In politics the meaning of ‘moderniser’ is hard to pin down
|
Version 0 of 1. It was the description of Syriza as far-left by some journalists that prompted readers to complain about the use of political labels in the Guardian. The debate, which featured in an Open door column on 9 March, has kicked off again following the Labour leadership contest. Readers are once again challenging the language used to describe different sections of the party: “Could you please examine the frequent use in the Guardian of the terms ‘moderates’ and ‘modernisers’ when describing the right wing of the Labour party?” wrote one. “These have always been loaded terms, biased when used uncritically, and are increasingly contentious and misleading. They are code. ‘Modernisers’ is particularly absurd, given that this harks back to New Labour. What ‘modernisers’ means in practice appears to be ‘privatisers’. ‘Moderates’ are people of the centre-right who are against any real critique of inequality. What is very disappointing is that this is dog-whistle terminology used by the rightwing press, giving journalists an excuse not to describe the position they are referring to, and designed to imply that anyone who disagrees is old-fashioned and extreme.” Another reader wrote: “What is a moderniser? Presumably it is the opposite of an archaiciser or a dinosaur. It looks like a weasel word for Blairite or rightwing Labour. By using it the Guardian explicitly aligns itself with a conservative element in the Labour party. If it means something explain what its politics are and why it deserves this Guardian imprimatur. Viewed from Wales the Blairite attempt immediately after the election to bury Ed Miliband’s partial attempt to acknowledge the failings of the Blair and Brown governments to challenge Tory ideology looks deeply conservative and reactionary, not ‘modernising’.” Andrew Sparrow, the Guardian’s political blogger, said his starting point – as he made clear six months ago – is that all political labels tend to be somewhat inadequate, but that journalists need shorthand terms to explain complex issues or divisions quickly and simply and that, as long as they illuminate more than they mislead, they can be justified. He said: “I accept that the moderniser/moderate terms are particularly difficult, because they sound loaded. Ideally we should use neutral terms. But they are terms that are widely understood and, crucially, in Labour party terms, they are terms that those involved actually do use in relation to themselves. “They are also terms that are not empty. For Tony Blair, ‘modernisation’ was at the heart of his political thinking (he thought it was the job of politicians to manage change, which he saw as inevitable) and people who identify with him use the term. ‘Moderate’ implies being in the middle politically and, although the terms left and right are problematic, if you ask people where they are on a left-right spectrum (as pollsters and political scientists sometimes do), you will get a useful answer.” Sparrow also put in a plea for readers not to imagine that everything written with which they disagree is motivated by bad faith or bias. A fair point, I think. The wider problem is that labels don’t work where there is no common agreement about what they represent. The 1970s “rightwing” Labour voter may have felt quite a tingle of centre-leftism by 2010 and now where does that person stand or sit? It means journalists need to be even more careful. However, complaints about language are not confined to terms used in connection with the Labour party. A reader took exception to the use of the term “blue-rinse” by Aditya Chakrabortty in an article published on 6 October. The reader wrote: “This was a feature of the 1950s, when rich women could afford hairdressers and there were no good brown dyes that did not proclaim the henna in them. During the 1960s good brown dyes became accessible and one did not have to go to London for them. By about 1968 blue rinses signalled that the users were poor. Since about 1970 blue rinses have not been a feature of women’s appearance. To mention them nowadays may be an example of the invisibility of older women. Could I prevail upon you to outlaw this cliche in the style guide?” Just when you think you know what a label means… |