Hey everyone,
This is Emile's post. She was having trouble posting on the blog.
In the article, "Euphemisms, Dysphemisms Blunt the Truth," Howard Richler writes, "euphemisms can soothe...and for certain subjects, such as sex, euphemisms seem essential." Based on the discussion in class, it's safe to say that we all have come across beneficial euphemisms throughout the semester, whether it was during the seminar or at our internships.
However, our discussion left off where I read the response to a question that I posed for Zach, a social worker at the Guardianship Project. The question was "Do you think euphemisms, ultimately help your clients?" Zach's response was both yes and no. Yes, because when discussing difficult issues, such as death to a client, euphemisms allow the conversation to be manageable. No, because some euphemisms can be counterproductive and allow clients to avoid or hide discussing certain issues, such as domestic violence. Zach has found that when talking to clients being blunt is the best way to go. Euphemisms can sometimes cause misunderstandings.
So my question is, do you think that euphemisms can be, helpful and harmful, or both? Do you think euphemisms should be used depending on the person you are talking to? Can you think of an example where one euphemism can be both helpful and harmful?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Euphemisms…blunt the truth," we’re told….and for certain subjects, such as sex, euphemisms seem essential." Oh how euphemisms (and dysphemisms) abound in our everyday lives! Now that Emile has brought these to my consciousness, I see them everywhere (even though I’m not sure if all the examples fit the definitions)...
If a euphemism blunts the truth, lessens or weakens something, consider the case of Mr. Souder, the 59 year old Republican Congressman recently caught with his pants down. Mr. Souder is a staunch supporter of abstinence-only sex education (and harsh drug penalties) who NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd refers to as “a conservative Christian lawmaker (who) is both morally and physically repellent.” Here’s Souder’s comment as quoted in the NY Times:
“I sinned against God, my wife and my family by having a mutual relationship with a part-time member of my staff….In the poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. ”
Talk about blunting the truth (“a mutual relationship”???!)! Souder also shifts responsibility from himself. If we deconstruct his words, he seems to be saying: “Even though I did ‘it,’ other forces were at work, since ‘sin,’ as we all know, is rooted in ‘temptation,’ something outside my true self. And besides, all the vultures are ready to pounce on poor me. The poisonous environment…seizes and twists for THEIR gain. I’m the victim here!” Side note: In 1998, “Souder called for former President Bill Clinton to resign over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.” Journalist Amy Goodman asked Souder in ’98 if he had ever had an extramarital affair. “When Souder was asked, he hung up the phone.”
The disturbing thing is less his having sex with someone other than his wife but his great hypocrisy.
Also in the NY Times, is a review of a new biography of E.M. Forster (who I love—actually, I love his novels). “A Great Unrecorded History” deals directly with Forster’ sexuality: “The thing about which his mother was most obtuse was Forster’s sexual orientation. ‘I wish he were more manly and did not cry so easily,’ she once said of her only son.” Was she really obtuse? Or was she blunting the truth, even from herself—given the social mores of the times?
The reviewer notes: “It was in Alexandria that Forster achieved the physical breakthrough that he called ‘parting with Respectability’ at the ripe old age of 37. “ Aaah the euphemisms we humans invent! Towards the end of his life, Forster had had enough of blunting the truth: “And he spoke his mind ever more clearly. At 84, he looked back angrily on a lifetime spent in hiding. ‘How annoyed I am with Society for wasting my time by making homosexuality criminal,’ he complained.‘The subterfuges, the self-consciousness that might have been avoided.’” It’s all so tragic, really.
There’s lots more. Check out Maureen Dowd’s column on the connotations of “a single woman” compared to one who is “unmarried.” And then there’s the words of CT’s Attorney General Richard Blumenthal,a Democrat running for the Senate. Although he never served in Vietnam, he stated in at least one speech, “…since the days that I served in Vietnam.” Caught red-handed (the speeches were recorded), Blumenthal blunts his lies with: they were just “a few misplaced words.”!! Like Souder, Blumenthal claims he is taking “full responsibility” but his euphemism (“misplaced words”) barely get out of his mouth when he deflects attention (responsibility) from himself onto “others” who might malign him: “But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country.” It is not he who has brought shame onto himself, but others.
I don’t think I answered Emile’s question, but she inspired this closer reading of my daily paper.
In myriad examples, Professor Waterston describes ways in which language can be contorted both to convey subtle differences in message to others and, even more importantly, to shape internal narratives that then mediate behavior. I think of the difference in gloss between calling someone an “ex-con” versus “a person formerly deprived of liberty” that has been discussed in Jeremy Travis’s book on prisoner reentry. Although each term is descriptively accurate, the latter may also be euphemistic in some sense (at least as much as “gay” is a euphemism for homosexual.) Even so, I completely endorse a project that would use it as a linguistic foundation for tamping down bias and buttressing the self-esteem of people getting out of prison. Euphemism, used this way, may soften interaction in a very positive way, as Emile notes in regard to the uses of euphemism to engage otherwise difficult topics with Guardianship participants. On the other hand, marginalized groups often find nicer, more euphemistic terms paradoxically off-putting because they obscure a more accurate (sometimes painful) depiction of one’s circumstances; see, for instance, Nancy Mairs’s “On being a cripple”, or Daniel Levin’s essays about the use of “victim vs. survivor” nomenclature in clinical work with adults who were abused in childhood.
It is quite a chore in language both to remain faithful to the essence of something when describing it, but to also beware of using language as a weapon to demean, dismantle, or diminish someone’s identity. The use of euphemism, dysphemism, and everything in between is always guided by a particular political, psychological, or social agenda, unconscious or not… perhaps we should not discuss only the words-which are just visible indices of something more covert-but their individual, specific intentions and impacts.
Emile's class made me really aware of how we use euphemisms in our relationships with others so as not to hurt their feelings or to avoid a dispute. I started listening carefully to the things that I said and my friends said to one another. I thought it was interesting that even with the people closest to us, we are afraid to be blunt. I noticed that friends in relationships would say things like oh "I'm hanging out with a friend" or "They" instead of saying he or she or a direct name to their significant other. In this situation, "friend" becomes a euphemism for a person of the opposite sex that is used to protect the significant others feelings or avoid jealousy. We also have so many terms we use to define relationships that soften their sexual nature such as "hooking up" or "friends with benefits." Eskimos have tons of different ways of saying "snow" but we have a zillion different ways of saying "sex". I think that these terms become harmful to interpersonal relationships because they hide the true nature of the relationship and both parties may come to have different definitions that can lead to later issues. For example, if you ask people to define the difference between going out, seeing each other, and dating, every person you ask will give you a different answer. I think in some cases euphemisms can be dangerous because they can lead to confusion about how much or how little meaning the word you are using to describe your relationship has.
Another thing I noticed was that when shopping we (especially women) use so many euphemisms because we are so body conscious and insecure in this society. "Curvy" or "voluptuous" becomes euphemisms for "fat" or "chubby" (which is a euphemism in itself I think). And we never say you look horrid in that dress. We always say "I don't think that dress suits your figure" or "that dress doesn't do you justice."
Weird harmonic convergence, Professor Waterston. Forster is my favorite writer and I was just putting a quote of his on the program for our departmental ceremony on Friday! I'll put it here since it speaks to the moment of transition on which we have been reflecting the last couple of weeks:
"We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us."
— E.M. Forster
Maybe we should read HOWARDS END for seminar next year.
I have also had the experience since Emile's class of seeing euphemism everywhere. As a hardcore Orwellian, I'm almost 100% in the "harmful" camp. As he reminds us in "Politics and the English Language," if we don't use words precisely to convey what we think, our fuzzy words will start to think our thoughts for us, gradually if seemingly harmlessly alienating us from the truth. But as a midwesterner, I'm used to trying to take the edge of harsh realities with kinder, gentler, more abstract words. I guess, like almost everything, it depends on context.
I think euphemisms could be both good and bad. The good thing about them is the fact that it can mask a term to make it sound more appealing. The bad thing about them is that it can distort the real meaning of something. After our seminar on Thursday I started to think whether euphemism is ever used in my culture and I found that it was. There are different ways to say "bathroom" in Cantonese to make it seem more polite. There are also different ways to say that someone had died to make it seem more acceptable.
Just like we discussed in class, euphemisms are sometimes necessary so that we don't risk attacking certain sensibilities. Obviously language can be manipulated and used to mask lies, but that is where it becomes the listener's job to be alert to or investigate what is being said.
I really don't see the dangers of even "harmful" euphemisms or why it is we worry so much about their use. Why would we ever take what anyone says, especially anyone in a position of power, at face value? Being alert adults with full use of our faculties, we should be fairly impervious to "harmful" euphemisms. Euphemisms have no real power until we give them power.
I agree with Manny that we "should" always be on the alert, but I believe most people are not on the alert at all. This is why power can get away with as much murder as it does.....
Manny, although I agree with you, I have to admit that I am very fearful of the use of language. I think that euphemisms which are used to protect people can potentially be one's oppressor. I know this sounds very extreme, but language is a very powerful thing, and sure it is the people who give power to language, but what about the "powerless?" I feel that poor uneducated, unrepresented people are the one who always suffer in the long run and are the ones more affected by the lies that euphemisms cover. I think there is a great danger with language, especially when euphemism backfire and harm the individuals they're supposed to protect.
Finally, I just find it so interesting how the meanings of words change with the culture of people. Like Neethu's examples show about "fat" versus "voluptuous."
Post a Comment