Anna Szilágyi on how words can counter othering and promote belonging
Dr. Anna Szilágyi is an expert in communication, media and politics. Speaking Hungarian, Russian, and English and having lived in different localities, she does cross-cultural research exploring the dynamics of both public discourses and interpersonal communication in different contexts including Eastern and Western Europe, Southeast Asia, Russia, and the United States. The Democracy and Belonging Forum’s Evan Yoshimoto met with Anna to discuss the discursive tactics of far-right populists in Hungary and the US, the role of bridging and linguistic awareness in countering these narratives, and the power of language in promoting belonging.
Hi Anna! It’s an honor to meet with you. Your research focus includes the power of language in culture, society, and politics. Firstly, I’d like to know, what do othering and belonging mean to you? And how can language promote or diminish people’s sense of belonging?
Thank you for your kind words Evan. I’m glad to contribute with this short interview to the important work that you all do at the institute. And to answer your question: in my understanding ‘othering’ and ‘belonging’ become meaningful in relation to each other. The destructive power of exclusion highlights the peace, stability, and warmth that inclusion and the feeling of being included can give to human beings both on an individual and a collective level.
Coming from a multicultural and multiethnic family, I have noticed already as a child that language plays a crucial role in how people with different backgrounds are seen and treated in various societies. These early impressions still inspire my scholarly research today. I explore the use of destructive and constructive language across time and space. Words can lure groups and communities into dangerous and destructive ideologies, turning them into ardent supporters of disastrous deeds and policies. However, language can also serve as a bridge that unites people and fosters healing on a collective level.
You’ve been investigating the rhetorical strategies that have helped radical right-wing populists establish the businessman and philanthropist George Soros as a public enemy in the US and Hungary. According to your research, conspiracy theories and enemy propaganda campaigns —such as the one against Soros—can become the dominant means of legitimizing illiberal rule in highly polarized contexts. Can you share with us what is happening in Hungary and the US right now and the implications this has for group-based othering?
With my friend and co-author, social anthropologist Kristóf Szombati, we spent a year exploring, comparing, and contrasting rhetoric in Hungary and the US that targets George Soros — known worldwide as both a billionaire financier and investor and as the “open society” philanthropist and democracy proponent. We found that the anti-Soros narratives in the two countries differ primarily in terms of scope. While in the US, anti-Soros rhetoric is just one component of variegated right-wing discourses, in Hungary it is the dominant language of the government and its media. Yet, the anti-Soros rhetoric in both countries largely overlaps, generally fostering polarization and undermining democratic norms and values.
In terms of “othering”, at least three important trends should be highlighted. First, Soros has been portrayed as the mastermind behind mass immigration both in the US and Hungary. Hence the anti-Soros narratives evoke anti-migrant and anti-refugee sentiments. Second, our analysis demonstrated that in both cases the anti-Soros narratives feed on antisemitism, and, more particularly, the association of Jews with economic power and political influence. Third, the anti-Soros narratives are used to construct “a political Other,” assigning the role of the enemy not only to Soros, but also to all those in the political community who oppose and resist populism and authoritarian tendencies.
Let me just mention one example: in Hungary independent and oppositional media outlets have been widely labeled as “Soros-blogs,” and “Soros-media” by the official and unofficial state propaganda. These hyphenated compound words allow speakers to discredit journalists who do not identify with the government’s agenda and rhetoric.
How do the far right in the US and Hungary mimic each other? How do they share strategies? What sorts of discursive tactics do far-right populists often use to gain power?
I don’t think that we are talking about a specific “Hungarian” or “US” phenomenon: it very much seems that populist parties across the world proactively learn from each other. We also see that sometimes the same pollsters and campaign strategists may assist politicians and parties in their efforts to divide and conquer. US political consultant George Birnbaum claimed for example, in a Swiss article published in 2019, that he and his colleague Arthur Finkelstein, the late Republican pollster and campaign strategist, had invented the Soros-bogeyman for Hungary’s strongman, Viktor Orbán and according to media articles the Birnbaum-Finkelstein duo worked in other countries as well. However, the similarities between the agendas and rhetorics of the parties in question in a sense is also a “natural” outcome. The elements of enemy propaganda are similar to those sandbox tools which can be filled again and again, but will always produce similar shapes: pronouns ‘we’ and ‘them’ divide and set people against each other, powerful labels reduce individuals who belong to different groups into morally superior and inferior card-board figures, narratives of victimhood provide justification for the abuse of power and aggression, and dehumanizing metaphors urge people to think of and act towards others inhumanely.
And what role does bridging and linguistic awareness have in countering these narratives?
Unfortunately, most of us have only a few, if any, opportunities to learn about the profound impact that words have on human beings. Conventionally, schools tend to neglect the teaching of the necessary skills that would enable their students to speak and listen with awareness. We learn, for instance, that the words ‘I’, ‘you’, and ‘we’ are called personal pronouns, but no one explains that these tiny linguistic devices can evoke strong feelings in people, that they can fill our hearts with joy or make us sad, angry, and even hateful. Likewise, while oppression, terror, war, massacre, and genocide are always assisted, fed, and harbored by words, schools fail to educate their students about the essence of language that makes human catastrophes possible. We are introduced to the vicious ideologies of the past through the learning of history, but never to the rhetorical devices that enabled their spread.
I think it’s crucial for all of us to realize that we have no reason to dismiss the power of human speech. Traditionally we associate power with things such as money, fame, or political control. However, other forms of power also exist and communication is one of them. We can use words wisely and speak with awareness whenever and whoever we talk with—to build human confidence, happiness, dignity, and well-being. Isn’t that powerful? And we can experience great strength not only when we speak, but also when we listen to others. If we know how to listen with awareness, we can also take better care of ourselves and the world. By embracing the power of listening, we can become less susceptible to destructive ideologies. We won’t fall for dangerous speech so easily or dismiss it as mere rhetoric. This alone can give us tremendous power.
People who know how to listen with awareness can accomplish great things. Such listening enables us to protect ourselves, our loved ones, societies, and the environment against the rise and spread of anger, exploitation, hate, harm, and abuse—everything we are witnessing today. It is very possible that our efforts will not change entire political and social landscapes, but they can still alter and color their fabrics in important ways.