In one of Borges’s stories, a language consisting only of verbs is discussed. The world of a being using such a language would radically differ from our own, even if that being lived on Earth, because language is a kind of metatheory. It establishes the primary classification of phenomena and the relationships between them, and serves as the foundation for all subsequent theories. We would hardly be able to fully understand a being whose language contains only verbs, since our language is structured differently and, consequently, we see an entirely different world.
All this seemingly abstract discussion serves to make a simpler point: we create a picture of the world through language, and anyone who can manipulate language can significantly distort the perceptions of reality for a large number of people. These are, after all, things well known to everyone. Moreover, it doesn’t have to be something as dramatic as Orwell’s “Newspeak.” We encountered a phenomenon of the same kind through our own experience not long ago.
I think everyone remembers the astonishing moment when the Maidan, after the first beatings and dispersal attempts, tried to formulate a positive position. That is, what people at the Maidan were protesting against seemed understandable, but the further it went, the more one heard demands for a “program” and similar things. Great efforts were made; everyone who considered themselves capable wrote programs, a huge number of people participated in numerous program-writing groups, and an even larger number passionately discussed all of this on the internet and in person. In the end, it was a complete washout. Every time, it turned out to be another “improve, deepen, and expand”—meaning, leave everything as it is, just “hire professionals,” “managers,” or “patriots who care about Ukraine.” It even turned out that Yanukovych was quite a legitimate president and, generally, there were no grounds for early elections, let alone impeachment. This was a very big embarrassment, a loud “oops…” that rang unambiguously over all of Ukraine. The public was gripped by a certain bewilderment, from which it was saved by the conflict’s transition to an armed stage.
What happened, and what significance does this experience have for us? The following. The political language used by media, experts, politicians, and other such public figures, and the language in which political programs are written, turned out to be completely unsuitable for describing reality. Political theory, created with the help of this language, assumes that politics merely reflects “social processes” and is a way of life for society. But when this society—a huge number of people directly interested in the outcome—moved and tried to express itself directly using this language, nothing worked. Let me repeat: the programs were written not only by those who listened to speeches from the stage and “voted” at endless “veches” (people’s assemblies); this was a grand experiment in which a huge number of people participated. With an absolutely zero result. The gap between the “baaing” and “maaing” of programs and the fury of people who, in the end, went under bullets is more than obvious. People cannot go under bullets for “constitutional reform” or “greater transparency in public procurement.”
All this means that we tried to explain the human world, which is described by a more complex language, using a language that contains only verbs. Political language demonstrated its complete unsuitability for describing reality. And, consequently, politics is not one of the ways of “life of society.” On the contrary, this entire story vividly demonstrates that politics is a means of manipulating society, including through a specific language. Political language explains the world to a person from the point of view of the state. This is a metatheory in which phenomena and the relationships between them are “embedded” the way the state wants to see them. If one keeps this in mind constantly, this language can be understood. But creating something adequate for human life in it is unlikely to succeed.