February 2021
If recent years of sharply divided politics have taught us anything, it’s that words matter.
Indiana University social scientist Dina Okamoto is analyzing how specific language may impact U.S. society.
Analyzing 'us v. them' language in politics, policy
"The language we use matters in how individuals and groups are understood,” said Okamoto, director of the Center for Research on Race and Ethnicity in Society at IU Bloomington. “In the U.S., public debate is fraught with discussions about ‘us’ versus ‘them’, where ‘us’ is often defined as white Americans. The language used to separate ‘us’ and ‘them’ is what we call boundary rhetoric, and it is not without consequences.”
Okamoto recently received a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation to study the use of boundary rhetoric over time. Tamara van der Does, a former graduate student at IU Bloomington, and Mirta Galesic, currently both of the Santa Fe Institute, are working with Okamoto on the study. Okamoto is also Class of 1948 Herman B Wells Professor of Sociology in the IU Bloomington College of Arts and Sciences.
Boundary rhetoric refers to the ways in which people use words to create distinctions, or boundaries, between different groups, Okamoto said. Examples include anti-Muslim rhetoric that spread after the events of 911 or more recent rhetoric focused on immigrants from Mexico and other parts of Latin America, spurred by increased federal border enforcement.
Okamoto and her research partners are taking a systematic look at how boundary rhetoric is used, particularly by politicians. Using computational methods to identify “othering” language, they will sift through almost 100 years of political speeches captured in the U.S. Congressional Record, from 1930 to 2020. The Congressional Record contains verbatim transcripts of floor debates and remarks from Senate and House proceedings.
Understanding how members of Congress draw boundaries between “deserving” and “undeserving” immigrants is crucial, Okamoto said, because their speeches convey messages about belonging—who is “American” and who is not—to multiple audiences, including constituents, lobbyists, other politicians and federal officials. This language can shape how policies are made and influence public opinion, and determine who has access to resources, and who does not.
The researchers’ goals are to identify patterns and changes in boundary rhetoric. What social factors shape politicians’ use of boundary rhetoric in their speeches, and how do those patterns shift over time?
“We’re interested in the longitudinal aspect,” Okamoto said. “People think there is so much boundary rhetoric in use right now, but it may not be higher now than in other historical periods. We want to find out if that is the case.”
While rhetoric in political arenas is not new, Okamoto and her colleagues are focused on learning more about the language and characteristics politicians use rhetorically to separate “us” and “them,” as well as how, when, and under what conditions such rhetoric rises and falls, changing from targeting one immigrant group to another.
Okamoto said she hopes the work will increase public awareness about the language that we ourselves and public officials use to “other” and dehumanize groups, and keep them from having access to the same rights as other Americans.
Okamoto’s project is one of two IU projects funded recently by the Russell Sage Foundation. The other, by Brea Perry, professor of sociology; Bernice Pescosolido, Distinguished Professor of sociology; and Heather Francis, assistant research scientist, focuses on social inequality and social interactions during the pandemic crisis. IU received two out of the 12 research grants announced by the Russell Sage Foundation in January 2021.