I remember discussing the use of Euphemisms in my ISP Literature class two semesters ago, and it was interesting the facts one can uncover if we deeply analyze why the government uses Euphemisms. Well, according to an article tittled Euphemism and American Violence by David Bromwich, Euphemisms served several purposes in American Capitalism: first, powerful language dominates and controls; second, it is a means of substituting harsh and offensive words with mild or vague terms; third, euphemism distorts the truth. In other words, David Brumwich could not have described democracy in a better way. Democracy cannot exist without the use of euphemisms. Imagine if we lived in a society in which the government disclosed everything to the public, Obviously we would not live in such a peaceful society. Perhaps people would not follow all the rules, laws, and regulations set by the government if they did not use euphemisms to manipulate the people. The government needs, at some point, to have control over who they govern, even if it may seem that we have control over them. It is true that the public elects their representatives and senators; however, public does not know what really goes on in congress, or what issues are discussed. The government discloses what they think the public will like, or at least, what will satisfy their to be informed. With that being said, lets take a look at a couple of passages from the article Euphemism and American Violence:
"If one extreme of euphemism comes from naturalizing the cruelties of power, the opposite extreme arises from a nerve-deadening understatement. George Orwell had the latter method in view when he wrote a memorable passage of "Polictics and the English Language."
Defenceless villages are bombared from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are improsoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Artic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one to name things without calling up mental pictures of them" (Bromwich, D. Euphemism And American Violence, p. 1, The New York Review, March 15, 2008).
The very truth here is that most of us are naive of what really happens around the world. U.S intervention in other countries is not always what it seems to be. According to David Bromwich and Tony Proscio, the powerful must rename their actions if they want to keep the public satisfied yet naive. Most of us may agree that the US military will not rveal to the American public that they "bombared defenceless villages, killing all their inhabitants, and setting the remainings on fire, or locking people up for years without the right to due process." If the truth was so told to the public as it happens, then what would be the sense of calling ourselves a democratic society. The government, as does the supreme court in its long and sophiticated interpretations of the laws, needs to use powerful language such as pacification, transfer of unreliable elements, or rectification of frontiers to soften things and give a more positive meaning to the truth behind these terms.
If we looked and analyzed closely these words, like Geargoe Orwell and Tony Proscio emphasize in their articles, would we understand the meaning of these words by just hearing them or reading them from some well-written article or passage? Think deeply, would you? I know I wouldn't. The dictionary definition of Pacification includes (1) reduction, as of rebellious district, to peaceful submission and (2) a peace treaty. The meaning behind pacification as noted by David Bromwich is definately not a peace treaty or a peaceful submission. Think about it? do these words make it easy for us to be well-informed of the things happening in our society, much less in underdeveloped countries around the world?
Just to clear any confusions in regards to this article, it was written to illustrate what was taking/took place during the Vietnam War. The actions of the military in Vietnam and other countries where there was US military involvement.
P.S. Sorry for posting my blog so late but I had been very busy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I disagree with you, I believe that in order to have true democracy we must have all of the information on an issue and not all of the bull they feed us now. How can we vote for someone who will best represent us if everything we get from public officials is covered up with euphemisms? People do not follow the rules of the government already, I highly doubt that information being divulged would lead towards anarchy. It is so sad that we do live in a country of manipulation and corruption, and it is this that feeds the hungry beast of structural violence. The government has become this system where the poor are usually doomed to fail, and they are kept at the bottom of the feeding chain because of the governments control. The government tries to hide their imperfections with euphemisms and acts of financial aid. The whole reason they are in that situation is because the government screwed them over, people don’t become addicted to drugs and crime because they are inertly bad people. They are driven to it. I know I sound a bit radical, but all too many times have I seen these things happen around me. An animal hunts for food, do we judge the animal? No, so when a man robs another, he is merely driven to primal instincts because the government limits his options. I honestly do not see the harm of the government actually telling us the truth, in fact society would be a lot less corrupt if all of the hidden agendas were out in the open. I believe that the government should protect the govern, not control them. Of course people like being told what they want to here, but that is not beneficial for this democratic society. I want to here the “Ugly Truth.” I want to know the nuts and bolts of a problem, because it may affect me or the people around me. Like Orwell said, we should say what we mean.
When Orwell said this I couldn’t help think of Lewis Carroll’s book Alice and Wonderland. The entire scene at the Mad Tea Party made me think that if the information we receive from the government is hidden by euphemisms, then it is up us to think critically and figure out the truth. I am not saying that the world would become a better place if we say what we mean, but it would make it easier to determine what is the root source of problems (such as structural violence) and how to solve them.
Here is the scene from Carroll’s book Alice in Wonderland;
The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, `Why is a raven like a writing-desk?'
`Come, we shall have some fun now!' thought Alice. `I'm glad they've begun asking riddles.--I believe I can guess that,' she added aloud.
`Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?' said the March Hare.
`Exactly so,' said Alice.
`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.
`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'
`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'
`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!'
`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'
As you can see how confusing it is, to say what you meant or mean what you say. But words have power and the information that the government holds from us, which I think goes beyond euphemisms (judging by the examples you gave.)
Both Elias and Amanda have brought up important points. Because words have power, they can inspire fear, and this fear can be motivating or paralyzing. On account of George Orwell I’m trying to rectify my statements with examples because I realize I’m guilty of sometimes writing “away from concreteness.” The recent debate on autism and vaccinations show the power of words. Jenny McCarthy’s book, ironically titled “More Than Words” chronicles his birth, his life up until age 2 when he received an MMR shot, and the next 3 years of managing autism. The connection she makes, which other scientists have made, is that the mercury in the MMR shot triggers a genetic “vulnerability” in some people, causing autism. In other words, the incurable disease of autism is preventable, and doctors who are aware of the research have been hiding this information because half are unaware and the other half are seemingly paid to be unaware. The current statistics are also staggeringly high – about 1 in every 166 children have autism. The facts are these: MMR shots do contain mercury (a toxic substance). Research from British scientist Andrew Wakefield indicated an Amish village who did not vaccinate their children against MMR had only 3 cases of autism – 2 of the girls were adopted an had received the vaccination prior to adoption and the third girl came from a town near a power plant known to contain high levels of mercury in the environment. The fear that these facts has inspired caused many parents to refuse MMR vaccinations for their children. Not coincidentally, the first measles outbreak since the 1960 occurred in the US in early 2008. The words which motivated fear became paralyzing. Parents are at a loss for what is in the best interest of their child. The words which inspired fear also became motivating – as evidenced in groups such as Autism Speaks. Because there is a practical way in which autism could be triggered by mercury, current research is directed toward identifying those with a genetic predisposition or “vulnerability.” Another important reminder is that statistics put a number on the relationship between a multitude of factors; and it often takes some digging to find the truth. It is “up to us to think critically and find the truth” because truth is an amorphous concept.
As Elias and Amanda have already suggested, the most obfuscatory words have-to steal a phrase from Paul Farmer-a “final common pathway” in the material world, the world where adverse outcomes put the lie to the seductive prose that partially enable them. Thus did “the final solution” (perhaps the most well known euphemism of all time) write the deaths of 11 million. I want to briefly discuss here the opposite of euphemism (which has as its purpose to obscure what’s really going on): dysfemism, the use of words to make an image more graphic, even at times bordering on the hyperbolic.
Like euphemism, dysfemism is also a political tool. Think of heartrending descriptions of week old fetuses used by “prolife” (also a euphemism for anti-abortion) advocates. In the extreme, the rhetorical use of dysfemism equals propaganda. However, even when its purpose is to inform rather than propagandize, dysfemism has unintended negative consequences. If euphemism leads to the robotization of activity, a collective dulling of political perception where we march in lockstep, blindly following orders, dysfemism leads to a different kind of linguistic-political landscape, where an excess of image overwhelms our capacity as political agents. Psychologist Geoffrey White has jokingly referred to this as Political Apathy Disorder, where too many competing pleas for help for the starving, the homeless, and the rest of the disenfranchised overwhelm our ability to attend to any one of them in a sufficient manner. What remains is merely an amorphous, collective guilt. And, as Hannah Arendt reminded us: where all are guilty, none are held accountable.
Language is often the struggle to make meaning of states that exist only in a sub-symbolic realm: terror, pain, dread, awe, anguish. Elaine Scarry, in her seminal work “The body in pain: The making and unmaking of the world” argues that the very power of torture and warfare stems from the fact that they destroy the human capacity to use language as a tool for meaning making. To apply this more locally, I know from having worked with abused children that the largest impairments resulting from abuse are in the realm of memory. I attribute this to the failure of the descriptive capacity to put into words what is happening during abuse, because powerful emotions have struck the victim dumb. With no memory, there is no historicity (understanding of history), and we are doomed, as the saying goes, to repeat its mistakes.
The raw data of trauma so often remains unprocessed, not understood, never demanding justice. Making the case on the larger stage of political action, Scarry notes that the ease or effort with which a situation can be verbally expressed is the degree to which it can be politically represented (and hence understood and potentially remediated.) This is the terrible struggle concerning language that Orwell effaces in his call to arms, oops, I mean call to pens: to describe what seems indescribable, accurately, and without exaggeration or artifice.
Professor Stein raises a good question about Orwell's critique of political language. On the one hand, the quote that Elias provides is a good example of how Orwell manages to provide accurate descriptions of awful things. On the other, there does seem to be something completely pre-post-structuralist in his essay (poststructuralism being a theoretical movement that points out how unstable language is, how full of its own unrealized ideas and obstacles; it is usually written in the kind of writing that Orwell would hate!). It is not always possible to find the words.
This fantastic topic "on language" brings up so many other issues that also need to be clarified--and spoken about in clear, straightforward ways.
For example, Elias bases his post on an understanding of "democracy," a word he really does not define. Also what is the difference between "democracy" and an economic system? For example, I have noticed in our popular, political culture (on TV, in some political discourse, etc) a conflation in the use of the words "democracy" and "capitalism," as if they are the same order of things. I think this conflation is purposeful (Orwellian) and can lead to problematic conclusions. What if we went back to Elias’s post and replaced the word “democracy” with “capitalism”? How would his argument now read?
I can’t resist adding this too: just because the promise of “democracy” has not been met does that mean “democracy” is the problem? If it’s not “democracy” that’s the problem, what is?
Danielle offers a good case for why we must be clear about what we're talking about, what conclusions we reach, and on what evidence it is based. How often have quantitative researchers argued causality (one thing causes another) on the basis of correlation (two things may be associated with one another but their causal link has not been established)? I wonder why we are so quick to "accept" as true something that has a number attached to it?
Finally, I think that to communicate effectively in writing, we must not only pay attention to individual words and what they mean/suggest/connote, but we must also pay attention to the details of grammar, spelling, format, and all the mechanics of language. I personally find it extremely distracting and confusing when Words r splld increctly, And words are incorrectly Capitalized, and so forth (subject/word agreement; run-on sentences). I know in the world of instant messaging, texting and fast-paced shortcuts there seems to be a new code of conduct when it comes to these things, but I think it’s so important to know the standard rules and how to apply them. I’m sure nobody would disagree with this statement in principle, but….actions speak louder than words!!
Democracy or Capitalism are not two easy terms to define for they both arise different opinions and theories. The objective of showing the passage written by david Bromwich was based on a philosophical, ethical, and moral aspect to arise different point of views as to how Euphemism and Dysfemism (Dysfemism being professir Stein's views) have been integrated in our political system, not only to reduce the severity of political and military actions and decisions but to keep the public in a stable, submissive manner. The structure of the essay may also arise different views because it was not intended to convey a clear, concise, and restrictive message but to challenge the views of the reader and explore different opinions, as to how we difine Democracy and Capitalism in our own terms.
Language has interested me since the beginning of this class. I always commented on the author’s choice of words, why use one word as oppose to another with greater power. Giovanni’s distinction of client and defendant is a prime example of the stigma with words. Words really do carry such power, and the danger lies in their manipulation. For example, in Lochner vs. New York, a landmark supreme court case where the judge’s ruling used the fourteenth amendment and it protection for the citizen against the states and it limitations on contracts to remove the unionized protective labor laws that would prohibit an employer from requesting its employee to work whatever hours at whatever conditions. This case, although it’s language tries to portray the respect and defense of the individual’s right to decide how many hours one can legally work, truthfully serves to hide the interest of the owners, to force employees to work long hours for the same wage (as minimum wage was not yet established) and in terrible conditions, hence delaying the process and benefits of unions and the healthy interest of the citizen.
Now as far as this post is concerned, I also agree that the government keeps a lot hidden from its citizens. It has too, sure it’s not a “big brother” scenario but it’s frightfully parallel. Even if the government doesn’t necessarily hide information, they definitely do manipulate the language and use a lot of justification techniques to make things... well justifiable. Here I think of movies, or rather, the documentaries by Michael Moore, such as “Capitalism” and “Sicko” which show Marxism at its best.
Lastly, Professor Wasterston, I completely agree with you, the proper use of language is very important and errors in writing can be very detrimental and a huge disappointment to the reader . I remember my cousin once told me that every time I instant messaged with him I would take shortcuts in the typing and he said that it affected my actual writing and that even those instant messages represents you as an individual. “An intelligent lady ought to never speak, or write like that” he said. I've tried to "write proper" in my electronic messages ever since.
This week's readings have really affected my view of language. I have always known that words are useful to convey ideas, but I have undermine the ability of words to hide violence and injustice. I have let phrases like "collateral damage" slip by me without really analyzing what they mean. When I really took a moment to think about this phrase I was horrified by its content. Collateral damage means that it is acceptable to sacrifice/kill innocent people for political or military objectives. Does this phrase imply that there are people in this world who are disposable? I have notice that I have begun to dissect every fact that I have come across lately. What are they saying? What are they not saying? What facts are their words hiding or what facts are they exaggerating?
In "Speaking Truth to Power with Books," I found very interesting when Howard Zinn's stated, "As soon as facts are presented, as soon as facts are put out in the world, they represent a judgement." I completely agree with Howard Zinn because people always focus on facts that will to strengthen their arguments and promote their points of view. Does this mean that the facts are wrong? No, it means that we should simply think about why we are given certain facts and not others.
George Orwell makes a compelling argument for direct language and I completely agree. However, we must sadly conform to the way things are done and to the inflated misuse of language, especially in academia and particularly in English. I have observed this propensity towards inflated language and redundancy in English, while I have not experienced this in Spanish. I know other people who have made this observation as well in various other languages. Am I the only "Veron" who sees this? Does anyone else agree? If so, what is it that makes English writing so susceptible to such pretentiousness and circumlocution?
Does anyone disagree? This is just my opinion and one that i know some people share.
I am not a linguist by any stretch of the imagination, but i find English to lack consistency and structure when compared to other languages, particularly, Romance languages. This allows for liberties to be taken with the language which depending on who employs them and/or adopts them, can often become ingrained into the language. While I'm sure this is true in all languages, i believe English to be particularly susceptible to such practices.
By the way, the Neoliberalism water balloon experiment video is genius! Anyone else check that out?
Manny, I can think of a specific example to that point. How often are people guilty of over-apologizing? I swear sometimes I hear someone apologizing for the same mistake over and over; apologizing when something was out of their hands; apologizing to someone after they bumped into you - telling them it's okay doesn't stop their knee-jerk reaction of saying "I'm sorry" again. Apology, in this case, loses its value. In spanish, the way to say I'm sorry is "Lo siento," literally, "I feel it." If you are caught in Spain saying "lo siento" the way we use "I'm sorry" here, you're looked at like you're CRAZY. "I feel it" has a strong, substantial meaning, and thus is a statement one wouldn't use casually.
I agree that euphemisms are necessary to control people because if the pure truth is divulged then there would be chaos, panic, and outrage. For our society to continue in its current state (I am not saying our current state is good) a certain degree of lies or half-truths are necessary. But what I find interesting is that although our government may shower us in euphemisms, we as individuals can find out the truth about what is really going on but most of us choose not to. We accept the euphemisms and the dysfemisms. We buy into what the government tells us, even though truly we may know that we are not being given the truth.
I was in the doctor's office the other day and the History channel was playing a documentary on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when the United States was helping the Islamist Mujahideen resistance. A secretary made a move to change the channel and a man who apparently has two sons fighting overseas said "don't change the channel. We should learn as much as possible about our ENEMIES." I found this fascinating because the documentary was portraying a time when the United States was assisting and training Afghan insurgents--then they were our allies but today we have been "taught" by the media and the government to consider Afghanistan our enemy. It made me see how relative everything was and how language and who tells us what can influence our viewpoints. The truth and facts are easily distorted in the face of emotion, disaster, and national pride. There are those, however, who attempt to find and report the truth but perhaps it is more about who holds the power (and capitalism plays a big part in this) because the words of those who hold power are heard and believed by a greater number of people.
A shout-out to Manny for using that great Dickensian term "circumlocution" and to Amanda for sharing another great moment of Victorian literature, the scene from ALICE IN WONDERLAND. It warms the cockles of my English professor heart.
I disagree with the notion that the use of Euphuisms is absolutely necessary in our world today. The average non informed individual in today’s society is aware of the scary world we live in. So often we don’t give ourselves enough credit for living the lives we do. I for one want to know everything my government does. The saying is honesty is the best policy. By excusing the methods in which wrongs are disguise we also excuse the actions themselves. Timothy MC Veigh was quoted in his trial as saying,
“Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”
If it’s a common practice to substitute and mask the truth of situations, the original problems become amplified and consequently never solved. Further more it is not only easier but it becomes mandatory to practice the ways of those who are considered our leaders. While reading I found this quote by Tony Proscio very interesting. Aside from inability to express our feelings in words, and fear of back lash and misinterpretation why do we always “mean both more and less that what we say”?
I've always known that the careful selection of words can make a world of difference, but last weeks reading plus this weeks reading has captured me with how powerful words can be.
Orwell said in his article, "What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around." Basically in order to truly express what you mean is to let that feeling choose the best words possible to get your point across.
I agree with Elias that the government needs to control the people that they govern by distorting reality to what everyone wants to see, but at the same time we should know the truth because we can make more informed decisions.
Professor Waterston is right. Why are we so quick to jump to believe something because a number is attached to it? I know it is a bad habit of mine to quickly say "this is bad because of the numbers determined that!" But it is so crucial that we look at the larger picture. Where are these numbers coming from and what are they calculating (can we rely on them)?
Howard Zinn's "Speaking Truth to Power with Books" was such an interesting reading. Books are very inspiring and the writer is also powerful with the message they bring across. Zinn's reading on the importance of books and Orwell's reading on the importance of words works well together to show us how powerful the careful usage of words can be.
In my humble opinion euphemism is not necessary in a democratic nation such as ours. I would like to point out though that realistically speaking many people would go insane if the horrid truth about many things that have been done come to light. Now, without a doubt politics is one of the best examples of euphemism, from beginning to end. We see it in campaigns; we hear it in speeches and in regular interactions with politicians and even some people with high societal power. In regards to Alisse's comment on whether democracy is a problem and if it is not the problem what is? In my humble opinion I do not believe that democracy is the problem because euphemism can be found in every type of government. What I do believe is the problem is what is being done in democracy this includes but is not limited to euphemism, manipulative actions, distorted ideas of justice and the list goes on. We must though realize that this happens in every government because people must not be "discouraged" by the government, in order for the government always to maintain control over its people. The government must always make it appear as if we are in control when realistically speaking everything has its hidden meaning and manipulation. George Orwell’s argument without a doubt is definitely grips the truth discussing direct language. The unfortunate truth is the euphemism is a huge part of our culture, our politics and our life and that just how it has been, will continue to be today and tomorrow and maybe it will always be. The reality of the matter is that euphemism has been a positive aspect of maintaining our society’s sanity, if the truth were divulged ever time we may undergo a state of chaos and panic from which the state may never recuperate.
Post a Comment