The controversy is no novelty. It goes back to the ancient Greeks. The philosophers Socrates and Plato warned against the refined political rhetoric of the sophists, who did not care about truth. The sophists put forward good reasons for the worst things and dazzled people with their fine-sounding verbiage. Socrates and Plato criticised the sophists – rightly, I think – as dangerous and deceitful sorcerers of language.

If words are no longer based on truthfulness, the two most fundamental aspects of language are destroyed, its reference to reality and its reference to another person.

Human language and human existence are inseparably linked. Language is a bond of trust between people. One talks to someone to show him a certain aspect of reality. This notion is supported by developmental psychology. From very early in life, language is fundamental to human development and human relationships. As the psychologist Alfred Adler put it: «Language itself is a common creation of mankind (…) not a private function. To understand [means] (…) to connect ourselves in a common meaning with other people» . [4]

If, however, we use language to confuse or distract or deceive others, we don’t regard them as equal partners, but as mere objects of manipulation, brought to function in a certain way. This is a double corruption of the word: corruption of its communicative character and corruption of the sense of reality.

Once language is neutralized against the standards of truth, the word loses its dignity, philosopher Joseph Pieper says.[5] Then, language can easily be turned into a dangerous and powerful means of manipulation, waiting to be used by any potentate for the propagation of any kind of monstrosity.

Joseph Pieper looks upon the discussion of Plato and Socrates with the sophists as a model case. It appears very likely, he says, that Plato and Socrates recognized in sophism a danger which threatens spiritual life and society at all times, a continual temptation, which historical man (and woman) will always be challenged to resist.

The spindoctors of our days are even better equipped than were the sophists. They have at their disposal the findings of the social sciences. Even psychology, the true object of which is to help people, is misused by them. «Neurolinguistic programming» – NLP – is an American manipulative psycho-technique based on some dubious methods of the sixties such us group dynamics and hypnosis.[6] The trinity neuro for perception, linguistic for language, and programming for the modification of unconscious patterns gives an idea of the way NLP enters the mind through perception, by linguistic messages, in order to change unconscious patterns. Advocates of the method describe it as a «collection of extremely effective communication and modification techniques» by which «a person can be changed deep into the core of his identity. »[7]

NLP uses lulling or hypnotizing «word-husks» in order to prevent reflection and render people receptive and «open». In such a state of mind, they cease to think and are prepared to let any unconscious reactions and processes simply happen.

In NLP language is defined as a «tool of distraction, of evoking moods», of influencing people «so to say with sound waves». Explicitly, NLP refutes the idea that words should pass on meaning or reality to another person.

A pivotal technique of NLP is named «reframing» which means to put something into a new frame. Concepts that originally had a positive meaning, evoking positive emotions, are brought into a totally new frame or context where they lose their original significance. The positive emotions that go with these words are passed on to the new context, too.

Let me give you an example: Last year, at a political party meeting, Federal Councillor Joseph Deiss, while promoting the «Extension of Free Movement» treaty with the European Union, shouted, emphatically, into the public: «More economic growth is our home policy’s most urgent task! Let us seize the chance! »

It is likely that these «buzzwords»[8] were not his own idea. Presumably, he was carefully instructed by his spindoctors – I permit myself to call them so – to use these lulling word-husks «growth» and «chance» in order to transfer their positive emotional colouring to the Free Movement treaty. For, «growth» makes us think of nature in spring, or growing trees and animals or young people,[9] while «chance» makes us think of gaining something valuable like money or a beloved spouse or a good job.

Cunningly, Deiss used these cosy words with their pleasant tone of emotion instead of providing any exact information on the treaty. Neither he nor his spindoctors could possibly know whether there would be «eco°©nomic growth» in the future – be it with or without the treaty. Besides, the councillor failed to remember mentioning what his idea of «economic growth» was.

You may object that there are no spindoctors in the Swiss government. But what on earth do the 432 «communication experts»[10] do the whole day who cost Swiss taxpayers 80 million Swiss francs a year? [11] Hopefully, the pending federal initiative «People’s Sovereignty instead of Government Propaganda»[12] will provoke a discussion on the subject.

Ironically, the hypnotising words «Seize the chance! » are ready for multi-purpose use. In 1999 the Swiss government felt the need to reform our constitution. But they thought it difficult to persuade the voters that this was necessary. They had to convince not only the majority of the voters but also the majority of the cantons. This was not easy. In addition, the issue was regarded as unattractive.

In order to succeed, a two-million budget was provided and some more PR-experts hired. The latter designed a sophisticated «communication strategy». With the help of «four basic messages» an «atmosphere of eagerness and awakening» was to be created. [13] The first of these messages was – surprise, surprise – «Seize the chance now».[14]

The media were quite helpful and willing to spread the spin. Without them, the issue of the ballot would have been doubtful. Just a few days before voting day, Federal Councillor Arnold Koller feared he might lose. He took the trouble of writing a personal letter to the editors-in-chief of the major Swiss newspapers. He thanked them for their great support during the campaign and asked them for a little bit more help. An all-decisive «final spurt»[15] would have to be made in order to win the ballot, he wrote.

It is noteworthy that the voters were not even given the current constitution that was binding at the time. They were told that it was out of print and was not to be reprinted as there would be a new one anyway soon! This meant that the voters did not even have the possibility of comparing both versions. Such was the understanding of direct democracy of our government then!

With another example I want to demonstrate how spindoctors use the NLP technique «reframing». In 2001 the «Conference of the Governments of the Cantons» found in a study[16] that there were several obstacles standing in the way of Switzerland’s joining the European Union. The main problem was the large number of communities. This was not compatible with the EU centralistic structures because there, an endless number of regulations and decrees were decided upon regularly which had to be then adopted by all member states. This would not work with all the small communities in Switzerland and their direct democracy. Therefore, the study concluded, the number of communities had to be reduced drastically. The communities which remained after mergers had taken place had to become more uniform and centralistic.

This conclusion, however, was not communicated openly.

Instead, in 2004, a Schaffhausen so-called «steering committee», chaired by the head of the government, issued a report[17] saying that the number of Schaffhausen communities had to be reduced drastically from 32 to 7. Around the same time several other cantonal governments came up with the same idea. But nobody cared to mention that Switzerland should be made compatible with the European Union.

Instead, people were showered with lulling word-husks such as «chance», or «growth», or «synergy» or «future». The «steering committee» claimed: Obviously «we could not go on like this, [we must] overcome the borders of the communities (…) especially young people saw it as a chance (…) [of providing] more growth»[18]. PR professionals from a Zurich bureau helped the Schaffhausen government to push these pleasant word-husks. [19]

But the spin did not work. The communities of Schaffhausen wanted to remain autonomous. They refused to be closed down and insisted on doing their work better and with less expense than big merger-units would.

It is noteworthy that the Schaffhausen newspaper «Schaffhauser Nachrichten» remained unbiased in the discussion and published the statements of both sides.

But our federal government’s communication experts boast: «Most media adopt the key statements of the members of the Federal Council. Their ability to reproduce these statements is more marked than their ability to provide facts. » [20]

It seems to me, that this is an insult to any decent journalism. Journalists, I think, should strive to provide facts not spin.