Dual policy. Kazantseva V.N.

Double standards policy

Double standards policy(“contradictory policy”, “dual policy”, “inconsistent policy”) - fundamentally different application of principles, laws, rules, assessments to the same type of actions of various subjects (one of which may be the evaluator himself), depending on the degree of loyalty of these subjects or other considerations of benefit for the evaluator. Double standard is a term widely used in modern political science, journalism, economics, social science and other humanities, denoting different attitudes (often outright discrimination) and different assessments of the same, and more often similar events and situations by the same evaluators in the strength of their bias, changed circumstances, personal self-interest, emotional state, etc.

Definition

The policy of double standards is a situation when the assessment of the same actions of subjects varies depending on the relationship in which each of these subjects is with the evaluator. At the same time, the actions of “our own” - those loyal to the evaluator - are justified, while the same actions of “strangers” are condemned and considered unacceptable.

In international relations, it usually takes the form of accusing those undesirable of violating principles, conventions, obligations, “violating universal human values,” “violating human rights,” “deviating from the norms of international law,” while demonstratively ignoring completely similar actions of one’s own or the actions of allies.

The policy of double standards has existed as long as human society has existed. It is widely used as a means of putting pressure on opponents through public opinion and as a way to justify one’s own actions towards someone else. Equally widespread is the accusation of double standards, which is often used to deflect criticism.

Terminology of double standards

One of the common manifestations of the policy of double standards is the naming of the same or very close objects, actions, phenomena with different terms, the emotional connotation of which is significantly different. For example:

• Spy - Scout- depending on who he works for.
• planting - Implementation- depending on whether the evaluator approves of the innovation.
• occupy - release- depending on whose troops entered the country.
• Dictator - Leader- depending on the political orientation of the ruler or whether his “hand” can reach the speaker (as well as his political preferences)
• Dictatorship - Vertical of power- depending on the loyalty of the speaker.
• Tyrant - Leader- Same.
• Snitch/Sexot - Informant- depending on the attitude towards those whom and about whom he informs.
• Companion - Epigone- depending on the attitude towards the one he supports.
• Mutiny/Revolt - Revolution/Uprising- depending on the result of the operation (“A mutiny cannot end in success. Otherwise, it is called differently” - a stanza by John Harington translated by Marshak).
• Romantic kiss in front of everyone - Dirty demonstration of your sexual proclivities- depending on whether we are talking about a man and a woman or about a man and a man.
• Separatism - National liberation movement- depending on who wants to secede and from which state.
• Armed aggression - restoration of constitutional order- depending on your liking.
• Establishment of a puppet government - destruction of dictatorship- depending on your liking.
• Terrorist/Action - Partisan- depending on your liking.
• Intervention - Military assistance- depending on your liking.
• Anti-adviser - Human rights activist- depending on the political views of the speaker and the country in which the rights are protected.
• Rawness - Damp cool- depending on whether the speaker is warm or cold (“The air conditioner blew through with dank dampness”).
• Creature - Animal- depending on whether you bought the rat in a store, or whether it started on its own.
• The glass is half empty - The glass is half full- depending on the mood of the evaluator.
• New Russian - Bro- depending on the relative financial status of the speaker.
• Military campaigns - Predatory raids- depending on whose historical ancestors are meant.
• Cowardice - Caution- depending on your liking.

Notes

Links

see also

Wikimedia Foundation.

2010.

The term “double standards” is widely known in such fields of science as political science, journalism, economics, and social science. It appeared in English in the mid-nineteenth century, denoting unequal moral demands on men and women. In Russian, it denoted racial and class inequality under capitalism.

Double standards are differences in the assessment of similar or identical actions that were performed by different people. For example, some people judge others with prejudice and allow personal negative attitudes towards individuals to influence their assessment of their actions. This phenomenon affects all spheres of social life, some people consider different double standards immoral, others say that without them it is impossible for any to exist, while others completely deny the existence of double standards.

Double standards - psychology

In psychology, double standards cause the stratification of society, the emergence of a huge amount of hypocrisy and lies. In general, this behavior can be characterized as “ I can do what others are not allowed to do, and I can do everything that they are also allowed to do." A person living by such standards tries to adapt to several people at the same time, trying to please them. Such double morality contributes to the creation of conflicting opinions within a person and double standards of behavior.

You can give an example of a person living by the following standards: “ I can steal because I need a car and an apartment, but if they steal from me, it should be punishable" Those means that were taken from others according to this principle will not make a person happy. Living proof of this is financially wealthy people and the opposite - families who were unable to earn their capital, and this led to degradation, alcoholism, and drug addiction. If such thoughts arise not in one, but in many members of society, then deep contradictions and neurosis arise in society itself.

What is double standards of behavior?

People have different standards in life. So, for example, if in kindergarten or school a child behaves politely and prudently towards others, then in the family circle he allows himself to be rude and tactless. And here the question arises, what does double standards mean, why is such different behavior developed? From the age of six, a child already consciously understands the difference between behavior in public and at home and builds his morality with double standards.

This behavior is repeated into adulthood and occurs for several reasons:

• home is a place where a child can feel free, where there is no need to follow any generally accepted norms of behavior;
• after the age of six, the child’s character and behavior changes; such extraordinary behavior looks like protest and reluctance to follow the parents’ instructions;
• the reason may be adolescence;
• the child adopts standards of behavior from adults; if rudeness and disrespect are acceptable in your family, then the child will behave in the same way towards you.

Double standards in relationships

Stereotypes between men and women have existed for a long time, but this does not pose any danger until a person begins to live by them and think not with his own head, but with someone else’s. There are many examples of what double standards are in relationships:

1. Everyone is accustomed to the fact that a man must make the first step when meeting a woman, otherwise he will be considered complex.
2. A woman must be clean and tidy, and she is not forgiven for what is forgiven for a man.
3. A man is not allowed to hit a woman, but a woman allows herself to raise her hand to her companion, justifying this situation by saying that she is weaker.
4. It is generally accepted that friendship between people of different sexes does not exist unless the man is a member of a sexual minority. Although this stereotype is wrong.
5. Rich sexual experience in men is considered the norm; a woman with the same experience will be called a slut.

Double standards in education

The system of double standards has not bypassed educational processes. Here are some striking examples.

1. You can hear a lot about the need to get children off the streets and into something useful, but at the same time, sections and clubs are being closed, and in the best case, they are moving from free to paid. Moreover, those in power force directors to force parents to pay for these very clubs and attend them without fail.
2. When announcing teachers’ salaries, they take the highest, which takes into account the category, incentive payments and other allowances, but in fact, 90% receive much less than the announced amounts. Along with this, they are talking about attracting young specialists, but they create conditions that few agree to.
3. The state, while allocating funds for, for example, an alarm system, which is necessary for a school to be accepted for the new school year, does not finance related repair work and recommends that schools look for money “on the side.” Directors begin to ask parents for help, but as soon as some dissatisfied parent writes a complaint, the same organization that recommended finding the money on their own brushes it off, talking about the illegality of such actions and promising to punish the perpetrators.
4. At conferences you can often see figures showing positive trends in equipping schools with multimedia devices, presenting this as an achievement of the state, but in 80% of cases all this equipment was purchased with money from attracted sponsors, philanthropists and the same parents of students.

Double standards in human rights

In any human society there is a principle of double standards. There will always be people among us who believe that they can do more than everyone else. Women's double standards lead to disagreements in a couple and cause injustice. And if equality between people exists, then only as a theory. In fact, a man has more responsibilities than a woman:

1. If a man is obliged to serve in the army and sacrifice himself during the war, then a woman does not bear any obligations to the state, her civil rights are not limited.
2. Men's pensions are calculated after age sixty. Their average life expectancy is minus one and a half years, which means that most men have virtually no right to a pension. For women, pensions are accrued upon reaching 55 years of age. After that, she lives on average another 15 years.
3. Reproductive rights, the right to control the expenditure of child support funds, and the choice of paternity for men, unlike women, are absent.

Double standards in economics

In Russia, for a long time, there has been such a concept as “lawlessness,” which means massive violation of rules without consequences for violators. At the same time, the practice of double standards divides Russia into two parts:

• subelite layer, consisting of the ruling elite;
• middle protolayer and lower layer.

Such double morality in society contributes to the deformation of consciousness and causes in people the desire to fall into the category of the elite, who have more favorable living conditions. Over time, the reasons and methods for applying double standards may change: discriminatory tariffs and fees, visa restrictions, blocking of financial assets.

Double standards in politics

The policy of double standards is a contradictory, dual policy, different principles, laws, rules in relation to subjects depending on their loyalty and considerations of benefit. That is, when assessing, real circumstances and facts are not taken into account; the main role in this case is played by the attitude of the appraiser to the appraised. The actions of “our own” people are justified, while the actions of “outsiders” are condemned and considered unacceptable.

Double Standards in the Bible

Many people think that there are no double standards in spiritual life, but this is not true at all. For many centuries, religion has used the postulates of Jesus in the literal sense, while the true meaning has been distorted. For example, all believers consider themselves servants of God, although such a thought is initially blasphemous, since God created people so that they could be equal among equals. Such distortions occur all the time. The problem of double standards in the Bible leads to the formation of deceit and duplicity in society.

A.V. Nozdrin

DOUBLE-STANDARD POLICY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

This article analyzes the policy of double standards in international relations. Specific examples of the use of double standards in the field of international terrorism, international arms trade, global energy and international conflicts are briefly discussed. It is concluded that this policy has a negative impact on the development of international relations.

Key words: politics, double standards, policy of double standards, international relations.

In this article the double-standard policy in the international relations is analyzed. Actual examples of using double standards in the sphere of the international terrorism, international trade in arms, global energy and international conflicts are briefly reviewed. The conclusion is that this policy has negative influence on the development of the international relations.

Key words: policy, double standards, double-standard policy, international relations.

A common phenomenon in international relations is double standards, which are an integral part of the policies of some states (while the official use of double standards, of course, is denied). The policy of double standards (“contradictory policy”, “dual policy”, “inconsistent policy”) is a fundamentally different application of principles, laws, rules, assessments to the same type of actions of various subjects (one of which may be the evaluator himself), depending on the degree of loyalty of these subjects or other considerations of benefit for the evaluator. In other words, the assessment does not take into account actual circumstances and facts; The main role is played by the attitude of the appraiser to the appraised, i.e. the actions of “our own” (loyal to the evaluator) are justified, while the same actions of “strangers” are condemned and considered unacceptable.

We can find many cases of double standards in international relations. A clear example is the fight against terrorism. Western countries take advantage of the fact that terrorism is a very complex and contradictory phenomenon that takes on religious, ethno-national and other forms. They begin to assess the situation in one way or another

country depending on its geopolitical interests. As a result, the concepts of “separatism” and “national liberation movement” are being replaced.

A similar practice was used during the Cold War, when President R. Reagan declared the fight against terrorism one of the main goals of US policy, classifying political movements oriented toward the USSR in Third World countries as terrorism. At the same time, the United States supported those forces that resorted to terrorist methods of armed struggle if this suited their interests (for example, in Afghanistan). The West also uses a policy of double standards in relation to modern Russia, which we can observe in such examples as the provision of political asylum to Akhmed Zakayev (in the UK) and Ilyas Akhmadov (in the USA) - people who are considered criminals and terrorists in Russia. Due to the fact that Russia cannot achieve understanding from Western countries, it is looking for common ground with other geopolitical centers. As an example, we can consider the activities of the SCO, one of the goals of which is the fight against international terrorism.

However, terrorism is far from the only area where double standards are practiced. This is even more true in the area of ​​international arms trade. Here, in addition to economic and defense factors, the political factor plays a major role. Thus, Russia, which ranks second in the world after the United States in arms sales, is criticized by the latter for supplying weapons to Syria and supporting the dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad. The Russian side believes that it supplies weapons under legal contracts. Russian Foreign Minister S.V. Lavrov has repeatedly stated that we cannot be accused of supplying weapons to Syria, “because we do not violate anything: neither international law, nor UN Security Council resolutions, nor our own national legislation in the field of export control, which is one of the strictest in the world.” According to representatives of the “anti-Russian front”, the supplied weapons are used to kill civilians or go into the hands of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. And the fact that NATO sponsors the Syrian opposition, supplying it with weapons and mercenaries, is assessed positively in the West as assistance in establishing a democratic regime (Russia and China, for their part, condemn these actions).

Another eloquent example is the purchase of Russian weapons by Iran. This is also subject to negative assessment by the United States, which has been since the 1970s. “have a grudge” against this country, calling it undemocratic and supporting international terrorism. Russia, in their opinion, supplies

crushes the tyrant and terrorists with weapons. At the same time, the United States supplies weapons to Saudi Arabia, to whose regime it is loyal.

The United States is no less actively condemning Russia for supplying weapons to Venezuela, where the fighter against American hegemony Hugo Chavez, moving away from the foreign policy course of previous rulers, moved towards rapprochement with oil-producing countries, including Russia. The latter is again accused of supporting the dictator. At the same time, the United States declares that the deployment of the American missile defense system in different countries is carried out in the interests of the “common good.”

The use of double standards in global energy matters is quite common. Continuing the Iranian theme, we can note the condemnation by the United States of research conducted by Iran in the field of nuclear energy. American experts and politicians oppose such developments because, in their opinion, in addition to the “peaceful atom,” nuclear weapons are being developed (and their creation could reduce the importance of the United States in this region). Therefore, all checks in the form of “independent international examinations” are rather biased. The United States, while giving an extremely harsh assessment of Iran's actions, at the same time, for obvious reasons, does not bring up the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons for discussion by the world community.

For a long time, Russia was condemned by the West for selling oil to post-Soviet states at a reduced price. According to opponents of this practice, this is contrary to the laws of the market. After the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which led to a reorientation of its foreign policy towards the West, Russia increased energy prices. And immediately her actions began to be considered blackmail and an attempt to undermine the Ukrainian economy. Russia is also criticized by Western countries for allegedly interfering with the construction of the Trans-Caspian pipeline between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, thereby interfering in the affairs of other states.

Armed conflicts are a fertile field for the application of double standards. Often this topic intersects with the problem of terrorism. And there are a lot of examples here. The events of the First and Second Chechen campaigns, when Chechen separatists fighting government troops were called “rebels” and “partisans” in the West, and the actions of the Russian government were covered only in terms of infringement of human rights. Based on such assessments, many countries turned away from Russia or tried to put pressure on Russian foreign policy. At the same time, the Americans, who bombed Serbian hospitals during the Kosovo conflict and attacked (by mistake) refugee columns, not only

were considered war criminals, but also found support from the international community. The situation is similar in Afghanistan, when movements against the pro-Soviet regime were considered insurgents, and today attackers of American soldiers are called “terrorists” and “militants.” The events of August 2008 provide another example of an incorrect assessment. When Georgian troops attacked civilians in South Ossetia, Western countries declared that this was an internal matter of Georgia. Western newspapers, focusing on the actions of the Russian military in Gori, refused to talk about Georgia’s violations of human rights.

In the events taking place in the Middle East, one can also find examples of the use of double standards. Western countries condemn the dictatorial regimes of the Middle Eastern countries and fight them, but only selectively. Thus, the regimes of Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad are considered tyrannical and criminal, but the monarchical regimes of Abdullah bin Abdulaziz in Saudi Arabia and Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani in Qatar are not. In this regard, the assessment of the actions of Assad and the now killed Gaddafi in the West is negative, while the fight against anti-government sentiments in the societies of Qatar and Saudi Arabia affected by the Arab Spring is not covered by the Western media. Assessments of the activities of government troops in Damascus speak of genocide of their own people, and the fact that no less than civilians are dying at the hands of “rebels” and “fighters for democracy” is practically not criticized.

The practice of using double standards in international relations indicates that this far from the most correct way of conducting politics from a moral point of view is used, as a rule, by highly developed Western countries. This is justified by the political reality in which the struggle of all is being waged against all. And in this fight, all means are good. Niccolo Machiavelli adhered to this principle, arguing that there is no place for sentimentality in politics, and a good politician can commit deception for the good of the state. But, unfortunately, what is good for one people is bad for another. After all, the policy of double standards puts significant pressure on society (it is widely used as a means of putting pressure on opponents through public opinion), which ultimately can lead to a change in the foreign policy course of the state not for the better for the people. And mutual accusations and criticism of each other’s actions negatively affect the ability to achieve understanding between countries in the field of international security and other areas. I believe that abandoning double standards will make politics more

transparent and predictable, which in turn will improve the quality of international relations and the life of the world community as a whole.

Literature

1. Lavrov: We are not going to make excuses to the United States for supplying weapons to Syria // Vzglyad. - 06/22/2012. - Access mode: http://www.vz.rU/news/2012/6/22/585050.html

2. Policy of double standards // Academician. - Access mode: http://dic.academic.rU/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1100025

3. Examples of double standards in international politics // Youth research group Nota Bene. - Access mode: http://nbenegroup.com/standards/standards.html

4. Khodorowsky A. Double standards in the fight against global terrorism: counteract evil or “feed” and use? // Center for Foreign Military Information and Communication of the Eastern Military District of the Russian Federation. - Access mode: http://www.atrinfo.ru/commentary/double.html

5. Yugoslavia and Chechnya: double standards of Western propaganda. -Access mode: http://ru1991.narod.ru/photoalbum135.html

Nozdrin Artyom Vladimirovich - student at the Institute of History and International Relations of Saratov State University. N.G. Chernyshevsky. Email: [email protected]

Briefly about author

Nozdrin Artem Vladimirovich - student of Institute of History and International Relations, Saratov State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky. Email: [email protected]

THE POLICY OF “DOUBLE STANDARDS” IN MODERN SOCIETY

POLICY OF "DOUBLE STANDARDS" IN MODERN SOCIETY

Kazantseva Veronika Nikolaevna
The Ural Federal University of. First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin
student of the fourth year of institute of socio-political doctrines, department political science

Increasingly, one can observe in modern society the use of such a term as the policy of double standards. And as the journalist Alexey Volodin says: “ Only the lazy don’t talk about the politics of double standards in the modern world." In order to consider this new phenomenon on the world stage, we should turn to the definition of this concept. So, the policy of double standards is the conditions under which the assessment of the same action is interpreted depending on the attitude towards a particular country. According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, double standard refers to a rule or principle that is applied much more strictly to some people than to others. Also, the essence of this phenomenon lies in assessing the actions of countries on two scales, for example, in France a journalist died in prison, in the USA they did not pay attention to this, and in Russia if a journalist dies, then America will immediately start talking about violations of human rights. Essentially, this is an assessment of the same action, according to different criteria, on the positive side if it is your ally or negatively if it is your competitor with the aim of discrediting it and denigrating it before the world community. Also, this policy can be considered as a means of information warfare. Most often in the international arena, the policy of double standards is understood as a form of accusation of non-compliance and violation of obligations, human rights, conventions, principles and norms of international law.

If we talk about the history of the occurrence of this phenomenon, then there is no exact date, since the policy of double standards has become clearly expressed in our lives over the last 10-15 years. Some believe that double standards appeared along with the emergence of human society: they acted as one of the means of putting pressure on a competitor with the help of public opinion. Others are of the opinion that this phenomenon became pronounced during the events of the Balkan crisis, when Yugoslavia began to disintegrate: at first Western countries did not intervene, but over time they decided to take advantage of this situation. Firstly, to test the reaction of other countries, especially Russia, secondly, to test new weapons and information technologies, and thirdly, to demonstrate their power in front of the new NATO members and the whole world.

In order to present a clear picture of the policy of double standards, one should refer to its examples. So, there is a tendency that in pro-Western countries, international observers recognize elections and their compliance with international standards, and in countries where this orientation does not exist, they recognize election violations. A striking example is the elections in Georgia and Belarus. The victory of M. Saakashvili was recognized as a triumph of democracy, while the victory of A. Lukashenko was recognized as a consequence of fraud. What is most interesting is that in both situations the criterion for proof was a high percentage of votes. For example, the people who hijacked planes and sent them to the World Trade Center are recognized as terrorists, and the US military, who bombed hospitals in Serbia, are not criminals, and even, on the contrary, find support in the world community. The fact is that the countries of Western Europe recognized the results and supported the referendum, which announced the separation of Montenegro from Serbia. But, at the same time, they do not want to support such referendums in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic.

Despite all of the above, in my opinion, the most striking and dangerous manifestation of the policy of double standards is the United States. If we talk about the nature of their policy, we involuntarily recall the words of William Shakespeare: “ They only love those they like, and whoever they don’t like, they stir things up with dirt.».

For a long time, the world community has been observing America’s attempts to instill its ideas about state and social order, hiding behind the “mask” of a fighter for justice, thereby expanding the areas of its influence on the world both politically, economically, and in military and ideological terms.

As is known, America supported Gorbachev’s “perestroika” and promised that after the liquidation of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the USSR, which was supposed to be the end of the Cold War, the United States would dissolve or abandon the expansion of NATO. But, as is known, none of this was implemented in practice.

The United States no longer adheres to the principle of political correctness, but leans more toward “might is right.” For example, in the process of America’s armed intervention in Yugoslavia, under the guise of protecting the rights of Albanian separatists in Kosovo, which contributed to the complete banditry of NATO, in fact, the destruction of the integrity of the country, the bombing of Belgrade and the death of civilians.

American military expert Daniel Davis describes the US policy of double standards quite accurately. He says that America must change its course of development, otherwise, they may soon face the outbreak of a major war, and even war with Russia. A myth that implies that Russia's actions are motivated by a power grab and personal animosity toward the United States, while America itself is only taking the right and reasonable steps. For example, the United States is against Russia exporting weapons. I quote: “We also recommend that Russia not cooperate with Iran, and we ourselves provide military advisers to Georgia; We declare that Russia under no circumstances has the right to maintain its military contingent in Cuba, but at the same time we dismissively tell the Russian side that it has no say in the matter of expanding our military alliance right to the borders of Russia.” Anyone, I believe, who reads this will understand the application of double standards.

America's ambivalent actions can be seen as a sign of imperialism, since this type of policy can be observed over time. David thinks that the US is losing its influence not only abroad, but even among its NATO allies: because they are no longer taken at their word.

One of the most striking examples in the history of the policy of double standards was America’s attitude towards the issue of Kosovo, on the one hand, and South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other. In the first situation, the United States managed to blame Serbia for everything and recognize Kosovo, but in the second question, Washington did not consider it necessary to see the crimes that the Saakashvili regime committed in relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Also, everyone remembers that America participated in the propaganda that peaceful Georgia faced Russian aggression. There is a lot of evidence that Russia provided assistance to the Ossetian people, when Georgian troops began to kill peacekeepers, America ignored it. Also, the United States did not react in any way to the fact that the European Union, in its report to the Tagliavini Commission, decided that it was Georgia that started the war with Ossetia.

You can also observe the US policy of double standards in relation to Moldova. While Moldova adhered to the side of the United States and supported its policies, took part in the work of the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM, and supplied military force to Iraq, Washington considered Moldova democratic, observing freedom of speech, the press and respect for human rights. But when Moldova began to improve relations with Russia, Washington spoke about the unproductiveness of membership in GUAM, about the problem of the democratic system, thereby again demonstrating a policy of double standards.

With the arrival of Democrat Barack Obama in the White House, many expected the Government to abandon the policy of double standards. Indicative is Barack Obama's speech at the UN General Assembly, in which he says that no country can and should not try to dominate another. No world order that elevates one country or group of people over another will succeed. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside on any state. Each society must find its own path, and there are no perfect paths. Each country will follow a path that is rooted in the culture and traditions of its people. And I recognize that America has too often been selective in its approach to spreading democracy.

But, despite all of the above, you should be wary of American politics and simply observe the activities of the administration.

The policy of double standards (“contradictory policy”, “dual policy”, “inconsistent policy”) is a fundamentally different application of principles, laws, rules, assessments to the same type of actions of various subjects (one of which may be the evaluator himself), depending on the degree of loyalty of these subjects or other considerations of benefit for the evaluator. Double standard is a term widely used in modern political science, journalism, economics, social science and other humanities, denoting different attitudes (often outright discrimination) and different assessments of the same, and more often similar events and situations by the same evaluators in the strength of their bias, changed circumstances, personal self-interest, emotional state, etc.

Definition

The policy of double standards is a situation when the assessment of the same actions of subjects varies depending on the relationship in which each of these subjects is with the evaluator. At the same time, the actions of “our own” - those loyal to the evaluator - are justified, while the same actions of “strangers” are condemned and considered unacceptable.

In international relations, it usually takes the form of accusing those undesirable of violating principles, conventions, obligations, “violating universal human values,” “violating human rights,” “deviating from the norms of international law,” while demonstratively ignoring completely similar actions of one’s own or the actions of allies.

The policy of double standards has existed as long as human society has existed. It is widely used as a means of putting pressure on opponents through public opinion and as a way to justify one’s own actions towards someone else. Equally widespread is the accusation of double standards, which is often used to deflect criticism.

Until modern times, double standards were the generally accepted norm regarding the behavior of the nobility and the common people. So, for example, nobility of behavior was considered obligatory for the nobility, and “meanness” for the common people. Moreover, a vile act on the part of a commoner did not cause any condemnation, since it was considered completely natural; if a commoner acted nobly, then this caused great surprise on the part of the nobles, while other commoners in this case often considered him just a fool. In addition, the murder by a nobleman of someone from among those who were considered “cattle” was also quite considered natural, and knightly gallantry acted only in relation to noblewomen, in relation to whom the knight was obliged to be gallant; The rape of a commoner by a knight did not cause condemnation or surprise from anyone.

Terminology of double standards

One of the common manifestations of the policy of double standards is the naming of the same or very close objects, actions, phenomena with different terms, the emotional connotation of which is significantly different. For example:

Spy - Scout - depending on who he works for.
Planting - Implementation - depending on whether the evaluator approves of the innovation.
occupy - liberate - depending on whose troops entered the country.
Dictator - Leader - depending on the ruler's political orientation or whether his "hand" can reach the speaker (as well as his political preferences)
Dictatorship - Vertical of power - depending on the loyalty of the speaker.
Tyrant - Leader - the same.
Combating tyranny - regicide - depending on the attitude towards the monarch
Informer/Sexot - Informant - depending on the attitude towards those whom and about whom he informs.
KGB officer/Executioner - Chekist - depending on sympathies.
Companion - Epigone - depending on the attitude towards the one he supports.
Mutiny/Revolt - Revolution/Uprising - depending on the result of the operation.
Separatism - National liberation movement - depending on who wants to secede and from which state.
Armed aggression - restoration of constitutional order - depending on sympathies.
War - Counter-terrorism operation/Operation to restore constitutional order - depending on sympathies.
The establishment of a puppet government - the destruction of the dictatorship - depending on sympathies.
Terrorist/Fighter - Partisan - depending on sympathies.
Treason to the Motherland - The struggle for liberation/independence - depending on the sympathies or specifics of the current political moment.
Traitor to the Motherland/Traitor - Liberation Fighter/National Hero - the same.
Intervention - Military assistance - depending on sympathies.
Anti-adviser - Human rights activist - depending on the political views of the speaker and the country in whose country the rights are protected.
Liberal - Liberal - depending on political preferences.
Dank dampness - Damp coolness - depending on whether the speaker is warm or cold.
Creature - Animal - depending on whether the rat was bought in a store, or whether it started on its own.
The glass is half empty - the glass is half full - depending on the mood of the evaluator.
New Russian - Bratok - depending on the relative financial status of the speaker.
Top model - Board/Herring - depending on ideas about beauty.
Military campaigns - Predatory raids - depending on whose historical ancestors are meant.
Cowardice - Caution - depending on sympathies.
A psycho is an eccentric personality - depending on his sympathies.
Graphomaniac - An outstanding writer - depending on the attitude towards his literary work.
Erotomania - Pervert - depending on the approval/disapproval of a person’s behavior.
Mediocrity - Talented/comprehensively developed personality - depending on recognition/non-recognition of talents and merits.
Redneck - Thrifty person - depending on likes.
Wizard/fairy - sorcerer/witch - in fairy tales, depending on the character's relationship to the protagonist.
Mean - Prudent - depending on whether the negative character carries a knife in his boot or the positive one.

Language and double standards

The specifics of a particular language and individual grammatical structures can also act as a kind of instrument of double standards. For example, the introduction of a limited contingent of Soviet troops into Afghanistan is predominantly referred to by the English-language (especially American) media as “Soviet invasion in Afghanistan” (trans.: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). At the same time, a similar operation of the US Armed Forces and NATO countries in Iraq is usually called “Invasion of Iraq,” which is essentially nonsense and makes it unclear who initiated the invasion and against whom it was actually directed. When covering terrorist attacks in Russia, CNN refers to the perpetrators or those who ordered the attacks as “separatists” rather than terrorists. CNN previously called Chechen militants “rebels.”

CNN journalists call members of the gang of Arbi Barayev and Movsar Barayev, who were involved in kidnappings, executions of hostages, organizing terrorist attacks at Nord Ost: “armed Chechens” (“Chechen gunmen”), “Chechen partisans” (“Chechen guerrillas”), “Chechen rebels” ” (“Chechen rebels”), and, finally, “Chechen dissidents” (“Chechen dissidents”).

Double standards in the light of the assessment of historical events and personalities

After the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks who came to power issued a decree “On the removal of monuments to the kings and their servants”, in pursuance of which almost all monuments to historical figures were subject to demolition, undoubtedly significant for world history, but whose title or rank did not correspond to the revolutionary concepts of that time . Even the famous Monument to Minin and Pozharsky was under threat, but after the revolution it was included in the list of monuments of historical value. In order to save national and world heritage from such destruction, sometimes it came to changing the signs on monuments, say, from “King Danil” to “Comrade D. Galitsky,” as well as adding the obligatory “comrade” in the context of the narrative about historical personalities.