Can Thought-Terminating Cliches Be Used For Good?

Thinking about thought-termination.

Thought-terminating cliche is a term coined and popularized by Robert Jay Lifton in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China used to describe loaded language intended to stop an argument from proceeding further.¹ To put it simply, a thought-terminating cliche is a cliche that stops thought, as the name suggests.

In his book, Lifton gives the example of the phrase “bourgeois mentality” being used to “dismiss ordinarily troublesome concerns” in communist China.² He describes these phrases as falling into either “god terms” to describe the good, such as “progressive,” “liberation,” and “proletarian standpoints,” or “devil terms” used to describe the bad, such as “capitalist,” “imperialist,” or “exploiting classes.”³ These labels are intended to silence discussion by marking what ideas are acceptable in a totalist ideology. “Totalist language,” according to Lifton “, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging, and to anyone but it’s most devoted advocate, deadly dull: in Lionel Trilling’s phrase, ‘the language of nonthought.’”⁴

While Lifton’s study focuses on communist China, any ideology can employ thought-terminating cliches. These thought-terminating cliches often take the form of labels -“that’s [thought-terminating cliche]” - where the cliche could be any label intended to end the discussion argument. Examples might include: “That’s racist.” “That’s sexist.” “That’s socialism.” “That’s communist.” “That’s un-Christian.” “That’s antisemitic.” “That’s a conspiracy theory.” “That’s anti-science.” Etc. I’m sure if you think about it, you could list more. While all of these labels could be used to create more thought and might even be accurate in certain cases, they become thought-terminating cliches when they are used to end thought or discussions.

What I find interesting about thought-terminating cliches is that their creation requires thought. Understanding what someone means by the label “bourgeois mentality” requires an understanding of Marxist theory. Arriving at the Marxist conception of the “bourgeois mentality” required intellectual work on the part of Marxist thinkers. Likewise, every other thought-terminating cliche listed above has entire books written about the intellectual theory behind it. While thought-terminating cliches can take the form of colloquial phrases that have no meaning, such as “it is what it is” or “because I said so,” in Lifton’s original conception they are conceived in a totalizing ideological intellectual framework as linguistic magic spells intended to silence dissent by rendering opposing ideas unthinkable.

Given that thought-terminating cliches exist in almost every ideology and that intense thought went into the creation of them, one could view thought-terminating cliches as a linguistic weapon any movement could wield rather than inherently bad. If we call a phrase a “thought-terminating cliche” the label “thought-terminating cliche” itself becomes a “thought-terminating cliche.” Saying “that’s a thought-terminating cliche,” implies the statement is inherently bad. Discussion over. Perhaps a statement is a thought-terminating cliche, but can we do more thinking beyond that?

Take for example the statement “circumcision is mutilation.” While I and most of my audience would agree with the statement “circumcision is mutilation,” the phrase could function as a thought-terminating cliche when it ends a discussion rather than opens one. In some instances, this might be desirable. If a speaker is trying to use their argument to harm children, their opponent might want to terminate their argument. One could even view moral arguments like the golden rule or “violence never solves anything” as thought-terminating cliches that shut down potential arguments for deadly action.

A thought-terminating cliche is useful is when it ends a pernicious argument. “Circumcision is mutilation” ends the circumcision debate. It closes off questions like “what are the benefits of circumcision?” or “do parents have the right to circumcise their children?” Mutilation has no medical benefits and no one has the right to mutilate another. End of discussion.

A thought-terminating cliche is harmful is when it ends useful thinking. If we are attempting to achieve a deeper understanding of an issue, we need "thought-provoking questions instead of thought-terminating cliches. For example, suppose we accept that “circumcision is mutilation.” Thought-provoking questions we could ask in response to this are: “If this a mutilation, why do others not see this?” “Is this just a mutilation, or are their other harms created from circumcision?” “Why does society allow this mutilation, but not other forms of genital cutting?” Actually, that last question contained an assumption, which we could open even more by asking “are there other forms of genital cutting society allows? Or other forms of common harm to children?”

My entire book Children’s Justice is the result of continuing my thinking past true statements and continuing to ask thought-provoking questions. In order to arrive at the idea of systemic pedophilia, I had to move beyond using arguments against circumcision as thought-terminating and instead use them as starting points to explore further thinking. This article itself is the result of not even allowing the idea of a thought-terminating cliche to be thought-terminating but explored further.

Many significant ideologies could be thought of as the result of asking a deeper question about a previously accepted cliche. “That’s racist” is a thought-terminating cliche. “How do race, racism, and power actually work?” is critical race theory. That question might end with a new form of the thought-terminating cliche “that’s racist,” but only after so much thinking has been done that it has resulted in ideology. The resulting cliche is ideologically useful in that it socially enforces the previous thinking. The full thinking of the ideology is more intellectual work than most people are willing to do. “That’s [cliche]” suffices for most.

If you are rectifying the names for others, the goal is to create statements that function like thought-terminating cliches, in that they summarize an entire ideology and moral worldview in a single phrase. The modern name for these statements is memes, a word for an idea or unit of culture. However, if you are building your own ideology, you must move beyond the names that others have given before you and be willing to ask thought-provoking questions of previously settled thinking, especially if the previous cliches of your culture do not serve you.

Be aware that others might use thought-terminating cliches to end your thinking if it moves beyond the bounds of what they feel is acceptable. In this case, you must develop thought-terminating cliches of your own to shut down the arguments they might use to attempt to limit the expansion of your mind. One could think of “that’s communist” as a thought-terminating cliche used to prevent communist attempts to impose their own thought control. Of course, those labeled communist have developed their own cliches to combat those used against them. (Ex: “That’s McCarthyism.”)

When you find yourself on the receiving end of a thought-terminating cliche, rather than debating it and saying “I’m not [cliche],” try thinking about it and asking questions until you can arrive at a label of your own. If you do, your label might eclipse theirs at the new dominant idea. At least, until they find another idea. Then the duel goes on. The thinking never ends.

1. Lifton, Robert Jay. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. First Paperback Edition, W W Norton and Co Inc, 1963, p. 429.

2. Lifton, Robert Jay. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. First Paperback Edition, W W Norton and Co Inc, 1963, p. 429.

3. Lifton, Robert Jay. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. First Paperback Edition, W W Norton and Co Inc, 1963, p. 429.

4. Lifton, Robert Jay. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. First Paperback Edition, W W Norton and Co Inc, 1963, p. 429.