The language of politics and the politics of language have both fallen under feminist theoretical scrutiny in the behavioral sciences throughout history, more specifically in the past four decades, or since the advent of feminist theory as a recognized academic genre. The effects of patriarchal language in general are quite controversial, with the issue of abuse being in the forefront. However, in order to interrogate the effects of patriarchal language in any system, there must first be a working definition of the term. For the purposes of this paper, patriarchal refers to fatherly, and language refers to a manner or means of verbal communication. Therefore, patriarchal language is quite literally a form of fatherly communication.

At best, this form of communication might be perceived as comforting, though it also yields the objectionable effect of infantilizing or victimizing the listener by causing a sense of powerlessness and dependency. There are many methods employed in patriarchal language to bring about this sense of powerlessness and dependency, but in each there is the common element of producing fear. In a political system, patriarchal language is capable of infantilizing an entire culture through this construction of fear. It is important to note that cultural systems with more balanced gender roles, where hierarchies of domination and subordination are not the norm as they are in our [western] system, the term “father” has a significantly different meaning. For example, in many indigenous cultures “father” may refer to a particular role in the family and can be neutral or even positive with respect to influencing power over another. However, in cultural systems where gendered hierarchies of domination and subordination exist, father is a term of status and power, and therefore cannot be neutral.

There is an almost symbiotic pattern that emerges through the use of patriarchal language in both the socio-politic and domestic spheres. This pattern emerges through the use of vague, fear producing language which in turn creates a sense of dependency on the speaker, or dominator to manifest comfort and security for the listener. Some of the more “comforting” aspects of this pattern can be readily seen in benevolent sexism, whereby someone takes a patriarchal approach in scenarios such as having lowered expectations of, or acting in a protective manner toward another person who is deemed to be of lesser strength, and/or ability, most commonly in a male to female dyad. The comfort of being taken care of, protected or otherwise patronized can, and often does create a sense of learned helplessness and powerlessness through fear of independence.

This same pattern emerges within abusive relationships, where the person in the dominating, patriarchal role uses fear to instill submission, and later becomes the rescuer by temporarily alleviating the fear he or she produced. Another example of this dynamic can be found in the famous “Stockholm Syndrome” of 1974, where four Swedish citizens were held hostage for six days and became emotionally attached to their captors as a means of survival. Apparently, the hostages came to believe that their captors were the only force able to eliminate their suffering. In this scenario, fear producing language was the primary factor in infantilizing the subjects and creating dependency upon the dominator. Many psychologists have interpreted this dynamic as a means for perpetuating abuse.

Of the many tactics used in the employ of patriarchal language, “dependency-creating language”, a term coined by Renana Brooks, PhD, a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington, DC. (June 30, 2003), which “uses intimidation to shame the listener into submission or desperation” is of particular importance. Brooks also mentions “empty language”, which she defines as “broad statements that are so abstract and mean so little that they are virtually impossible to oppose”.

She goes on to say that dominators use empty language “to conceal faulty generalizations; to ridicule viable alternatives; to attribute negative motivations to others, thus making them appear contemptible”. Another patriarchal language technique is “personalization”, which is defined as “curious, almost petulant statements offered in lieu of actually presenting a case”. This particular tactic served two purposes; it personalized his statements through vague, universally fear producing scenarios, and then secured his fatherly role by making himself out to be the only person capable of eliminating or decreasing the fear he produced.

In order to illustrate dependency creating language, empty language and personalization, I will attempt a deconstruction of President G.W. Bush’s post 9/11, State of the Union speech:

“There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror. There’s never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. “ These two statements offer us a glimmer of just how protected we are from hearing about the atrocities of war, but we are to feel secure because we are in the hands of a great father who knows all (“receives reports of operations”), and gives daily orders to protect us even further. However, the “threat” and “operations” remain a mystery in his vague terminology, and his response to these threats is equally unclear. He goes on to say, “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time”. He does not give a name to the danger, nor does he propose a solution. He uses negative and emotionally threatening language to create vague and universal fear. An example of personalization is found later in the same speech when President Bush asks the citizens of America “to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight”.

This tactic addresses the fear he just provoked, and also instills a sense of personal understanding and compassion. At this point his listener’s may not realize that they’ve been caught in a web of fear through the use of manipulative, patriarchal language, but they will most likely notice the apparent concern and compassion for their fears. He then goes on to say, “I’ve made up my mind, I’ve said in speech after speech, I’ve made myself clear”. This last statement is not only empty, but also incredibly patronizing, which is, after all, the pinnacle of patriarchal language. He has insinuated that his listeners, the citizens of America, have not paid close enough attention to his previous speeches to acknowledge his level of clarity. He is essentially accusing his listeners of being no more cognizant than children (or infants) in need of his fatherly protection.

Ironically, these vague, fear producing, fatherly epistemologies often provoke, rather than prevent, real danger. Hostility becomes legitimated in patriarchal language, through “official expressions of authority and violence such as executive power, legislation, policing and wars” (Peterson, 1992). These expressions are intentionally blurred, yet much of their weight and power is actually located in the liminal spaces where clarity is lacking. In an attempt to clarify the liminal spaces within these expressions of authority, we are fed simplistic, easily digestible dichotomies of good versus evil. We are fighting against terrorism (the threat), and we are fighting for freedom (the benefit of being protected).

Who and what constitutes a terrorist (or threat), and who and where freedom (the benefit) takes place, is always determined by the “father”. In this case, the father is our own President George W. Bush, but elsewhere the “father” might even be female, as in the case of Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain or Indira Ghandi, former Prime Minister of India. The common thread linking patriarchal language to dependency, powerlessness and infantilization/ victimization is not biological gender, per se, but hierarchically legitimated hostility and fear through gendered terms, i.e. masculinized hostility as a response to feminized threat.

Without hostility, or at least the fear of danger, patriarchal language is left without a voice. Patriarchal language depends on creating a hostile environment, a threat, and does so through nationalism, classism, sexism, and racism. “To speak in the name-and language-of the nation both denies the particularity of what is being said (and who is saying it) and defines alternatives and challenges as sectional, partial, ultimately treasonable” (Peterson, 1992). Or, to put it another way, pluralistic terminology is the backbone of patriarchal language, without which there would be no good versus evil, male versus female, black versus white, wealth versus poverty, Christian versus Muslim, etc., ad nauseum. In order to create fear, there must necessarily be a threat, and that threat is only successful if it instills fear. Patriarchal language in a political realm relies on this cyclical precedent as a manipulative tool designed to keep the masses powerless, and by instituting the state as the only viable solution capable of eliminating the threat, it creates dependency among the masses.

Decriminalizing hostility in the political sphere legitimizes hostility in the domestic sphere. Feminist theory has sought to dismantle this dichotomous dialogue by stating that the “political is personal” and the “personal is political” (Enloe, 2001). Personal or domestic relationships are subject to publicly perceived authoritarian voices and those in political power have the ability to construct, and/or define the dynamics of personal relationships. Likewise, the dynamics of socio-political interpretation is often rooted in personal relationships. In most cultures, the family structure is arranged hierarchically, with a dominating “head-of-household”, traditionally recognized as the father. This person has the role of dominator, and each family member descends on the scale in a masculinized to feminized order, with young male children being feminized until adult maturity is attained, at which point they become masculinized and displace their mother as the co-patriarch. The patriarchal family structure plays an integral role in the success of patriarchal language as a socio-political tool. In essence it is the breeding grounds for accepting and cooperating with the tactics employed by patriarchal language in politics.

To claim that patriarchal language tactics are manipulative is certainly legitimate. The controversy stems from whether or not patriarchal language tactics are abusive. Given the hierarchal structure necessary for patriarchal language to exist in politics and the family, and the inherent role of a dominator – which depends upon provoking fear and powerlessness- abuse appears to be a legitimate byproduct of patriarchal language in general.