Published 18 July 20144 August 2014 · Main Posts / Politics / Culture Officialese and sovereign borders Christopher Mayes Scott Morrison’s recent performances at press conferences have taken on a Dadaist quality. The repetition, stock phrases and non-sequiturs of Morrison’s bureaucratic officialese has elements of the absurd. Question: So could you clarify sir for us at what point does an event become a significant event involving a boat on the water? Minister Morrison: When you see me here standing and reporting on it. Question: And you are standing here reporting. Minister Morrison: I am not. I am saying there is no such report for me to provide to you today. Decontextualised, Morrison’s speech is humorous. But in the context of desperate people seeking the safety of our shores, we need more than comedy. It is important to note the way this language creates the reality in which the violence of Operation Sovereign Borders can occur unnoticed. Hannah Arendt, the German-American political theorist and subject of a recent film, noted the importance of language for disclosing reality in which certain thoughts and actions were made possible. Words do not just convey information about our intentions, but reveal and create the reality in which we act and think. Language enables us to think and engage in the world with others in creative and new ways. A limited language, however, limits these possibilities of thinking, especially from the perspective of others. It is this limitation that Arendt (in)famously heard during the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was the Nazi lieutenant colonel responsible for managing the logistics of transporting Jews and Untermenschen (inferior people) to the camps. He was brought to trial in Jerusalem in 1960, after being caught by Mossad in Argentina. Reporting on the trial for The New Yorker, Arendt controversially characterised Eichmann as neither an idiot nor a monster, but a bureaucrat and family man who claimed to try and live his life according to Kant’s categorical imperative. But how does a bureaucrat commit such crimes against so many people? Part of the answer is language. The language of the bureaucrat – officialese – sets the parameters for thought and creates a world for the speaker where some things can exist and others can’t. The bureaucracy – literally, rule of the office – and its limited language buffered Eichmann from understanding what he was doing as brutal murder. This is how Eichmann maintained that he ‘never killed any human being’, despite being central to the logistics of the greatest mass killings in human history. Arendt describes a scene during Eichmann’s trial where the judge cannot understand one of Eichmann’s clichés. Eichmann cannot explain what he means using any other words and apologises saying, ‘officialese [Amtssprache] is my only language’. The point Arendt takes from this exchange is that Eichmann’s language and thought is comprised of clichés and officialese. This limited language renders him incapable of uttering different sentences, thinking new ideas or understanding another person’s perspective. The longer she listened to him, Arendt felt that ‘the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else.’ The official language of the bureau created a world for Eichmann where he didn’t need to encounter the presence of others because those others did not exist in that world. He was not killing human beings, but managing and coordinating. The numbers on pieces of paper on his desk were not people that he could communicate with but abstractions to be administrated and transported. What does this mean for Operation Sovereign Borders? Firstly, calling someone a Nazi is itself cliché and rarely moves the discussion along. But this doesn’t mean we should avoid listening for the echoes of the past in practices of the present. Handing AS back to SL navy at sea redolent off handing Jews to Nazis in 1930s — Malcolm Fraser (@MalcolmFraser12) July 4, 2014 I am not suggesting that Scott Morrison is a national socialist or even a racist. But there are similarities between what Arendt identified in Eichmann’s language and the language of border protection. The language of Operation Sovereign Borders erases the human elements that we can relate to, leaving only abstractions and qualities to fear. Within this reality only certain thoughts are possible. ‘People smugglers’ with their ‘business models’, ‘illegal maritime arrivals’ in ‘suspected illegal entry vessels’, ‘on water matters’ that can’t be discussed unless they ‘involve safety of life at sea’, and ‘enhanced screening processes’ that separate ‘illegals’ from ‘genuine refugees’. This bureaucratic officialese masks the reality of Operation Sovereign Borders and allows the unthinkable and unspeakable to occur. It allows us to believe that wealthy economic migrants are jumping queues, yet restricts thought about actual living conditions in the offshore concentration camps. It permits us to speak of self-harm as ‘moral blackmail’while silencing discussion of the severe lack of appropriate medical care in the camps. It encourages fear of the unknown but denies the possibility of empathising with wellbeing of others. The impenetrable officialese of Operation Sovereign Borders doesn’t allow us to think of the hopes and dreams of the people coming to our shores or floating on our waters. People with hopes and dreams are not in the boats. ‘Illegal maritime arrivals’ are in the boats, and their hopes and dreams? Well, to quote Morrison, we can’t ‘speculate on hypotheticals’. We should lampoon Morrison and the officialese of Operation Sovereign Borders. Arendt mocks Eichmann’s clichéd speech throughout her book. Humour has an important role in critiquing our politicians. But we need to be aware of the more troubling effects of language for thought, reality and our relations to others. In Arendt’s terms, we need ‘to think what we are doing’. To do this we need to be aware of the way our language creates realities that permit us to do some things and not others. Christopher Mayes Christopher Mayes is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine (VELiM) at the University of Sydney. His research focuses on biopolitics and continental philosophy approaches to bioethics. Information about his research and publications can be found here. He is on Twitter as @chrisrmayes. More by Christopher Mayes › Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places. If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate. Related articles & Essays First published in Overland Issue 228 10 November 202311 November 2023 · Subscriberthon 2023 On the final day of Subscriberthon, Overland’s most important members get to have their say Editorial Team BORIS A quick guide to another year of Overland, from your trusty feline, Boris. I liked the ginger cat story, though it made my human cry. I liked the talking cat, too, but I’m definitely in the “not wasting my time learning to talk” camp. But reading is good. And writing is fun, though it’s been challenging […] 1 First published in Overland Issue 228 9 November 20239 November 2023 · Subscriberthon 2023 On the second-last day of Subscriberthon, Overland’s co-chief editor Evelyn Araluen speaks truth to power Editorial Team To my friends and comrades, I’m not sure if there’s language to communicate how this last month has utterly changed me. This time a few weeks ago the busyness and chaos of bricolage arts and academic labour had so efficiently distracted me from my anxiety about the upcoming referendum that I forgot to prepare myself for its inevitable conclusion.