Language of ideology/ideology of language: Notes on theory ... - JPCS

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>:
<strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice
Abbas Zaidi
Street children. . . are <strong>of</strong>ten described as “dirty vermin” so that metaphors <strong>of</strong> “street clearing,”
“trash removal,” “fly swatting,” “pest removal,” and “urban hygiene,” have been invoked to
garner broad-based support for police and death squad activities against them.
(New Internationalist, October 1997: 21)
Abstract
<strong>Language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong> as an instrument in the hands <strong>of</strong> the powerful has an overarching
hold on people. It would be very difficult to find a site <strong>of</strong> social practices where <strong>language</strong>
and <strong>ideology</strong> do not play a/the major role. Despite its various and at times contradictory
definitions, the consensus remains amongst the philosophers <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> that its aim is to
affect the political economy <strong>of</strong> social relations. The relationship <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong>
is so ingrained and basic that it would be difficult to see them operate in isolation from
each other. It is through the combine <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong> that status quo is
maintained in society and truths and falsehoods spread and crystallized. As can be
understood from examples collected by some <strong>of</strong> the foremost voices <strong>of</strong> our time, the
transformative power <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> or <strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> is vast, strong, and
lasting.
Keywords: colonialism; consciousness; hegemony; <strong>ideology</strong>; imperialism; <strong>language</strong>;
presentation/ re-presentation; religion; problem <strong>of</strong> definition; propaganda
1. Introduction
In a purely <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong> context, <strong>ideology</strong> is understood in its role as (i) a promoter <strong>of</strong>
one <strong>language</strong> at the cost <strong>of</strong> another <strong>language</strong>, and (ii) a political-economic weapon in the service
<strong>of</strong> oppressive forces (class, colonial, imperial). Strategies like deception and hegemony are
employed by one group or class against another. In Chesnokov’s words
No exploiting class can do without deceiving the people and fabricating a public opinion
that allegedly expresses the real interests, aspirations and views <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> the
population. (Chesnokov, 1969: 359)
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
71

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Hence, this paper is concerned with <strong>ideology</strong> as a tool which sanctifies one <strong>language</strong> on some
noble assumptions, but in fact conceals religious, political, or economic agenda <strong>of</strong> exploitation
behind these assumptions.
2. Ideology
Before trying to understand the notion <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong>, a few concepts should be
clarified. Ideology is itself a complex notion. It is only natural that the paper should begin by
dealing with the notion <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> itself.
2.1. Definition
“Nobody,” says Terry Eagleton, “has yet come up with a single adequate definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>”
(Eagleton, 1991: 1). Eagleton may be right as far as the wording <strong>of</strong> the concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> is
concerned. 1 However, scholars generally agree on the social nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>: it is about social
relations, consciousness, and power struggle which play important parts in carrying out
ideological objectives. Ideology, thus, is also about the consciousness <strong>of</strong> those relations (Kelle
and Kovalson, 1973; Gouldner, 1976; Thompson, 1984; Fairclough, 1989).
O’Sullivan, Fiske, Hartley, Montgomery, and Saunders refine the above views on <strong>ideology</strong> thus:
The social relations <strong>of</strong> signification (knowledge and consciousness) in class societies. . . .
Ideology is seen as any knowledge that is posed as natural or generally applicable,
particularly when its social origins are suppressed. . . . Hence. . . <strong>ideology</strong> is seen as the
practice <strong>of</strong> reproducing social relations <strong>of</strong> inequality within the sphere <strong>of</strong> signification
and discourse. (O’Sullivan et al, 1994: 139-140)
Ideology, it can be argued, is one mechanism by which a ruling group tries to deceive and
control the ruled. In the words <strong>of</strong> J.B. Thompson (1984: 4), <strong>ideology</strong> is “linked to the process <strong>of</strong>
sustaining asymmetrical relations <strong>of</strong> power—to maintain domination. . . by disguising,
legitimating, or distorting those relations”.
One important definition is provided by the Encyclopedia Britannica is that an <strong>ideology</strong> is “a
form <strong>of</strong> social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical
ones; is a system <strong>of</strong> ideas that aspires both to explain the world and change it” (Vol. 20. 1985:
768). This otherwise comprehensive definition can be criticized on one ground: it makes no
explicit reference to religion as <strong>ideology</strong> or part <strong>of</strong> an <strong>ideology</strong>.
1 He gives 23 different definitions <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> that are vastly different from one another (See Eagleton, 1991:
Chapter 1).
72
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Ideology in the West is almost always understood in negative terms (Althusser, 1977; Eagleton,
1989; Fairclough, 1989). Fairclough notes that in the United States, <strong>ideology</strong> and totalitarianism
are taken to be the same, as “totalitarianism is a superordinate term which subsumes fascism,
communism, Marxism” (Fairclough, 1989: 94).
Because definitions <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> have as their context the Western society and its politicaleconomic
problems and issues, it would be relevant to consider non-Western perspectives on
<strong>ideology</strong> too. For instance, in the Islamic context, <strong>ideology</strong> is not a negative concept. It is,
indeed, an exceedingly positive, inspirational notion which governs people’s lives.
From the Islamic point <strong>of</strong> view, <strong>ideology</strong> and religion do not exclude each other: ideological
truths are religious truths and vice versa (Fitzgerald, 2003). Islamic scholars have claimed that
there is no difference between the Islamic and the ideological (Nasr, 1994). For an Islamist a
statement like, “The ideas <strong>of</strong> the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class
which is the ruling material force <strong>of</strong> society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force”
(Marx and Engels, 1974: 64) should be meaningless. The positive image <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> in Islam can
be understood from the fact that the most influential Islamic scholars <strong>of</strong> the twentieth century
have argued that Islam is not a religion, but an <strong>ideology</strong>. For example, Parwez (1959) denounces
the very term religion and says that Islam should not be called a religion, but an <strong>ideology</strong>.
Maududi (1960) and Ahmed (1960) also take the same stand. These Islamic scholars came from
the Indian subcontinent. The Egyptian Hasan al Bana’s 2 formulation <strong>of</strong> Islamic <strong>ideology</strong> has
inspired almost every Islamic political movement in the world since the early decades <strong>of</strong> the 20 th
century: “The Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our Guide; death for the glory <strong>of</strong> Allah is
our greatest ambition” (cited by Hiro, 1989: 63).
In Islam, there is no matter-soul schism (Iqbal, 1977[1944]). The Prophet Muhammad was both
the political ruler and the religious leader <strong>of</strong> his people. The mosque is not just a place <strong>of</strong>
worship, but a place <strong>of</strong> political deliberation too. The haj is not just a religious ritual, it is a great
occasion for the Muslims from all over the world to come together and discuss their sociopolitical
problems (Arjomand 1987; Mandaville, 2007). God’s laws as laid down in the Scripture
must be obeyed. The here and the hereafter are two aspects <strong>of</strong> the same unity. God’s signs are
everywhere without exceptions.
With the above discussion in view, I venture to present a definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> as:
A legitimated, normative, and systematic exercise <strong>of</strong> power by a group in order to
achieve specified collective objectives embedded in an impersonal entity or system.
2 The founder and leader <strong>of</strong> the Muslim Brotherhood.
73
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Ideology finds its verbal objectification in manifestos that ideologues articulate, its
physical correlative in the struggle or movement that people carry out, and its
psychological realization in inner satisfaction or reformation.
2.2. Ideology: raison d’ etre
Ideology endeavors (or claims) to change a situation/system (e.g., Lenin in the former Soviet
Union, Castro in Cuba, the Ayatollah in Iran). But once a system has been established, the same
<strong>ideology</strong> can be used as an instrument to maintain the status quo ante. The Bolsheviks in the
former Soviet Union, Chairman Mao in China, and Ayatollah Khomeini claimed to move into
new eras <strong>of</strong> change, prosperity, and equality (Beetham, 1991); hence, the centrality <strong>of</strong> the role <strong>of</strong>
the systematic use <strong>of</strong> power and myth-making in <strong>ideology</strong>. Ideology, says Lemberg, is
synonymous with myth because both are “systems <strong>of</strong> ideas which constitute and pilot the large
power blocks <strong>of</strong> our society” (Eugen Lemberg cited by Wodak, 1989: 140). By “systematic
exercise <strong>of</strong> power” is meant that an ideological movement or struggle is based on a definite line
<strong>of</strong> action, and is not random. Power is “the production <strong>of</strong> intended effects” (Russell 1995 [1938]:
25), or one’s “ability to produce intended effects upon the world around them” (Beetham, 1991:
43).
When we speak about <strong>ideology</strong>, we also speak about power whether we explicitly say it or not.
As I will try to show later, power and <strong>ideology</strong> cannot be bifurcated. My view is that without
power an <strong>ideology</strong> will not be more than a set <strong>of</strong> beliefs, or a socio-philosophical treatise.
Ideologues without power are no more than pious well-wishers. 3 Change, physical, mechanical,
or else, is the result <strong>of</strong> power exerted in a certain way. Power does not have to be visible; it’s just
there. 4 Gal’s description <strong>of</strong> power and <strong>ideology</strong> is also informative:
Power is more than an authoritative voice in decision making; its strongest form may well
be the ability to define social reality, to impose visions <strong>of</strong> the world. Such visions are
inscribed in <strong>language</strong> and enacted in interaction. (Gal, 1991: 197)
2.3. The scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>
Is <strong>ideology</strong> all-embracing? Meszaros (1989) answers in the affirmative:
. . . the plain truth is that in our societies everything is ‘soaked in <strong>ideology</strong>’, whether we
realize it or not. . . . In Western capitalist societies liberal/conservative ideological
discourse dominates the assessment <strong>of</strong> all values to such an extent that very <strong>of</strong>ten we do
3 That is why they want to grab power to put their ideological principles and claims into practice.
4 For details, see Anderson’s discussion <strong>of</strong> the notions and existence <strong>of</strong> power (Anderson, 1990: Chapter 1).
74
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
not have the slightest suspicion that we are made to accept, quite unquestioningly, a
particular set <strong>of</strong> values to which one could oppose a well founded alternative outlook,
together with the commitments more or less implicit in it. (Meszaros, 1989: 3)
Writing two years after Meszaros, Terry Eagleton has an opposite view. He does not believe that
<strong>ideology</strong> affects every part <strong>of</strong> society:
Any word which covers everything loses its cutting edge and dwindles to an empty
sound. . . . The force <strong>of</strong> the term <strong>ideology</strong> lies in its capacity to discriminate between
those power struggles which are somehow central to a whole form <strong>of</strong> social life, and
those which are not. (Eagleton, 1991: 7-8)
If we take the Islamic view <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>, we would have to prefer Meszaros to Eagleton.
Voloshinov was perhaps right when he spoke <strong>of</strong> the overwhelming presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> in
society: “Wherever a sign is present, <strong>ideology</strong> is present” (Voloshinov, 1973 [1929]: 10).
2.4. Hegemony
“Hegemony,” in Fraser’s words, “is the attempt to provide authoritative definitions <strong>of</strong> social
needs, and the power to shape the political agenda” (Fraser, 1991: 100). Raymond Williams
credits Antonio Gramsci with refining the notion <strong>of</strong> hegemony as it is understood today.
Williams says that it was Gramsci who made hegemony central to the operation <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> in a
given system (for details, see Williams, 1977: 108-114). Hegemony refers to the way a ruling
group secures the consent <strong>of</strong> the subordinate classes. Hegemony, in Gramsci’s own words, is
a continuous process <strong>of</strong> formation and superseding <strong>of</strong> unstable equilibria. . . between the
interests <strong>of</strong> the fundamental group and those <strong>of</strong> the subordinate groups. . . equilibria in
which the interest <strong>of</strong> the dominant group prevail. (Gramsci, 1968: 182)
He argues that it is through common sense that people in a society organize their lives and
experiences. Common sense equals good sense, and ideological truths are taken for granted.
Hence, instead <strong>of</strong> coercing the subordinate groups into accepting the authority and ruling ideas <strong>of</strong>
the ruling class, hegemony naturalizes these ideas so that their acceptance goes unquestioned.
Since social systems continue to evolve, the permanence <strong>of</strong> the acquiescence <strong>of</strong> the subordinate
classes cannot be guaranteed. Hegemony, then, has to reproduce and reinvent the ruling ideas to
maintain the hold <strong>of</strong> the ruling classes. In Gramsci’s own words:
Every philosophical current leaves behind it a sediment <strong>of</strong> ‘common sense’; this is the
document <strong>of</strong> its historical effectiveness. Common sense is not rigid and immobile but is
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
75

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
continually transforming itself, enriching itself with scientific ideas and with
philosophical opinions which have entered ordinary life. Common sense creates the
folklore <strong>of</strong> the future, that is as a relatively rigid phase <strong>of</strong> popular knowledge at a given
place and time. (Gramsci, 1971: 362)
Williams’ reading <strong>of</strong> the above Gramscian passage is this: hegemony is a “process”, and not a
system or a structure. In his own words, hegemony is
a realized complex <strong>of</strong> experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and
changing pressures and limits. In practice, that is, hegemony can never be singular. Its
internal structures are highly complex, as can readily be seen in any concrete analysis.
Moreover, it does not just passively exist as a form <strong>of</strong> dominance. It has continually to be
renewed, recreated, defended, and modified. It is also continually resisted, limited,
altered, challenged by pressures not all its own. We have then to add to the concept <strong>of</strong>
hegemony the concepts <strong>of</strong> counter-hegemony and alternative hegemony, which are real
and persistent elements <strong>of</strong> practice. (Williams, 1977: 112-113)
Hegemony commands consent <strong>of</strong> people. Consent is not always a conscious choice; in a
hegemonic institutional dispensation, people’s acquiescence may be unconscious. Fairclough
expresses this point thus:
“Institutional practices which people draw upon without thinking <strong>of</strong>ten embody
assumptions which directly or indirectly legitimize existing power relations. Practices can
<strong>of</strong>ten be shown to originate in the dominant class or the dominant bloc, and to have
become naturalized.” (Fairclough, 1989: 33)
Auerbach (1995) points out inculcation, which is employed in the service <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>. He
defines inculcation as a mechanism in the hands <strong>of</strong> the power holders which tries to naturalize
those practices which help the power holders preserve their power.
A great deal has been written on how hegemony is used by dominant classes to secure consent <strong>of</strong>
dominated classes. Fairclough calls for taking a different perspective on hegemony. He argues
that the dominated classes are not always helpless in a hegemonic system; they can find ways <strong>of</strong>
defiance. He says:
In research terms, it is important to focus not only on how hegemonic domination is
secured and reproduced at the expense <strong>of</strong> transformation, but also how subjects may
contest and progressively restructure domination through everyday practice. (Fairclough,
1992: 34-35)
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
76

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
3. <strong>Language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong>
The <strong>language</strong>-<strong>ideology</strong> nexus is so strong that Joseph and Taylor think that the very nature <strong>of</strong>
linguistic theorizing is ideological (Joseph and Taylor, 1990). The most significant part that
<strong>ideology</strong> plays in a sociolinguistic setting is to privilege one <strong>language</strong> over another <strong>language</strong> or
<strong>language</strong>s. Such privileging is done on a number <strong>of</strong> pleas, all <strong>of</strong> which are claimed to be good
even for those whose <strong>language</strong>(s) become prey to an ideological <strong>language</strong>. This has historicalcolonial
roots. In Belgian, English, French, and Portuguese colonies, indigenous <strong>language</strong>s, so
far as <strong>of</strong>ficialdom was concerned, were considered unfit for use in a civilized community. The
French <strong>language</strong> and civilization were one and the same thing; thus in the name <strong>of</strong> human
progress the native <strong>language</strong>s were pushed to the periphery in favor <strong>of</strong> French (Adegbija, 1994;
Fishman, 2001).
A number <strong>of</strong> scholars have documented how hidden ideologies have undermined postcolonial
societies. Some time back, a survey was carried out on the <strong>language</strong> situation in a few African
countries. In Nigeria, for instance, local <strong>language</strong>s are not deemed fit for information
dissemination. All the thirty states that make up Nigeria publish newspapers in English, and only
four states publish newspapers in indigenous <strong>language</strong>s. Sub-Saharan countries present a
gloomier scenario. Says Foster, “Over most <strong>of</strong> Africa. . . so far, a vigorous publishing in local
<strong>language</strong>s has failed to develop. . . . A low level <strong>of</strong> demand. . . imposes both quantitative and
qualitative constraints on publication” (Foster, 1971: 608). Angola’s case is very poignant. After
it gained independence, the matter <strong>of</strong> replacing Portuguese, the colonial <strong>language</strong>, came up.
However, the native <strong>language</strong>s had through centuries <strong>of</strong> oppression been so maligned that they
were thought, by their own speakers, to be low status <strong>language</strong> (Adegbija, 1994).
Why is it so?
Phillipson’s answer to this question is that this is so because <strong>of</strong> the legacies these postcolonial
countries have inherited. In his words:
This is the legacy <strong>of</strong> linguicism in which the colonized people have internalized the
<strong>language</strong> and many attitudes <strong>of</strong> their masters, in particular their attitudes to dominant
<strong>language</strong> and the dominated <strong>language</strong>s. (Phillipson, 1992: 128)
In recent years, it has been suggested that a study <strong>of</strong> assumptions and representations which
underlie <strong>language</strong> beliefs is important in order to understand how hidden ideologies mediate
meaning for social purposes in order to legitimate social order. Arguing that ideologies <strong>of</strong>
<strong>language</strong> are not about <strong>language</strong> alone, Woolard maintains that these beliefs underpin “the very
notion <strong>of</strong> the person and the social group, as well as such fundamental social institutions as
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
77

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
religious ritual, child socialization, gender relations, the nation-state, schooling, and law”
(Woolard, 1998: 3). Besides, whenever people interact/communicate, they construct
relationships and hierarchies. Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson in their study <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> use
found that the most significant aspect <strong>of</strong> communication is its being relational in which people
not only share meaning, but also negotiate their relationships: people seek to define “who is in
control” (Watzlawick, et al, 1967: 51).
4. <strong>Language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong> in practice: Some examples
There is a great body <strong>of</strong> literature which tries to show how <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong> cover almost
every area and subject <strong>of</strong> human inquiry (see, e.g., Fowler, Hodge, Kress, and Trew, 1979;
Fowler, 1991; Hodges and Kress, 1993; Wright 1998). However, George Orwell was one <strong>of</strong> the
earliest writers who in prose and fiction tried to show the nexus between <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong>.
In his <strong>of</strong>t-cited essay “Politics and the English <strong>Language</strong>”, he says:
. . . political speech and writing are largely the defense <strong>of</strong> the indefensible. Things like
the continuance <strong>of</strong> British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the
dropping <strong>of</strong> the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments
which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the pr<strong>of</strong>essed
aims <strong>of</strong> political parties. Thus political <strong>language</strong> has to consist largely <strong>of</strong> euphemism,
question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from
the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the
huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions <strong>of</strong> peasants are
robbed <strong>of</strong> their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry:
this is called transfer <strong>of</strong> population or rectification <strong>of</strong> frontiers. People are imprisoned for
years for years without trial, or shot in the back <strong>of</strong> the neck or sent to die <strong>of</strong> scurvy in
Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination <strong>of</strong> unreliable elements. (Orwell, 1984
[1945]: 362)
4.1. <strong>Language</strong> in the service <strong>of</strong> duplicity and falsehood: Orwell’s world
Orwell’s two works <strong>of</strong> fiction—based upon the Soviet system—stand out as prime examples <strong>of</strong>
the way <strong>language</strong> is used to propagate <strong>ideology</strong>.
In his novel Animal Farm (1973 [1946]), Orwell deals with the issue <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong>.
In his “Why I write” Orwell’s <strong>of</strong>fers an insight into the novel, “Animal Farm was the first book
in which I tried, with full consciousness <strong>of</strong> what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic
purpose into one whole”. (1984 [1945]: 12)
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
78

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
In Animal Farm, three pigs, Major, Napoleon, and Snowball (symbolizing Marx, Stalin, and
Trotsky, respectively) take over a farm run by a human, and then appropriate all political power
in the interests <strong>of</strong> the farm animals. After Major’s death, Napoleon emerges as the undisputed
leader <strong>of</strong> the farm and becomes an absolute dictator. In order to hold on to power, he employs
<strong>language</strong> to dupe, blackmail, and terrify other animals. <strong>Language</strong> is given a strange twist in the
name <strong>of</strong> equality: “All animals are equal, but some are more than equal” (Orwell, 1973 [1946]:
114). This ideological expression <strong>of</strong> equality has now become a classic in political and literary
discourse.
Orwell gives more examples <strong>of</strong> announcements that are remarkable for their simplicity,
commonsense, and straightforwardness, but hide ideological agendas:
1. “Napoleon announced that there would be work on Sunday afternoons as well. This work was
strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced
by half.” (p. 53)
2. “Once again all rations were reduced, except those <strong>of</strong> the pigs and dogs. A too rigid equality in
rations, Squealer [a dog] explained, would have been contrary to the principles <strong>of</strong> Animalism.”
(p. 79)
3. “Napoleon had commanded that once a week there should be held something called
Spontaneous Demonstrations.” (pp. 97-8)
In the words <strong>of</strong> Roger Fowler (Fowler, 1995: 164-65), “. . . a major theme <strong>of</strong> the book is the
perversion <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> by an oppressive dictatorship”.
In Orwell’s second work <strong>of</strong> fiction, Ninety Eighty-Four, we come across “Thought Police” and
the “Ministry <strong>of</strong> Truth” whose task is to change history books and newspapers to create, or
recreate, an ideologically correct accounts <strong>of</strong> events. The reason behind this rewriting <strong>of</strong> history
is that whosoever controls the past controls the present and vice versa. The most effective
<strong>language</strong>-and-ideological weapon in the hands <strong>of</strong> the Party is Newspeak, a weapon that is
Whorfian: in the name <strong>of</strong> reducing complexity <strong>of</strong> thought and abstraction the Party dishes out a
new <strong>language</strong> to the masses. But in fact the purpose <strong>of</strong> Newspeak is to reduce the masses to a
subhuman level where <strong>language</strong>, divested <strong>of</strong> its grammar and surface syntax, cannot be used for
critical analysis or enunciations. Syme, who is tasked by the Party to write a dictionary <strong>of</strong>
Newspeak proudly (“proudly”, because he too is ideological ly brainwashed by the Party) says:
“Don’t you see that the whole aim <strong>of</strong> Newspeak is to narrow the range <strong>of</strong> thought?” (Orwell,
1962 [1949]: 44-5).
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
79

On the implications <strong>of</strong> Newspeak John Shotter comments:
Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
For, although, our surroundings may stay materially the same at any one moment in time,
how we make sense <strong>of</strong> them, what we select for attention or to act upon, how we connect
those various events, dispersed in time and space, together and attribute significance to
them, very much depends upon our use <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>. (Shotter, 1993: 2)
4.2. Chomsky’s critique <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong> in the US
In his numerous political writings Chomsky shows how <strong>language</strong> is employed in the service <strong>of</strong>
<strong>ideology</strong>. He argues that from the Cold War onwards the United States has been interfering in
every part <strong>of</strong> the world in the name <strong>of</strong> human rights and democracy, but in fact these
interventions are meant to destroy indigenous oppositions to American exploitation. In Asia,
Africa, and Latin America, the United States has promoted highly emotive theses such as ‘human
rights’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ in order to demonize anti-American resistance. However,
behind this faced <strong>of</strong> humanitarian concern is American pillage if indigenous natural resources.
Thus slogans like “the evil empire”, “Islamo-fascism”, and “the axis <strong>of</strong> evil” are but a cover for
an <strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> intervention. “Chomsky’s work on <strong>ideology</strong>,” in the words <strong>of</strong> Rai, “consists <strong>of</strong>
exactly this: revealing the hidden assumptions <strong>of</strong> mainstream critics.” (Rai, 1995: 36)
Here are a few relevant observations from Chomsky’s corpus on <strong>language</strong> and <strong>ideology</strong>:
1. “In the case <strong>of</strong> Cambodia reported atrocities have not only be eagerly seized upon by the
Western media but also embellished by substantial fabrications—which, interestingly, persist
even long after they have exposed. The case <strong>of</strong> Timor is radically different. The media have
shown no interest in examining the atrocities <strong>of</strong> the Indonesian invaders, though even in absolute
numbers these are on the same scale as those reported by sources <strong>of</strong> comparable credibility
concerning Cambodia, and relative to the population, are many times as great.” (cited by Rai,
1995: 28)
2. “One would have to search a long time to find a favorable word about Syria, South Yemen,
etc., or any word at all. Such coverage as there is uniformly negative, generally harshly so, with
no mitigating elements.” (Chomsky, 1989: 152)
3. “For the past twenty-two years, I have been searching to find some reference in mainstream
journalism or scholarship to an American invasion <strong>of</strong> South Vietnam in 1962 (or ever), or an
American attack against South Vietnam, or American aggression in Indochina—without success.
There is no such event in history. Rather, there is an American defense <strong>of</strong> South Vietnam against
terrorists supported from outside (namely, from Vietnam), a defense that was unwise, the dives
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
80

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
maintain. . . . Within the mainstream, there is no one who can call an invasion an ‘invasion’, or
perceive the fact; it is unimaginable that any American journalist would have publicly called
upon South Vietnam to resist the American invasion”. (Chomsky in Peck, 1987: 225)
4. “The basic structure <strong>of</strong> the argument has the childlike simplicity <strong>of</strong> a fairy tale. There are two
forces in the world, at ‘opposite poles’. In one corner we have absolute evil; in the other
sublimity”. The Cold War as projected by the American media was this: on one side <strong>of</strong> the
conflict was a “nightmare” and on the other, “defender <strong>of</strong> freedom”; “the fundamental design <strong>of</strong>
the Kremlin is the complete subversion or forcible destruction <strong>of</strong> the machinery <strong>of</strong> government
and structure <strong>of</strong> society”; “the fundamental purpose <strong>of</strong> the United States is to assure the integrity
and vitality <strong>of</strong> our free society, which is founded upon the dignity and worth <strong>of</strong> the individual”;
“since a defeat <strong>of</strong> free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere, no corner <strong>of</strong> the world,
however tiny and insignificant, can escape our ministration”; in order to defeat the Soviet Union
we must overcome weaknesses in our society, such as “the excesses <strong>of</strong> a permanently open
mind”, “the excess <strong>of</strong> tolerance”, and to “distinguish between the necessity for tolerance and the
necessity for just suppression”. (Chomsky, 1992: 9-12)
5. “. . . our primary concern [in writing the book] here is not to try to establish the facts with
regard to postwar Indochina, but rather to investigate their refraction through the prism <strong>of</strong>
Western <strong>ideology</strong>. . .” (Chomsky and Herman, 1979: 139f)
4.3. Deceiving and demonizing: Said on Iran
Edward Said’s Chapter 2 <strong>of</strong> Covering Islam (1981) is a critique <strong>of</strong> how the West has seen Iran
from an ideological-linguistic point <strong>of</strong> view resulting in lying, duplicity, and war-mongering.
After the Iranian students took American hostages in 1979, the entire American media—print
and electronic—lost all objectivity and demonized Iran and the Iranians without paying regard to
facts. Said says:
The <strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> modernization produced a way <strong>of</strong> seeing Islam whose apex and
culmination was the image <strong>of</strong> the Shah <strong>of</strong> Iran, both at is zenith, as a ‘modern’ ruler, and
when his regime collapsed, as a casualty to what was looked upon as medieval fanaticism
and religiosity. . . before he left <strong>of</strong>fice President Carter allegedly advised the State
Department to ‘focus all public attention on building up a wave <strong>of</strong> resentment against the
Iranians’. (Introduction: xii-xxi).
Some <strong>of</strong> the examples from the mainstream media provided by Said (1981:75-125) are:
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
81

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
1. “Let there be a rage and revulsion in those first hours <strong>of</strong> release [<strong>of</strong> American hostages]” (The
New York Times).
2. “What should have been done? Mining harbors, or landing marines, or dropping a few bombs
might frighten rational foes. But was Iran—is Iran—rational?” (The New York Times).
3. Newsweek lied about torture that had nothing to do with the facts.
4. The Washington Post claimed that Iran’s hostage-taking was a “war against civilization by
terrorists.”
5. The Washington Post pleaded for blocking the truth about Iran in order to demonize it to the
American people. It said that “the Iran obscenity” [i.e., the hostage-taking] had raised the
possibility that “freedom <strong>of</strong> press”, which presented news about Iran, might be “perverted into a
weapon amid directly at the heart <strong>of</strong> American nationalism and self-esteem”.
6. The New York Times published a report that under the garb <strong>of</strong> calm objectivity and expert
knowledge <strong>of</strong> the Iranian culture referred not to Iran but “the Persian psyche”. The report made
the following points: (i) “Persian proclivity” to resist the very concept <strong>of</strong> a “rational negotiating
process”; (ii) Iranians are overridingly egotistical, and for them reality is malevolent; (iii) and,
Iranians have the “bazaar mentality” that urges immediate advantage over longtime gain.
Said (Said, 1981: Introduction, xxvii) comments that The New York Times “text is rather
ideological statement designed, I think, to turn ‘Persian’ into a timeless, acutely disturbing
essence, thereby enhancing the superior morality and national sanity <strong>of</strong> the American half <strong>of</strong> the
negotiations [over the American hostages in 1979]. . . ‘the effects <strong>of</strong> the Iranian revolution’ are
set aside in the interests <strong>of</strong> the ‘relatively constant. . . cultural and psychological qualities’
underlying ‘the Persian psyche’”.
He also makes a very sharp comment on the ideological framing <strong>of</strong> Iran: “So strong was the
ideological commitment to the idea <strong>of</strong> a monolithic and unchanging Islam that no note was taken
<strong>of</strong> the political processes within this particular Islamic country” (Said, 1981: 94).
4.4. Ideology and censorship: Pilger on East Timor
John Pilger in his Distant Voices (1994) <strong>of</strong>fers a convincing account <strong>of</strong> how <strong>language</strong> and
<strong>ideology</strong> played a vicious role in the reporting <strong>of</strong> Indonesia’s genocide in East Timor. When he
consulted the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) regarding his proposal to cover the
events in East Timor, he came across some interesting facts: he was told that whereas a journalist
was not supposed to “distort or censor material”, they must use “circumspect” <strong>language</strong> and
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
82

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
“discreet” understatements in reporting events in East Timor (1994: 261-262). Pilger argues that
in order to ward <strong>of</strong>f the so-called communists taking over East Timor and at the same time make
money in Indonesia, Australia, Britain, and the United States, and the major media outlets in
those countries joined hand. For example, the New York Times constantly referred to East Timor
as “Indonesia’s 27 th province” in which “Jakarta’s human rights record is said to improve”; the
paper made no mention <strong>of</strong> the genocide in East Timor (1994: 297). The reporting <strong>of</strong> Australian
newspapers (overwhelmingly owned by the far-right ideologue Rupert Murdoch) was no
different.
Ignoring that Indonesia was busy wiping out the East Timorese, the United States increased
supplies <strong>of</strong> arms to Jakarta. At the same time the American government said that “Indonesia
<strong>of</strong>fers excellent trade and investment opportunities for US companies [that are] too good to be
ignored”. The British government was not to be left behind. Only a few months before the
Indonesian invasion “the Confederation <strong>of</strong> British Industry (CBI) announced that Indonesia
presented ‘enormous potential for foreign investor’” (1994: 301).
Pilger argues that for ideological purposes (anti-communism, corporate investment, lassie-fair),
the countries which never tire <strong>of</strong> monopolizing human rights, allowed the Suharto regime
exterminate one-fourths <strong>of</strong> the East Timorese. Pilger concludes: “. . . the very concept <strong>of</strong> ‘human
rights’, . . . has become part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>language</strong> <strong>of</strong> post-Cold War politics. Clinton’s expressions <strong>of</strong>
concern for ‘human rights’ are reminiscent <strong>of</strong> those <strong>of</strong> President Carter, who described ‘human
rights’ as ‘the soul <strong>of</strong> [American] foreign policy’ while increasing American arms supplies to
Indonesia at the height <strong>of</strong> the slaughter <strong>of</strong> East Timor” (p. 300).
5. Conclusion
It may be noted that although <strong>ideology</strong> has been defined and discussed at length in this paper, no
such attention has been paid to <strong>language</strong>. This is true. <strong>Language</strong> is as natural and basic to
humans as breathing, and yet it has been hard for even linguists to define it in a way which can
comprehensively account for it’s a vast functional scope. We can take a look at a few definitions
<strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>:
According to Collins English dictionary, <strong>language</strong> is “a system for the expression <strong>of</strong> thoughts,
feelings, etc., by the use <strong>of</strong> spoken sounds or conventional symbols” (1991: 875).
This is a conventional, lexicographic view <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> and has little bearing on the discussion
we have had in the preceding pages. Here is a definition from two well-known sociolinguists.
According to Fasold and Connor-Linton, <strong>language</strong> is “a finite system <strong>of</strong> elements and principles
that make it possible for speakers to construct sentences to do particular communicative jobs”
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
83

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
(Fasold and Connor-Linton, 2006: 9). Whereas this definition focuses on the communicative
aspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>, it is not <strong>of</strong> much help in understanding the conflictual side <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>. We
will not understand how <strong>language</strong> is used as a weapon <strong>of</strong> one group against another.
A definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> with a wider scope is given by Bussmann who defines <strong>language</strong> as:
Vehicle for the expression or exchanging <strong>of</strong> thoughts, concepts, knowledge, and
information as well as the fixing and transmission <strong>of</strong> experience and knowledge. It is
based on cognitive processes, subject to societal factors and subject to historical change
and development. (Bussmann, 1996: 627)
This definition includes cognitive-societal aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> in both synchronic and diachronic
perspectives. However, it essentializes <strong>language</strong> in idealistic terms: as if experience and
knowledge are a neutral, hygienic monolith. It fails to account for the process where <strong>language</strong> is
more <strong>of</strong> a re-presenter than a representative <strong>of</strong> experience and knowledge. <strong>Language</strong> has its own
laws <strong>of</strong> operation, and it is through <strong>language</strong> that all social practices can be understood (Coward
and Ellis, 1977). <strong>Language</strong> creates its own reality; thus all <strong>language</strong>s (even registers) in their
various contexts are ideological sites. This is why, it is not easy to define <strong>language</strong>.
Whether it is <strong>language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> or <strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>, the result is the same: production
and reproduction <strong>of</strong> the (human) subject and social practices which are <strong>of</strong> transformative nature,
and where all means <strong>of</strong> communication are under the yoke <strong>of</strong> the “ownership” (Barthes, cited by
Coward and Ellis, 1977: 7) <strong>of</strong> powerful interests who define and decide what are truths and
falsehoods, good and bad, and legitimate and illegitimate.
Biography
Abbas Zaidi is a Pakistani writer and journalist based in Brunei Darussalam where he teaches
English at Sultan Saiful Rijal Technical College. He is the author <strong>of</strong> Two and a half words and
other stories, published by Classic Books, Lahore.
References
Adegbija, Efurosibina E. (1994). <strong>Language</strong> attitudes in Sub -Saharan Africa: A sociolinguistic
overview. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ahmed, Khurshid. (1960). The religion <strong>of</strong> Islam. Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd.
Althusser Louis. (1977). For Marx. Trans. B. Brewster. London: Verso.
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
84

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Arjomand, Said Amir (1987). Revolution in Shi’ism. In William R. R<strong>of</strong>f (Ed.), Islam and the
political economy <strong>of</strong> meaning: Comparative studies <strong>of</strong> Muslim discourse (pp. 111-131). New
York: Social Science Research Council.
Auerbach, Elsa Roberts. (1991). The politics <strong>of</strong> the ESL classroom: Issues <strong>of</strong> power and
pedagogical choices. In James W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in <strong>language</strong> education
(pp. 9-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beetham, David. (1991). The Legitimation <strong>of</strong> power. London: Macmillan.
Bussmann, Hadumod. (1996). Routledge dictionary <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> and linguistics. (Translated and
edited by Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi). London: Routledge.
Chesnokov, Dmitrii Ivanovich. (1969). Historical materialism. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Chomsky, Noam. (1989). Necessary illusions: Thought control in democratic societies.
Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1992). Deterring democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S. (1979). After the cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and
the reconstruction <strong>of</strong> imperial <strong>ideology</strong>. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Collins English dictionary (1991). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.
Coward, Rosalind and Ellis, John. (1977). <strong>Language</strong> and materialism: Developments in
semiology and the theory <strong>of</strong> the subject. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Eagleton, Terry. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.
Eagleton, Terry. (1989). Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fairclough, Norman. (1989). <strong>Language</strong> and power. Longman: London.
Fairclough, Norman. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fasold, Ralph and Connor-Linton, Jeffrey. (2006). Introduction. In Ralph Fasold and Jeffrey
Connor-Linton (Eds.), An introduction to <strong>language</strong> and linguistics (pp. 1-12). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
85

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Fishman, Joshua A. (2001). Can threatened <strong>language</strong>s be saved?: Reversing <strong>language</strong> shift,
revisited : A 21st century perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fitzgerald, Timothy (2003). The Ideology <strong>of</strong> religious studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foster, Philip J. (1971). Problems <strong>of</strong> literacy in sub-Saharan Africa. In Thomas A. Sebeok (Ed.)
Current trends in linguistic (pp. 587-618). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fowler, Roger. (1991). <strong>Language</strong> in the news: Discourse and <strong>ideology</strong> in the press. London:
Routledge.
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G., and Trew, T. (1979).
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
<strong>Language</strong> and control. London:
Fraser, N. (1991), The uses and abuses <strong>of</strong> French discourse theories for feminist politics. In P.
Wexler (Ed.), Critical theory now (98-117). London: Falmer Press.
Gal, Susan. (1991). Between speech and silence: The problematics <strong>of</strong> research on <strong>language</strong> and
gender. In M. di Leonardo (Ed.), Gender at the crossroads <strong>of</strong> knowledge: Feminist anthropology
in the post-modern era (175-203). Berkley: University <strong>of</strong> California Press.
Goulclner, Alvin W. (1976).
University Press.
The dialectic <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong> and technology. New York: Oxford
Gramsci, Antonio. (1968). Prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Hiro, Dilip. (1989). Holy wars: The rise <strong>of</strong> Islamic fundamentalism. London: Routledge.
Hodges, Robert Ian Vere and Kress, Gunther R. (1993). <strong>Language</strong> as <strong>ideology</strong>. Routledge.
Iqbal, Sir Muhammad. 1977 [1944]. Speeches, writings, and statements <strong>of</strong> Iqbal. Compiled and
edited by Latif Ahmed Sherwani. Lahore: Iqbal Academy.
Joseph, John Earl and Taylor, Talbot J. (1990). Introduction: Ideology, science and <strong>language</strong>. In
John Earl Joseph, Talbot J. Taylor (Eds.), Ideologies <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong> (pp1-8). London: Taylor &
Francis.
Kelle, Vladislav and Kovalson, Matvei (1973). Historical materialism: Outline <strong>of</strong> Marxist theory
<strong>of</strong> society. London: Central Books.
Mandaville, Peter. (2007).
Global political Islam. London: Routledge.
86
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick. (1974). The German <strong>ideology</strong>. Edited by C.J. Arthur, London:
Central Books.
Maududi, Sayyid Abul Ala. (1960). Towards understanding Islam. Translated by Khurshid
Ahmad. Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd.
Meszaros, Istvan. (1989). The power <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Nasr, Seyyed Vali (1994). The vanguard <strong>of</strong> the Islamic revolution: The Jama’at-i Islami <strong>of</strong>
Pakistan. Los Angeles: University <strong>of</strong> California Press.
O’Sullivan, Tim, Fiske, John, Hartley, John, Montgomery, Martin, and Saunders, Danny. (1994).
Key concepts in communication and cultural studies. Routledge: London.
Orwell, George. 1962 [1949]. Nineteen eighty-four. London: Penguin
Orwell, George. (1973 [1946]). Animal farm. London: Penguin.
Orwell, George. 1984 [1945]. The Penguin essays <strong>of</strong> George Orwell. London: Penguin Books
Peck, James (1987). The Chomsky reader. New York: Pantheon Books.
Perwez, Ghulam Ahmed. (1959). Islam: A challenge to religion. Lahore: Talu-e-Islam Trust.
[Also available: www.Sociology <strong>of</strong> illiteracy\islam-a-challenge-to-religion-by-gaparwez.pdf]
Phillipson, Robert (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pilger, John (1994). Distant voices. London: Vintage.
Rai, Milan. (1995). Chomsky’s politics. London: Verso.
Russell, Bertrand. (1995) [1938]. Power. London: Routledge.
Said, Edward W. (1981). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see
the rest <strong>of</strong> the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Shutter, John. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through <strong>language</strong>. London:
Sage.
The new encyclopedia Britannica. (1998). Macropedia. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
Thompson, John B. (1984). Studies in the theory <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
87

Journal <strong>of</strong> Postcolonial Cultures and Societies
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic)
Voloshinov, V.N. (1973) [1929]. Marxism and the philosophy <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Watzlawick, Paul, Bavelas, Janet Beavin, and Jackson, Don De Avila. (1967). Pragmatics <strong>of</strong>
human communication. New York: W.W. Norton.
Williams, Raymond. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wodak, Ruth. (1989). Introduction. In Ruth Wodak (Ed.), <strong>Language</strong>, power, and <strong>ideology</strong>:
Studies in Political Discourse (pp. xiii-xx). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Woolard, Kathryn A. (1998). Introduction: <strong>Language</strong> Ideology as a Field <strong>of</strong> Inquiry. In Bambi B.
Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity (Eds.), <strong>Language</strong> ideologies: Practice
and theory (3-47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, S. 1998. <strong>Language</strong> and conflict. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.
‘<strong>Language</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ideology</strong>/<strong>ideology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>language</strong>: <strong>Notes</strong> on theory and practice,’ Abbas Zaidi
JPCS Vol 3, No 1, 2012
88