Dean Ciorciari Reflects on Language, Culture, and Conflict Ahead of Global Symposium
This year’s Global and Area Perspectives Symposium on November 7-8 will focus on “Languages, Cultures, and Conflict.” How does that theme speak to you?
It relates closely to my professional experience. For much of my career, I have focused on international criminal law. I started in Cambodia in 1999, researching crimes committed during the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 and 1979. Working at an NGO in Phnom Penh to promote justice, I helped compile evidence of atrocities—shocking and systematic abuses that caused the deaths of roughly a quarter of Cambodia’s population in less than four years.
The Cambodian genocide depended on many willing hands, and one question that haunted me was how so many human beings could participate in such brutality. I learned quickly that language played a crucial role. Khmer Rouge leaders used language to dehumanize their opponents, to sanitize their atrocities, and to intimidate anyone who might have stood in their way.
What are some examples?
First, Khmer Rouge leaders used language to dehumanize their foes. Political opponents were enemies (khmang) to be smashed (kamtech). Vietnamese were yuon, a racialized slur. By casting people as subhuman, language made them easier to abuse or kill.
Second, Khmer Rouge officials sanitized atrocities. They spoke of “sweeping clean” (baos sam at) the “microbes” or “impure elements” infecting the Party and the country. In that way, they framed ruthless purges as cleansing the country—acts of virtue rather than mass murder.
Third, they used language to instill fear. Khmer Rouge leaders did not reveal the names of their human leaders. Even Pol Pot’s name was shrouded. They referred only to Angkar, “the Organization,” evidently believing that a human tyrant would be less harrowing than a faceless one. Angkar was said to everywhere, with “eyes like a pineapple.” Language evoked fear, which conveyed control.
How has language affected efforts to address Khmer Rouge atrocities after the fact?
Language has had to evolve. For example, millions of Cambodians experienced psychological trauma during the Pol Pot years, but until quite recently, the only Khmer word used to depict mental illness was chhkuot, or “crazy.” The word used to express mental distress was chhukbeal, which referred to a “headache.” Language and cultural norms had to change to destigmatize mental illness and equip survivors with a way to communicate their suffering.
In the UN-backed Khmer Rouge trials, it was initially common to speak of victims (chonorongokroh). This word stressed the vulnerability and harms they endured but not their courage and resilience to persevere. The term anak rsarean meanchivit—survivors—became a more prominent way to describe those who lived through the Khmer Rouge era.
What do you hope attendees will gain from the symposium?
I expect the discussion will show that language is power. The way it is used shapes human behavior by tapping into biases, beliefs, and cultural norms. Language can be a force for good and for righteous resistance. It can also be harnessed for evil.
The symposium also will show how central language and culture are to identity and human dignity. Repression of languages and cultural autonomy, and efforts to protect them, are often crucial features of political conflict.
How does this relate to the priorities of the Hamilton Lugar School?
The theme of languages, cultures, and conflict fits what makes the Hamilton Lugar School distinctive. We’re a school that tackles big global themes like conflict and values intensive study of languages and cultures. Understanding broad topics like conflict requires examining the human contexts in which it happens.
About the author: John Ciorciari is dean and professor of International Studies at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. His research interests focus on international politics and international law.