Share this story
Close X
Switch to Desktop Site

Rethink Washington's 'War of Ideas'

We need not 'defeat' detrimental ideas. Rather, we should aim to make bestsellers of the ideas that bolster our cause.

About these ads

The term "Global War on Terror" is now out of favor in the government lexicon, and new drug czar Gil Kerlikowske wants to end the use of the phrase "War on Drugs." It's not that opposing terrorism or drugs is no longer important, or that operations will be substantially changed. But how we talk about things matters.

The words we use not only communicate certain things to others, but shape how we think about them ourselves. Both "wars" have been criticized because they gave offense abroad, in part because it was rarely clear exactly who was and who was not being warred on.

In need of relabeling (and rethinking) alongside "war on terror" and "war on drugs" is the similarly tired phrase "war of ideas." This "war" is implicitly related to the "war on terror" and is shorthand for our desire to curb ideologies of radical, violent extremism.

Of course ideas matter. But wars are fought by the military. Ideas don't fight each other.

The most effective way to persuade people to adopt a new point of view is not to attack their current perspective. Ideas can compete, but the logic such competition follows cannot be accurately characterized as "war."

People receive and wholly or partially accept, reject, or ignore ideas. They modify their preexisting views by adding acceptable aspects of a new idea. Contradictions and conflicts between ideas are worked out in people's heads or in public (or private) discourse with others – not on a physical battlefield. Removing the martial metaphor could reduce implied antagonism and polarizing pressure to be "either with us or against us."


Page:   1   |   2   |   3

Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.