in Moral Politics (1996) and Don’t Think of an Elephant! (2004), argued that the metaphors we use in political discourse reflect underlying cognitive frames that shape how we perceive and respond to social and political issues. Lakoff’s concept of framing has been particularly influential in understanding how political language can shape public opinion by activating specific values and assumptions.
- Teun A. van Dijk, in Discourse and Power (2008), focused on how language is used to convey ideologies and maintain power structures, particularly in media and political discourse. He analyzed how elites use language to control public discourse, manipulate information and perpetuate social inequality.
These scholars underscore the profound impact language has on shaping reality, guiding public discourse and maintaining or challenging power dynamics in society.
Language is inherently political, shaping how we perceive and understand the world. Politicizing language involves using it to advance specific agendas, define social boundaries and influence group identities. Words and phrases are chosen not just for their descriptive power but for their ability to sway opinions, legitimize viewpoints and marginalize others.
This extends to the medicalization and psychologization of behavior, where language casts certain actions or beliefs in a negative or pathological light. Medicalization classifies behaviors and conditions as medical problems, which can lead to overtreatment and overlook broader social or environmental factors. Psychologization frames behaviors and emotions through a psychological lens, potentially reducing personal agency and ignoring the social contexts that influence behavior.
Pathologization labels certain behaviors as inherently diseased or dysfunctional, often carrying moral judgment. This can be used as a tool for political and social control, delegitimizing dissent and justifying the exclusion of nonconformist voices, especially in authoritarian regimes. Terms like “narcissist,” “sociopath” or “toxic” are frequently used to describe unacceptable beliefs or actions, often without nuanced understanding.
In political discourse, the language of pathology discredits opponents by labeling them as “delusional” or “irrational” or merely “weird.” The widespread use of medical and psychological labels risks oversimplifying complex social issues and can lead to overdiagnosis, overtreatment and a culture of dependency on medical interventions.
In today’s discursive environment, understanding both the functions and limits of language is crucial for navigating contemporary public discourse and engaging critically with the world around us. Yet while language can shape perceptions, frame thoughts and influence policy, it’s also essential to understand the limits of language’s power.
Words can sway public opinion and political rhetoric can shape how issues are understood—whether by labeling a group as “radical” or “progressive,” a policy as a “reform” or “boondoggle,” or framing an issue as a “crisis” or an “opportunity.”
However, while language is a potent tool, words alone can rarely change deeply held beliefs or resolve cognitive dissonance. Some realities, such as personal experiences, emotions and social dynamics, remain beyond the reach of rhetoric. Political strategies that rely too heavily on language manipulation risk neglecting underlying realities.
Some realities are fundamentally material and cannot be altered by words alone. Personal experiences, emotions, social dynamics and cultural contexts shape perceptions in ways that language cannot always control or predict. Political messages or terminology that fail to resonate with these deeper realities are likely to fall flat or be rejected.
As we all know in our personal lives, there are gaps language cannot fill. Words often fall short when we try to apologize or express condolences. In those instances, we stumble and language reaches its limits.
In politics, too, it’s essential to understand language’s limitations. Slogans and memes may capture attention, but it’s ideas that fuel conviction and policies that win trust. While catchphrases can spark interest, substance is what ultimately holds the heart and leads to real change.
Slogans can set the stage, but it’s leadership and ideas that ultimately prevail.
