The ensuing debate has exposed fundamental issues about how government officials communicate with citizens and the unintended consequences of language choices in positions of authority.

When the spokesperson defended her use of the phrase by citing dictionary definitions, she overlooked Marshall McLuhan's crucial insight that "the medium is the message". From this theoretical perspective, her position of authority itself fundamentally transformed how her words were received, regardless of their dictionary meaning.

The medium – in this case, her role as a government official – amplified and reshaped the message's impact far beyond its literal definition. This amplification effect demonstrates why public officials must consider not just what they say, but how their institutional position influences the reception of their words.

Jacques Derrida's framework on language and power provides additional insights into why this incident sparked such intense public reaction. Through deconstruction, we can understand that the meaning of rakyat jelata is not fixed or stable but contingent on context, audience and power relations.

When uttered from a position of governmental authority, the term inevitably creates what Derrida terms "binary oppositions”, highlighting hierarchical relationships between the speaker and the addressed group. These power dynamics become particularly pronounced in government communication, where words can either bridge or reinforce societal divisions.

The controversy deepened as the spokesperson attempted to defend her word choice through dictionary definitions. However, Derrida's concept of "iterability" helps us understand why this defense fell short.

Words carry historical and cultural traces that shape their current understanding. Rakyat jelata, when used by a government official, evokes associations with class hierarchies and marginalization, regardless of intended meaning. The term's historical context and cultural associations cannot be erased by appealing to dictionary definitions alone.

This incident also demonstrates what Derrida called the "ethics of language" – the responsibility of speakers to anticipate how their words might be received within existing power structures. The spokesperson's position of authority amplified her words' potential impact, making her linguistic choices particularly consequential.

Public officials must recognize that their communication carries weight beyond mere semantic meaning, potentially affecting citizens' sense of dignity and relationship with government institutions.

The controversy has broader implications for public communication in Indonesia. It highlights how language choice in government communication can either reinforce or challenge existing social hierarchies.

When public officials use terms that might be perceived as creating distance between the government and citizens, they risk undermining the trust that is essential for effective governance. This dynamic becomes particularly significant in Indonesia's diverse linguistic and cultural landscape, where language sensitivity plays a crucial role in maintaining social cohesion.

Moreover, the incident reveals the limitations of purely technical or dictionary-based approaches to public communication. Effective government communication requires a nuanced understanding of how language operates within social power dynamics. Officials must consider not only the denotative meaning of their words but also their connotative implications and how they might be interpreted within existing social and political contexts.

Some observers might argue that society has become overly sensitive, taking offense too readily and demanding excessive political correctness in public discourse. They might contend that citizens are prone to politicizing language and that the public's reaction to the use of rakyat jelata reflects this hypersensitivity.

While these observations carry some merit, attempting to change societal attitudes and reactions is an impractical solution. The more efficient and achievable approach is to address the challenge at its institutional source by refining the communication practices within civil service.

The controversy offers several key lessons for effective public communication. First, language sensitivity requires communicators to carefully assess terms within their cultural and social contexts before deployment. This is particularly crucial for government officials, who must recognize how their institutional authority shapes message reception.

Second, establishing robust feedback mechanisms enables two-way communication, allowing officials to address misunderstandings promptly and adapt their language choices accordingly.

Third, power awareness demands that those in authority positions demonstrate humility and inclusivity in their communication to counterbalance inherent hierarchical dynamics. Fourth, regular critical reflection on language choices helps align communication with ethical principles and societal expectations.

Finally, maintaining flexibility in communication approaches allows officials to adapt their language when necessary, showing responsiveness to public concerns and fostering trust.

Looking forward, this controversy should serve as a catalyst for improving government communication practices. Public officials need to develop a deeper awareness of how their language choices affect different segments of society. This includes understanding how certain terms, even when technically correct, might carry unintended implications when used from positions of authority.

The solution lies not in mere linguistic precision but in developing what we might call "communicative empathy" – the ability to anticipate and understand how words will be received by different audiences, particularly those in marginalized positions. This requires moving beyond dictionary definitions to consider the complex web of meanings, associations and power relations that shape how language functions in public discourse.

As Indonesia continues to evolve as a democratic society, the quality of government communication becomes increasingly important. Officials must learn to navigate the complex relationship between language, authority and public trust.

This incident serves as a reminder that effective public communication requires not just clarity of expression but also sensitivity to how language choices can either strengthen or strain the relationship between government and citizens.

Through understanding the instability of meaning, the influence of power and the ethical dimensions of communication, public officials can work toward fostering more inclusive and reflective discourse that strengthens democratic governance and social cohesion.

---

The writer is a Harvard Business School alumnus and an affiliated alumnus of MIT Sloan School of Management. The views expressed are personal.