SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
75
THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE AMBIGUITY AND ITS
INFLUENCE ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
Amirova Parizoda Ibragim qizi
Student at the University of Economics and Pedagogy
In the field of Philology and language teaching English
Abstract:
This article delves into Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical insights
from The Ethics of Ambiguity examining the intricate moral dilemmas surrounding
freedom, violence, and ethical resistance. It highlights de Beauvoir’s stance that
violence is justifiable only within strict ethical boundaries and underscores the
significance of responsible actions, personal accountability, and solidarity with
others. By reflecting on various human attitudes and moral decisions, the article
encourages readers to embrace ambiguity, act with mindfulness, and pursue justice
while maintaining compassion and humanity.
Аннотация:
Статья посвящена философским взглядам Симоны де
Бовуар, изложенным в
её работе Этика неопределённости. Основное внимание
уделяется
моральным дилеммам, связанным со свободой, насилием и
ответственным
сопротивлением. Автор отмечает, что насилие может быть
оправдано лишь в
исключительных случаях и при строгом соблюдении
этических норм. Через
анализ различных типов человеческого поведения
статья призывает
принимать неопределённость, действовать осознанно и
стремиться к
справедливости, не утрачивая человечности и уважения к
свободе других.
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
76
Annotatsiya:
Ushbu maqola Simone de Beauvoirning Noaniqlik
etikasi asaridagi falsafiy qarashlarini
o‘rganadi. Unda ozodlik,
zo‘ravonlik va axloqiy qarshilikka oid murakkab masalalar
chuqur
tahlil qilingan. Muallif de Beauvoirning zo‘ravonlikni faqat qat’iy axloqiy
cheklovlar doirasida oqlashini ta’kidlaydi va mas’uliyatli harakatlar, shaxsiy
javobgarlik hamda boshqalar bilan birdamlikning ahamiyatini yoritadi. Maqola
insoniy xattiharakatlarning
turli shakllarini o‘rganib, o‘quvchilarni noaniqlikni
qabul qilishga, ongli
harakat qilishga va adolatga insoniylikni yo‘qotmasdan
erishishga undaydi.
Keywords:
Simone de Beauvoir, ethics of ambiguity, moral responsibility,
freedom, violence, ethical resistance, personal choice, solidarity, justice, human
behavior, existentialism[4], moral boundaries, duality, compassion, philosophical
ethics.
Ключевые слова
:
Симона де Бовуар, этика неопределённости,
моральная ответственность,
свобода, насилие, этическое сопротивление,
личный выбор, солидарность,
справедливость, человеческое поведение,
экзистенциализм,
границы
морали,
двойственность,
сострадание,
философская этика.
Kalit so
‘
zlar:
Simona de Bovuar, noaniqlik etikasi, axloqiy mas
’
uliyat,
erkinlik, zo
‘
ravonlik, axloqiy qarshilik, shaxsiy tanlov, birdamlik, adolat, inson
xulq-atvori, ekzistensializm, axloqiy chegaralar, ikkiyuzlamachilik, hamdardlik,
falsafiy etika.
Language and politics are deeply intertwined, forming a dynamic relationship
that shapes not only our thoughts but also how we perceive ourselves and the world
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
77
around us. Far from being a neutral tool for communication, language
is the foundation upon which political realities are constructed. From
ancient Athens to modern online forums, the role of language in
shaping political discourse has remained pivotal. Aristotle once argued that the
polis
—
the city-state
—
could not function without the discursive engagement of its
citizens, a principle that still holds true today. Every word spoken by a political
leader carries immense weight, influencing emotions, decisions, and collective
perceptions.Politicians wield language with remarkable precision, carefully
selecting terms that can inspire hope or incite fear, foster unity or deepen
divisions.[
7]
Phrases like "tax relief" evoke a sense of liberation, while "tax burden"
stirs resentment toward government policies. Similarly, "climate action" paints a
picture of collective heroism, whereas "economic constraint" suggests sacrifice and
hardship. These linguistic choices
are far from accidental; they frame public debates in specific ways, steering
conversations toward predetermined conclusions. [
7
]Through subtle shifts in
phrasing, leaders shape not only the issues at hand but also the emotional responses
of their audiences.[
7
]Beyond framing issues, language determines who gets to
participate in the political arena. The selection of official languages for constitutions,
legislatures, and international agreements can elevate certain groups while
marginalizing others. Minority languages
—
and the cultural identities tied to them
—
are often sidelined, sparking struggles for recognition and representation. In times
of crisis, such as wars, pandemics, or economic upheavals, the power of rhetoric
becomes even more pronounced. Leaders can rally people around shared values with
unifying speeches, or they can exploit fear and division through carefully crafted
narratives.What makes political language sopowerful is not merely the literal
meaning of words but their emotional resonance, metaphorical depth, and ability to
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
78
construct compelling stories.[
7
] By weaving together tales of past
triumphs and visions of a hopeful future, politicians create collective
myths that justify sweeping policies or social movements. Churchill’s
iconic “fight on the beaches” speech galvanized Britain with a narrative of heroic
resilience, while Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can” slogan transformed a campaign
into a symbol of generational change.To truly understand the workings of power in
democracies and authoritarian regimes alike, we must delve beyond [6] surface-level
policy discussions and explore the [6] rhetorical, cultural, and psychological
dimensions
of political speech. Language is not just a medium of communication
—
it is a tool of
empowerment and control, capable of carving out new possibilities for action or
reinforcing existing hierarchies.[1] Without appreciating this deeper interplay, any
analysis of political behavior risks overlooking the threads that bind words, ideas,
and power into the fabric of society.The interplay between language and politics has
always
intrigued me. It’s not merely about the words we choose—it’s about the
immense power they wield and how they shape our perception of the world.
Language, by its very nature, is deeply political. It crafts narratives, defines
identities, and often determines whose voice is amplified and whose is silenced. Far
beyond being a tool for communication, language serves as an instrument of control,
persuasion, and even resistance. This dynamic is evident throughout history and is
particularly pronounced in today’s political
landscape. Politicians, leaders, and
activists carefully select their words to evoke emotions, garner support, or suppress
dissent. A subtle shift in phrasing can completely transform the meaning of a
message.[6] For instance, calling for “a second referendum”
might resonate as a
democratic choice to some, while others might interpret it as
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
79
betrayal or hesitation. This is the [6]power of framing in political
discourse.Consider the nuances of political language. When someone
describes an idea as a “coherent
proposition” that “deserves to be
considered,” they aren’t necessarily endorsing it.
[4]They may simply be
acknowledging that the idea fits within a logical framework, even if they personally
disagree. I recently heard a speaker refer to a second referendum as a
“perfectly
coherent position.” He clarified that, while many oppose the idea, it shouldn’t
be
dismissed outright. This was a refreshing display of intellectual honesty. He wasn’t
advocating for the referendum but was affirming its legitimacy within a fair debate.
That distinction is crucial. In political arguments, especially those online, people
often conflate
recognizing someone’s right to speak with agreeing with their stance.
Yet true
democratic discourse demands that we listen to perspectives we don’t share
and allow space for them to be considered.What struck me most was how this brief
clip highlighted a broader issue in politics: the tendency to oversimplify or
misrepresent people’s words.
Just because someone calls an idea “valid” or “worthy of debate” doesn’t mean
they
endorse it. Unfortunately, in today’s fast
-paced media environment, such
nuances are frequently lost. People are quick to label, judge, and react
—
often
without hearing the full context. This knee-jerk response stifles dialogue before it
has a chance to flourish. And when dialogue is silenced, democracy suffers.This
reminds me of the critical importance of thinking deeply about political language.
Words carry immense weight, and every choice matters. Whether spoken by a prime
minister, a protester, or a podcast guest, language reveals not just beliefs but
intentions
—
how individuals hope to shape the thoughts of others.[1] As someone
committed to truth and fairness in debate, I believe we all have a responsibility to
listen attentively, challenge assumptions, and resist the urge to jump to conclusions.
Political language is more than policy
—it’s about people, emotions, and the stories
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
80
we tell about ourselves and our world. If we aspire to a healthier
political future, we must improve how we listen, speak, and
understand one another. Language is an incredibly powerful tool in
political speeches and debates
—
not merely a means of conveying information, but
a mechanism for shaping how people think and feel. Politicians excel at using words
to connect with emotions, simplify complex issues, and subtly guide public opinion,
often without the audience even realizing it. [1]A key strategy lies in the use of
emotionally charged words like “freedom,” “justice,” or “tyranny.” These terms
resonate deeply because they tap into universal values, historical contexts, and
personal aspirations. By invoking such potent concepts, politicians make their
arguments feel urgent and relatable, stirring emotions that drive engagement and
support. Similarly, metaphors serve as a crucial tool for breaking down intricate
topics.[2] For example,
describing a country as a “family” fosters a sense of unity
and shared responsibility,
while likening an economy to a “machine” helps people
visualize its structure and functions. These vivid images transform abstract ideas into
something tangible and easier to understand. Another subtle yet impactful technique
is metonymy
—
using a single word or phrase to represent a broader concept. For
instance, saying “the crown”
instead of “the monarchy” or “Wall Street” to
symbolize financial power condenses complex ideas into simple, digestible symbols,
making the message more memorable.
Even small linguistic choices, such as pronouns, can significantly influence
perceptions.
[2]Using “we” fosters a sense of togetherness and shared purpose, while
“they” creates
division, framing an opposing group as adversaries. Questions also
serve as a clever
rhetorical tactic. When a politician asks, “Why are we allowing
foreign powers to control
us?” the phrasing subtly implies that foreign control is
already an issue, steering the audience toward a specific assumption. Similarly,
repetition is a powerful way to embed
ideas into people’s minds. Catchy slogans like
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
81
“Yes we can” or “Make America great
again” stick because they are
simple, rhythmic, and emotionally resonant, becoming rallying cries
that unite supporters and reinforce central messages.Rhythm and
contrast further amplify the persuasive impact of political language.[2] By
juxtaposing hopeful visions with dire warnings, politicians make their ideas more
compelling and memorable.
Alternating between formal and casual speech also allows them to connect with
a wide range of audiences, from intellectuals to everyday citizens, adapting their
tone to suit the occasion. Altogether, these linguistic strategies make political
language extraordinarily persuasive. Politicians skillfully weave emotional appeals,
symbolic imagery, and rhetorical techniques into their speeches, shaping public
opinion in ways that are often subtle yet
profound. It’s a striking reminder of the
immense influence words can wield in the political arena. Diplomacy stands as a
unique yet equally influential domain where the nuances of language take on
profound and far-reaching importance. Unlike the fiery rhetoric often seen in
domestic political settings, diplomatic communication prizes precision, restraint,
and a shared vocabulary capable of transcending cultural and ideological
boundaries[3]. Every word choice
—whether it’s a modal verb, an adverb like
“only”
or “merely,” or even a subtle change in tense—
can carry significant legal and moral
weight, particularly in high-stakes scenarios like treaty negotiations or official
statements. Diplomats, including ambassadors, envoys, and negotiators, are not just
representatives of their nations but also linguistic tacticians adept at advancing
national interests while maintaining respect and trust with their counterparts.
Diplomatic protocol often embraces ambiguity to allow for plausible deniability, yet
it simultaneously demands enough clarity to avert misunderstandings that could lead
to international crises[3]The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
encapsulates this delicate balancing act, emphasizing confidentiality, decorum, and
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
82
mutual respect as essential principles. Within global institutions like
the United Nations, the stakes for precise wording are even higher:
formal resolutions, verbatim records, and multilateral agreements
undergo meticulous line-by-line negotiation and scrutiny. A single phrase can shift
the burden of responsibility or redefine collective commitments. Euphemisms such
as “collateral damage” or “enhanced interrogation” reflect the strategic softening of
language
—
an effort to maintain diplomatic civility while addressing sensitive or
divisive issues. While such linguistic strategies may blur ethical clarity, they also
enable dialogue to continue where direct confrontation might impede
progress.Although English has emerged as the dominant lingua franca in
international diplomacy, largely due to historical and geopolitical factors,
ceremonial and legal registers in French and other languages remain integral to the
richness of diplomatic tradition. In today’s
interconnected world, advancements like
real-time translation tools and digital diplomacy platforms are reshaping traditional
norms, allowing for faster, broader, and more inclusive communication.[5] Yet
despite these innovations, the core of diplomacy remains unchanged: the careful,
deliberate, and respectful use of language to nurture peace, foster cooperation, and
promote mutual understanding. Ultimately, diplomacy serves as a testament to the
enduring belief that dialogue, grounded in the power of words, can bridge even the
most profound divides and pave the way for a more
harmonious global community. In the complex realm of politics, language serves as
a potent instrument
—
not only for persuasion but also for strategic maneuvering.
Political discourse often strikes a precarious balance between clarity and
concealment, employing two distinct yet interrelated tactics: ambiguity and
vagueness. These linguistic strategies are not merely rhetorical flourishes; they are
deliberate tools wielded to navigate the intricate dynamics of voter behavior, party
competition, and public accountability. Ambiguity arises when political leaders or
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
83
parties convey mixed messages on the same issue. For instance, a
party might simultaneously promise tax cuts and increased public
spending without detailing how they intend to reconcile the fiscal gap.
This approach allows various voter groups to interpret the message in ways that align
with their own preferences, thereby broadening the party’s appeal in a
fragmented
or polarized electorate. [3]Ambiguity operates across multiple statements, creating
a spectrum of meanings that can resonate with diverse constituencies.Conversely,
vagueness involves the use of broad, non-specific language that sidesteps clear
commitments. Phrases like “we will reform the welfare system” leave
ample room
for interpretation while offering few grounds for accountability. Research indicates
that opposition parties and those with more radical platforms often lean into vague
language, preserving flexibility should they transition into power. Unlike ambiguity,
which spans multiple messages, vagueness resides within single expressions,
reflecting a calculated choice to remain open-ended.These rhetorical strategies fulfill
critical political functions. Ambiguity enables parties to maintain cohesion within
diverse internal coalitions, as conflicting interpretations can coexist without
fracturing the group.
Vagueness, on the other hand, serves as a protective shield against backlash
when concrete promises prove too challenging to fulfill. [4]Parties frequently
employ
vagueness when addressing issues they “own,” allowing them to project
confidence and expertise without committing to specific policies that might later
constrain their actions.The strategic use of language in politics is far from random.
It reflects an acute awareness of the complexities of voter behavior and the demands
of governance. By mastering these tools, political actors can shape trust, influence
decisions, and redefine democratic accountability. For voters, understanding how
ambiguity and vagueness function is essential for decoding political messages and
fostering more informed civic engagement. In an era where words wield immense
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
84
power, the nuanced deployment of language presents both a challenge
and an opportunity to enhance democratic discourse. In the dynamic
and ever-evolving world of democratic politics, language serves as
much more than a tool for communication
—
it’s a strategic weapon, a means
of
influence, and a cornerstone of political survival. Politicians rarely choose their
words haphazardly. Instead, their rhetoric is meticulously crafted to maneuver
through complex electoral landscapes, meet diverse voter expectations, and address
the inherent uncertainties of governance. Central to this calculated use of language
are two indispensable tools: ambiguity and vagueness. [5]Far from being signs of
confusion or weakness, these rhetorical strategies often serve as sources of
adaptability, strength, and long-term resilience.Ambiguity arises when politicians
deliver mixed or seemingly contradictory messages within the same policy domain.
Picture a political party promising both lower taxes and increased social spending
without outlining how they’ll
reconcile the two. [6]This deliberate lack of clarity
creates what experts call “aggregate
positional variance,” allowing for multiple
interpretations. One voter may hear “economic
growth,” while another hears “social
protection,” and both feel validated by the message.
In highly polarized societies, where taking a firm stance on one side risks
alienating the other, ambiguity becomes a unifying force. It enables parties to form
broader coalitions by appealing to diverse groups without committing to rigid
extremes.Vagueness, on the other hand, operates differently. Instead of sending
mixed signals, vague language avoids specifics altogether.
[3] Statements like “we
will reform healthcare” or “we aim to improve education” sound
inspiring but leave
out critical details such as timelines, methods, or measurable outcomes. This
approach provides politicians with a safe space to generate hope and support without
the risk of backlash[3] from unmet expectations. Research indicates that
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
85
vague rhetoric is particularly prevalent among opposition parties or
those with more radical platforms, as it offers flexibility. If they
ascend to power, they can adapt their policies to evolving
circumstances without being accused of breaking promises. These two strategies
—
ambiguity across multiple statements and vagueness within individual ones
—
are far
from accidental linguistic quirks. They are deliberate tools designed to handle
scrutiny in different ways. Interestingly, political parties often become more vague
when addressing issues they are perceived to “own.” This vagueness allows
them to
project confidence and competence while avoiding the pitfalls of overly rigid policy
commitments. Conversely, overusing ambiguity can backfire, potentially damaging
a party’s perceived coherence and credibility.When used judiciously,
ambiguity and
vagueness serve as powerful assets in the political arsenal. They help leaders manage
internal divisions, anticipate governance challenges, and maintain electoral viability
over time. In a world that demands clarity but punishes missteps,
strategic uncertainty isn’t just clever—it’s essential.Ultimately, understanding these
dimensions of political language enriches our ability to analyze campaigns, decipher
party platforms, and engage with politics more critically. It reminds us that in
politics, what is left unsaid can be just as impactful as what is spoken
—
and often,
the silence is intentional. As voters, scholars, and citizens, recognizing the calculated
brilliance behind these rhetorical choices equips us to navigate political discourse
with greater insight and optimism. Ambiguity is a fascinating feature of language,
emerging when a single word or sentence can be interpreted in multiple ways, often
leaving us puzzled until further context clarifies the intended meaning.[7] It
manifests in two primary forms: lexical ambiguity, which arises when a word carries
multiple meanings, and syntactic ambiguity, stemming from unclear sentence
structure.[7] For instance, the statement “I saw bats”
[7]might conjure images of
either baseball bats at a game or flying mammals in a cave.
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
86
Without additional context such as “I was at a stadium” or “I
explored a cave,” the
meaning remains uncertain. Similarly, syntactic
ambiguity can lead to confusion, as
illustrated by the sentence, “The
chicken is ready to eat.”[7] Does this imply the chicken
is hungry or that it’s cooked
and ready to be served? The sentence structure accommodates both interpretations.
While ambiguity can sometimes cause misunderstandings, it also injects humor,
creativity, and depth into language, enriching wordplay, poetry, and even marketing
strategies. [7]Context
—
whether conveyed through supplementary sentences, tone,
or gestures
—
typically resolves ambiguity, showcasing the dynamic and adaptable
nature of communication. Ambiguity also plays a significant role in political
language, where terms often carry dual meanings: their literal definitions and their
implications in power dynamics. Words like “communism” or “democracy”
exemplify
this. Communism, theoretically advocating for workers’ control, is often
distorted into a fear-inducing concept of authoritarian rule. Conversely, democracy,
which champions
governance by the people, frequently fails to reflect the majority’s
influence, with policies often shaped by the wealthiest factions. Even terms like
“Free Trade
Agreements” can be misleading, as they often prioritize corporate
interests over genuine economic fairness, fostering monopolistic practices and
inflated prices.
Political elites increasingly leverage propaganda [3] to manipulate public
perceptions, investing billions in shaping beliefs rather than fostering informed
decision-making. To reclaim true democracy, dismantling centralized power
structures, promoting community-driven initiatives, and ensuring access to accurate
information are essential steps for empowering citizens to challenge institutions that
thrive on division and misinformation.Language itself is a living, evolving entity
shaped by historical, social, and cultural forces. Its development mirrors the
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
87
complexities of human interaction, as evidenced by the structural
similarities between French and German or the dialectal diversity
within nations like Italy and Germany. National standardization
through education and media often overshadows rich linguistic variations, yet these
nuances reveal how language adapts to conquest, commerce, and technological
advancements. Prescriptive grammar rules, often detached from natural speech,
reflect societal efforts to impose cohesion or prestige, while pronunciation
differences highlight the challenges of mutual comprehension across dialects.
Despite these constraints, humans exhibit an innate drive for creative expression, as
seen in slang, youth registers, and artistic conventions. Humor and rapid vocabulary
acquisition further demonstrate the extraordinary capabilities of the human mind,
suggesting preexisting cognitive frameworks that facilitate language learning. For
educators and parents, fostering a linguistically rich environment can nurture
curiosity and growth, enabling children to thrive during critical developmental
stages. Ambiguity is not merely a linguistic quirk but a cornerstone of human
communication, influencing everyday interactions and even high-stakes scenarios
like aviation and medicine. Lexical
ambiguity arises when words like “bank” or
“bats” have multiple meanings, while
structural ambiguity stems from unclear
sentence construction, as in “The tourists saw
a monkey with a telescope,” which
could mean either the tourists using a telescope or a monkey possessing one.
Psychological studies reveal that ambiguity is more common than often realized,
frequently exacerbated by emotional states or overconfidence in being understood.
In critical domains like aviation,
misinterpretations of phrases such as “I’ve got it”
or “Pull up” have led to near
-misses and tragedies. Similarly, digital communication,
which lacks nonverbal cues, is prone to misinterpretation, underscoring the
importance of clarity in emails and other written exchanges. Strategies such as
standardized phrasing in safety-critical fields, fostering open dialogue in hierarchical
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
88
settings, and adopting disambiguating practices in everyday
communication can mitigate risks and enhance understanding.
Recognizing the prevalence of ambiguity encourages us to become
more mindful communicators, transforming potential misunderstandings into
opportunities for clearer, more effective exchanges.In political discourse,
acknowledging a proposal as “coherent” without
endorsing it reflects intellectual
respect for its internal logic while maintaining neutrality regarding its consequences.
For example, describing a second referendum as
“coherent” recognizes its
democratic principles without committing to its outcomes. This distinction allows
policymakers to foster inclusive debate and merit-based evaluation of ideas,
diffusing polarization and encouraging compromise. However, theoretical
coherence does not guarantee practical feasibility; factors such as public sentiment,
economic impacts, and diplomatic considerations often influence decision-making.
By separating the merits of an argument from its adoption as policy, politicians and
citizens alike can engage in thoughtful scrutiny, ensuring democratic legitimacy
while balancing
sound reasoning with actionable outcomes.
1.How does Simone de Beauvoir’s idea of existential ambiguity push back
against traditional efforts to define human nature in rigid, fixed terms?
2.How does de Beauvoir’s moral framework—
from the sub-man to the truly
free individual
—
highlight the connection between personal freedom and the ethical
responsibility we hold toward others?
3.Why does de Beauvoir claim that “disinterested objectivity” is both
impossible and morally troubling in art and politics, and what does this mean for
intellectual involvement during moments of crisis?
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
89
In The Ethics of Ambiguity Simone de Beauvoir delves into a
profound and enduring question:[4] can violence ever be morally
justified in the fight against oppression? Her response is nuanced yet
resolute
—
it can be, but only under stringent conditions. She asserts that violence
may be warranted solely when it serves to dismantle systems that strip individuals
of their freedom
,( book-epigraph )
reducing them to mere objects devoid of agency
and voice. However, de Beauvoir does not romanticize or glorify violence. She
stresses that even in the pursuit of justice, we must guard against losing our humanity
or becoming a reflection of the very forces we opposes.This profound idea is brought
to life in the podcast 20 Minute Books, which explores de Beauvoir's powerful
concepts with clarity and depth. Through her philosophy, she reminds us that human
beings are not static entities but ever-evolving projects
—
we are "nothing" in the
sense
that we are always in the process of becoming. With this freedom to continually
shape ourselves comes an ethical obligation: not only to liberate ourselves but also
to fight for the liberation of others. Freedom, for de Beauvoir, is not an isolated
endeavor but a
shared responsibility.De Beauvoir’s analysis categorizes people
based on their approach to life and freedom. The "sub-man" drifts through life
passively, unaware of their choices. The "serious man" clings rigidly to ideas,
forgetting they are human constructs.The "nihilist" rejects meaning altogether,
surrendering to inaction. The "adventurer" seeks personal thrill without regard for
consequence. Only the truly free individual
—
one who embraces uncertainty,
responsibility, and compassion
—
can live ethically and authentically. For de
Beauvoir, true freedom is not about selfish pursuits but about actively engaging with
the world and its complexities.[
B-page2]
She also critiques the notion of neutrality,
arguing that silence in the face of injustice is not a neutral act but a form of
complicity. [
P-2]
Ethical living requires action. It demands resistance against
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
90
systems like colonization, patriarchy, and authoritarianism
—
structures that deny people their dignity.Yet, even resistance must be
ethical.Violence, if employed, must be carefully scrutinized and
justified, never used as a pretext to perpetuate the same cruelty we seek to
dismantle.De Beauvoir illustrates this with examples like Salazar’s autho
ritarian
regime, where abstract ideals such as nationalism and tradition were exalted at the
expense of real human lives. In these systems, suffering was rationalized in the name
of ideals disconnected from actual human needs, highlighting the danger of
prioritizing abstractions over people. Ultimately, The Ethics of Ambiguity is more
than a philosophical treatise
—
it is a guide for living with awareness, courage, and
integrity[4]. It calls us to reflect, to act, and to choose freedom [4] not just for
ourselves but for others as well. De Beauvoir reminds us that ethics is not about
adhering to rigid rules but about continuously reassessing our decisions and
remaining steadfast in our commitment to humanity in all its complexity. Simone de
Beauvoir’s The Ethics of
Ambiguity tackles one of humanity’s most profound moral
dilemmas: can violence ever be justified in the pursuit of justice and liberation? Her
response is neither simplistic nor dismissive but deeply thoughtful and grounded in
ethical reasoning. She acknowledges that, under rare and carefully considered
circumstances, violence might be necessary - particularly when it is the last
remaining option to dismantle oppressive systems that rob individuals of their
freedom, dignity, and voice[
p-17]
. Yet, de Beauvoir does not glorify violence.
Instead, she issues a cautionary reminder: even when fighting against injustice, we
must avoid becoming unjust ourselves. This nuanced perspective challenges us to
approach moral decisions with reflection and care.Where de Beauvoir’s ideas are
made accessible and emotionally resonant. Central to her thinking is the belief that
human beings are not born into fixed roles or identities; rather, we are perpetually in
the process of becoming, shaping ourselves through our choices and actions. With
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
91
this freedom comes immense responsibility
—
not only to liberate
ourselves but also to take action when others are oppressed.[
p-20
]De
Beauvoir’s ethical framework calls for
active engagement with the
world, urging us to confront injustice rather than retreat into passivity or
indifference. In her exploration of human freedom, de Beauvoir vividly categorizes
different approaches to life. She critiques the "subject," who passively conforms to
routines without questioning them, and the "serious man," who blindly adheres to
dogmas, forgetting that all systems are human constructs. She examines the
"nihilist," who abandons meaning altogether, and the "adventurer," who pursues
thrill without regard for consequences. Yet, the truly ethical individual, in her view,
is one who embraces uncertainty, takes responsibility for their actions, and
demonstrates compassion toward others.
[P-40]
This is the kind of freedom she
advocates
—
not a selfish or chaotic liberty,
but one rooted in solidarity and ethical responsibility.
One of de Beauvoir’s
most striking assertions is that neutrality is not an option. Silence in the face of
oppression is not a neutral stance; it is a choice that often enables injustice to persist.
Ethical living, she argues, demands action
—
actively resisting systems such as
colonialism, patriarchy, and authoritarianism that strip human beings of their right
to live freely and fully[
.P-56].
But even in resistance, she warns against the misuse
of violence, cautioning that it must never become a justification for replicating the
cruelty we seek to eradicate. Her critique
of Salazar’s authoritarian regime, where
ideals like tradition and nationalism were prioritized over human lives, exemplifies
the ethical failures she condemns. To de Beauvoir, such regimes betray the very
essence of morality.Ultimately, The Ethics of
[p-2]
Ambiguity transcends
philosophy; it is a call to live with courage, reflection, and moral clarity. De
Beauvoir teaches us that ethics is not about adhering to rigid rules but about
remaining vigilant
—
constantly examining our choices, questioning our motivations,
SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE
“
THE
FUTURE STARTS WITH US: TOWARDS THINKING,
TECHNOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
”
V
О
LUME 1. ISSUE 1. 2025
92
and staying connected to our shared humanity. In a world fraught with
injustice and uncertainty, she offers no easy answers. Instead, she
equips us with the tools to navigate ambiguity with integrity,
compassion, and hope.
REFERENCES:
1.RSIS International. The Power of Language: Exploring the Role of Language in
Politics. Retrieved from: https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/the-
power-of-languageexploring-the-role-of-language-in-politics/
2.The California Aggie. (2016, March 10). Political Ambiguity: Political Language
and
Its
Effect
on
the
Public.
Retrieved
from:
https://theaggie.org/2016/03/10/political-ambiguitypolitical-language-and-its-
effect-on-the-public/
3.Gaffney, D., & Rowe, D. (2023). The Use of Political Language in Contemporary
Governance.
European
Journal
of
Political
Theory.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13540688231195272
4.Beauvoir, S. de. (1948). The Ethics of Ambiguity. New York: Citadel Press.
5.YouTube. (n.d.). The Power of Language in Politics
–
TEDx Talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yautjvfaD9w
6.YouTube. (n.d.). Language and Politics
–
A Sociolinguistic View.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLyKEri0qCE
7.Nambisan, B. (2019). Ambiguity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j496SjZ7QmY
