Swine flu and pirates: why language matters

The recent debate over what to call the H1N1 virus (also discussed here in the Financial Times) is good reminder of the importance of language in international relations as emphasized by constructivism. (See Karen Fierke's chapter "Breaking the Silence: Language and Method in International Relations," the beginning of which is available here on GoogleBooks for an actual reasoned, theoretical explanation of why we should take language and rhetoric seriously). Although Matthew Cordell at the UN Dispatch says "who cares" to the question of what to call the disease, it's clear that, in fact, a lot is in a name ...

The name "swine flu" led Russia to ban pork imports from affected countries, despite a complete lack of evidence that the virus can be transmitted by eating pork or that pigs can even contract the mutated form of the virus. In response to complaints from the pork industry and in an effort to set the record straight, the last few days have seen several alternative names proposed. President Obama used "H1N1 flu virus" earlier this morning and the World Health Organization has referred to the virus as "Mexican flu" or "2009 H1N1 flu," though assistant director-general for health security Dr. Keiji Fukuda says there are no official plans to change the name. The World Organization for Animal Health has proposed "North American flu," which, like "Mexican flu" emphasizes the geographic origin of the flu and is reminescent of the geographically-named 1918 "Spanish flu." The Financial Times downplays concerns that such geographic labels would stigamatize the countries and regions referred to, noting that "There is no evidence that the reputation of Spain or Hong Kong suffered in the past." Mexico is clearly suffering economically from association with the flu, though it is hard to judge how much this is a result of linguisic deployments. The EU Health Commission has suggested "novel flu," in an attempt to avoid all reference to genetic, historic, and geographic origin.

The name "swine flu" has also produced a unique response from several Middle Eastern countries, where some leaders have exploited the (initial and linguistic) connection between the virus and pigs to seek to ban pork consumption which is prohibited in Islam:

The Egyptian parliament wants all pigs in the country – where they cater largely to the non-Muslim minority – to be slaughtered. Egypt already is on edge because of a surge in cases of unrelated bird flu, which last week claimed a 26th fatality.

Lawmakers in Bahrain are hoping to use the scare to strengthen their bid to have all pork and pork products outlawed. Bahraini lawmakers are pressing for a measure that would make the import, sale or possession of pork a criminal offense.

“The outbreak of this flu, which has killed dozens, will make our case stronger to outlaw pork from the kingdom,” lawmaker Sheikh Adel Al-Moawada, who heads the parliamentary foreign affairs and security committee, was quoted by local media as saying.

In Kuwait, a top health figure also cited the Islamic prohibition in saying that the country’s “pig-free” status would probably afford it some protection.

“We are unlikely to have an outbreak since we don’t have pig farms here. We don’t have pig products and [the region where the strain emerged] is miles away from Kuwait,” said Dr. Khalid Al-Hasawi, deputy director-general of Kuwait’s Infectious Disease Hospital.

A similar view came from the government, with Undersecretary of Health Ibrahim Abdul Hadi saying that as Kuwait did not import pork in any form, it was safe.

Still, international airports in the Gulf, including the major hub at Dubai, are taking precautions, and Gulf States’ health ministers are to meet next week to discuss the issue.

In Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, city authorities ordered the removal of all pork products from store shelves and restaurant menus, local media reported.

Aside from the implications for economics and trade, this trend is worrisome from a public health perspective:

According to al-Bawaba, a pan-Arabic news organization, the question of pork consumption and the flu outbreak has stoked debate on Internet forums across the Arab world, with many Middle East Muslims “certain they are safe and immune from the new strain.”

Jeffrey Yoskowitz at the Atlantic raises related concerns regarding Israel's unwillingness to call a pig a pig:

[I]n Israel--where pigs are raised on Arab lands and pork shops are firebombed out of certain neighborhoods--pork is highly politicized. Even the word for "pork" in Hebrew, chazir, is so reviled that it goes by many euphemisms: "white meat," "other meat," and "white steak" ... Completely unrelated to eating pork though the flu might be, a swine pandemic by any other name is still porcine in origin. By refusing to recognize the source of the problem and regulate irresponsible farm practices in Israel, future swine viruses could emerge from Israel, and could wind up bearing an Israeli moniker--a much more humiliating prospect.

Israeli officials have retracted comments made earlier suggesting they were "offended" by the reference to an un-Kosher animal and will continue to use "swine flu."

At this point, it would likely be futile to attempt to change the way the virus is referred to by most people, given that even news articles that use a different name first have to establish that they are talking about "swine flu" before proceeding with an alternate designation. We are more interested in how the debate swirling around the "swine flu" label mirrors that surrounding the word "pirate," discussed earlier here and here.

(As a sidenote, the idea that I would abandon the pirate blog in favor of completing statistics review packets and writing econ papers is, of course, empirically denied and probably absurd from the get-go.)