This week's class was certainly interesting!
There are some points that I would like us to revisit. From
the readings, we learned that the use of euphemistic language for the sake
political correctness risks a widening of the gap between word and reality. I ask
us all: is it permissible for us to accept such widening? In social justice
work, are there some truths that we
must or should somewhat ignore (e.g. a client's criminal history or the fact
that in our present economic model poverty is a constant)? Perhaps, one of the
underlying visions of social justice work is a deliberate alteration of
reality.
We also reached a consensus on the point that language is a
tool that can be used for political manipulation. Since, at this point in our
careers, we do not use language for any manipulative schemes (I hope), I would
like us to continue the discussion on how language affects us as students and
teachers.
I leave you with a brief talk by Alan Siegel, a proponent of simplicity in writing.
P.S. Inspired by Orwell, I wrote this post with extra
caution, with hopes of achieving clarity. Now, I am excited to read all your
responses, the final and least tortuous phase in the translation process.
- James Williams
16 comments:
Thank you for your thoughtful post James. This week's class was certainly the most interesting for me because I pay close attention to the usage of language. This week I learned why language matters and what are the consequences of vague language. To answer you question James whether if it is permissible for us to accept such widening in language...it is simply yes and no. Yes and no because it is the responsibility of the reader/citizen to be an active antic but at the same time the written work should express the thoughts very clearly.
This week's reading made me question if "equality" has any meaning in universal language?
Thank you for starting us off, James.
As was evident in the readings, the widening of the gap between word and reality can lead to a treacherous road. Any author can easily deviate from his/her intended track and find themselves far, far away from what they originally wanted to say. When dealing with social justice work, it is important to be cautious of the language while simultaneously staying connected to reality. James, your example of a client's criminal history perfectly captures such phenomena. I do not believe we should have to "sugarcoat" our language to the point where we find that we may be (consciously) ignoring information.
Also, thank you for sharing the video by Alan Siegel. I would like to underscore his definition of simplicity, "A means to achieving clarity, transparency, and empathy -- building humanity into communications". For some inexplicable reason, this does not sit well with me.
I look forward to reading everyone's comments.
- Ana Paredes
I agree with everyone else who has posted so far that this was a very interesting conversation of language and misleading rhetoric in this week’s class.
To answer James’ question, political correctness is a never ending cycle in which terms are created to be sensitive to groups and to replace other words with negative historical connotations in the media. The more we alter terms, the more we get away from a terms initial meaning, causing more confusion to someone unfamiliar with the relationship of the hurtful language before. The example that Professor Stein used in class of the girl who described a person of color as a “colored person” is proof that political correctness has created a sense of vagueness that is hard to translate to someone who is not familiar with the hurt of a culture. Honestly, we should be able to use all words that do not have direct negative connotations in definition (The N-word for example) interchangeably. Words like “cripple” or “differently abled”, as presented in the Nancy Mairs reading, are up to the recipient of the word to take offense as it will be impossible to find a term that an entire population will not be offended by.
As far as truths are concerned, I share the views of Paul Farmer in the reading of two weeks ago where he expresses that social activists should not get special accolades for things that society should have fixed a long time ago. What I mean is that we should not ignore the issues that seem impossible to solve but instead face the reality that it is a job that is going to have to constantly be done until the least amount of people across all social classes are affected by it.
I really enjoyed this post, as well as the Ted talk by Alan Siegel. I feel Siegel’s talk is a fantastic compliment to what we discussed in class.
Siegel’s discussion on government legislation fascinates me, especially now that we are in the midst of a government shutdown. As we discussed in class, the clarity brought by simplicity of language is extremely important. I feel one of the greatest problems in this country today is the belief that complexity equates to intelligence, that the more difficult a publication is to understand, the more academic the writing is or the more intelligent the author must be. The only accomplishment of this type of understanding of language is the exclusion of the majority from participation in the dialogue of the elites; this is especially true for politics.
I feel the government currently functions to confuse and exclude outsiders from participating and understanding what is going on so that both of the major political parties can ultimately battle for what they want undisturbed by common citizens’ opinions. This is why when bills get passed they are severely longer than they need to be. Has anyone ever tried to read government legislation? Go online and look up ObamaCare or the new immigration reform bill. There is no reason a document needs to be 900 pages when it is summarized on various websites in a handful of easy to understand bullet points. The only reason these documents are so lengthy is so that government officials can exclude the American people from the legislative process so that these same officials may play their political games that have most recently ended in shutting down the government. The whole situation is disheartening to think about as it has gotten to a point where government officials are even confusing each other with their overcomplicated language as many officials don't even read the bills they vote on anymore; very often government officials either read summarized versions of bills or they do not read them at all.
This week’s lesson has ultimately shown me the value in simplicity in both written and oral communication. Dealing with this problem is truly a difficult task. As with many issues we have discussed so far this semester, I honestly feel solving this problem also begins at the individual level. As students and future leaders of this country, it is imperative that we set a new standard for communication, both inside the classroom and out, whether it is in a paper or if we are having a conversation. It is going to be hard to teach today’s old dogs in politics new tricks, but one thing we can make sure of is that we avoid the communication errors of these old dogs, and hopefully we can one day revolutionize professional communication in this country.
I also like the TED talk, although I have to admit I am a bit in a quandary over how many people send me TED talks in response to an issue I raise; maybe we should be questioning the forum a bit. Or maybe I am just being crabby.
So, despite the seamless way that Siegal's narrative fits in with ours, I would still like to read someone's thoughts on how this explicitly connects to Orwell, Mairs, and social justice. Who will take a shot?
I'm just wondering when TED will get around to asking me to do a talk. Clearly, this is the new gold standard of professional achievement!
I want to underscore a question about the relationship between words and reality that we didn't unpack in class. James provocatively asks about whether the work of social justice is "a deliberate alteration of reality." Orwell talks about how careless or insincere use of language separates our words from reality, to which Mairs objects also. But what if the reality, as James suggests, is the state from which we want to move away from towards some aspirational place of greater justice? Does our language have to reflect aspiration/a-justice-not-yet-achieved -- which will necessarily be more abstract -- in order to move toward this better place?
I would argue that we can still insist on the sincerity of language, that we can talk about hard stuff in clear ways IF we have done the thinking beforehand. My favorite line from the essay is "What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about."
After our group discussion finished, I also found myself thinking about how language could be used today in order to manipulate people. We always hear about the role the media plays in our understanding of the world around us, and how some of these institutions purposely misuse their influence to manipulate public opinion (i.e. Fox News). Orwell really made me think. What is really going on when the media speaks of western cultures seeking to spread "democracy" to the "developing" nations around the world by means of "pacification." Is the media really giving us the full story? are they purposely withholding information to "shield" the populace from the truth? or do they just follow orders?
During our discussion, a few of us agreed that the person in question's preferance should determine whether we should use euphasmitic, or clear, blunt language (e.g. disabled v. crippled). I maintain that the decision should always be centered around the client, whether in social justice work or in politics.
Social justice work is supposed to be client-centered; Therefore, if using euphemistic language is more beneficial to the mental well-being of the client, then so be it. Similarly, politics is also supposed to be "client-based" in a way--the clients being the citizens. Yet, the crucial difference is that these clients are dependant on and expecting of the whole truth. Hence, using unclear, sugar-coated language in politics is only counterproductive to the cause and un-beneficial to the "clients".
While it is often a tricky question, i believe that deciding what type of language should be used by determining the needs and preferences of the "client(s)" is always the best bet. However, the question that remains is whether or not the needs of the clients and their preferences are always in line. If not, how do we proceed?
In response to Professor Stein's question, I think the Siegel talk is explicitly supportive of Orwell and Mairs claims to clear, truthful language. When simplifying the documents, like the credit card application, Siegel deconstructed the complicated, and what seemed to be intentionally unclear language. Siegel says, " plain english is about changing the content." He demonstrated this when he translated the documents and the content of them became surprisingly straightforward, and consequently, unattractive. Mairs and Orwell both preach honesty in language, irrespective of the content and its implications. Siegel's experiment reinforced Orwell's statement that complicated political language is a "defense of the indefensible".
I have been trying to figure out where exactly I stand on this issue of language and the dangers of using euphemisms as a way to define reality, and I'm still not sure!
One thing that struck me from your blog post, James, is when you stated: "Perhaps, one of the underlying visions of social justice work is a deliberate alteration of reality." This, for me, isn't necessarily a bad thing. The way in which we use our words to convey a thought/action/etc, is to create our own reality. Some realities aren't the same as others and we need to remain mindful of that. Like Leena stated in her comment about social justice being "client-centered", we have to realize that realities are "client-centered".
For instance, an individual might see themselves as a "victim" of rape, while another might see themselves as a "survivor". Altering our language to fit their perspectives is necessary to legitimize their reality. We see this when people refuse to alter the meaning of what a "victim" should be-- this imposes a reality on individuals that do not identify with that idea.
Although Orwell emphasizes the need to be as clear and concise in language as we can be, I think his viewpoint is respective to his reality. We have to remember the time period in which this was written and the social influences that might have shaped his work. He was coming from a time where the only legitimate realities were those proscribed by white males, and therefore they were able to have a standard reality from which to set the baseline for their use of language. Culture, race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and various other factors that contribute to an individual's way of life shape their experience and their reality.
If we want to be leaders in social justice, we have to be able to have an understanding of the implications of language and an ability to mold our language to fit who we're working for. Change is only going to happen once we are comfortable with facing different realities and working to understand them so that we can better understand language and its importance.
In other words, it doesn't matter so much as to what language is supposed to mean as it does to understand the different meanings behind language.
Hello All,
The discussion about language was a great one!!!! I believe George Orwell to be one of the greatest writers in history. His usage of language is simple enough but creates complex story lines that are able to captivate one’s mind. Orwell’s novels 1984 and Animal Farm have very simple ideas where they read as narratives but have underlying meanings that enrich the story.
When one writes in the clearest language possible, the reader can understand the piece as well as the writer does not lose the command of the work. A piece of writing which is for different audiences has the ability to code-switch and makes others able to identify no matter the topic. A good writer must be able to take away the verboseness from a piece and leave a clear understanding of the words. Students sometimes have a hard time separating the words and write empty sentences without meaning. The opening paragraphs of papers are often times inflated with silly terms and unnecessary euphemisms that help with the confusion of the pieces of writing.
We were not able to touch on the argument about translation in the Cunningham piece. Translation is an important part of language that serves to help people of different origins understand each other. Cunningham makes an important point about translation when he states, “It is the translator’s job to reproduce the force as well as the music.” I believe that as a translator it is very hard not to lose the meaning of the original work. For example, the Latin phrase “Carpe Noctem” is translated to “seize the night” but the English translation does not have the same conviction as the Latin phrase. The English translation decreases the meaning of the phrase and makes it lose the force, which exist in Latin.
Language is fluid as is knowledge; the two terms cannot exist without each other. Language is a form of communication that can separate people but also bring them together. The use of language has transformed throughout the ages in many forms. Language opens doors but can also shut them. When one knows a language, the power and knowledge belongs to them.
Hello All. I apologize in advance because as I write my post I may refer to points that were raised by some of you without giving individual credit. Of course you would know who you are and know that the credit belongs to you.This is not an attempt to plagiarize.
Very interesting posts and class discussion as usual. Ever so often I, and I believe we, have been reminded to write in simple terms. I take pains to do so for a time. I look up words to clearly convey my thoughts then I stop. The cycle goes on. After last class, I was asked to send an email on behalf of my supervisor to six recipients. I was nervous but as I drafted the email, I remembered our class discussion and especially Orwell. It really helped. The supervisor in question, was pleased with the language of the draft, just a few minor corrections were necessary. (I'm not boasting, there is just a sense of pride/satisfaction that comes with t.)
Sometimes as hard as we try to be clear and simplistic, the meaning might be distorted by the reader as was clearly seen by Professor Waterston's description of the reaction of two readers of her book. The key is to try. It begins with us individually. Sometimes it is necessary to use tact but "sugar-coating" can be enabling instead of empowering as with victim versus survivor. The person who sees him/herself as a victim, may use the circumstance to remain in a repressed state. Sometimes it may be necessary to force that person to change his/her mindset to survivor in order to become empowered. This does change the fact that the circumstances occurred, it's the reaction to it.
On Alan Siegel, I disagree when he says that "plain english is about changing the content". Plain english should simplify not change. Government and businesses try to deceive with big, impressive, confusing language, hence Orwell's statement that everything is political is so true. As Siegel says, "make clarity, transparency and simplicity a national priority". But again, it begins with each individual. The powers that be might be very reluctant to make that national change as it might defeat their purpose of deception but we should do our part to the best of our ability to be as clear as possible. Code-switching is sometimes necessary but not to the expense of conveying clear, as precise as possible meanings.
See today's New York Times's Op Ed page (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/bruni-nazis-lynching-and-obamacare.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0) for an incredibly relevant discussion of language-abuse in today's politics. He seems to be channeling Orwell here: "When nuance and perspective exit the language, do they exit the conversation as well? When you speak in ludicrous extremes, do you think that way, too?"
Here's a confession. I've just read through the posts and find myself confused. I'm not sure I understood some of the points being made or some of the questions that were posed.
For example, James's statement, "Perhaps, one of the underlying visions of social justice work is a deliberate alteration of reality." I am not sure I understand what this means. James: are you saying that an unstated goal ("underlying vision"?) of social justice work is to make revolutionary social change ("deliberate alteration of reality"?) or are you saying that people doing social justice work purposefully distort truths (in your words, "a client's criminal history or the fact that in our present economic model poverty is a constant")?
On another note, I do think there's another "Orwellian" problem. And that is the problem that many people make of making generalizations without sufficient documentation or data to warrant generalization. I believe this leads to distortions of a similar kind that worries Orwell so greatly.
I have come to believe after a lifetime of anthropological study that one can make the following generalization: Everything has a history and a context.
Words have to be understood in terms of the context in which they are used. Sometimes the word "cripple" is appropriate; sometimes it is not at all. What makes it appropriate are the cultural meanings attached to the words by those who utter them and who hear them. The context matters. So does the history--the historical meanings to which the word is attached and that emerges out of a particular context. Another example: the "n" word; "colored people" versus "people of color." Each of these words/phrases have meanings beyond the individual words--and what gives them the relevant meaning is the context, including the historical contexts within which those words have been given meaning by those using them or hearing them.
To Imtashal's question: does "equality" have any meaning in universal language? Are you talking about the word itself or the condition/s of what we might call "equality"?
To Michael's point about the value of straightforward writing. I think that's a valuable take-away from Orwell's reading. At the same time (as Leena pointed out in class)--there are times when language is purposefully used to obscure. The challenge for us, I think, is to know when and why that is happening. If we are to be a thoughtful citizenry, we need to be able to "read" when the wool is being pulled over our eyes (Anthony's point).
...continued....
continued from previous post....
Simonne wrote, "Sometimes as hard as we try to be clear and simplistic, the meaning might be distorted by the reader as was clearly seen by Professor Waterston's description of the reaction of two readers of her book." I'd like to respond to this in two ways: First, I do think there is a difference between being "clear" and being "simplistic" in our writing. We can write about complex ideas, issues and circumstances in ways that are clear. On the other hand, I think it's a problem to try make complex things "simplistic." In my view, "simplistic" is not a virtue. Those who make things "simplistic" are obscuring more than they are revealing. People who make generalizations are being "simplistic" when the situation is more complicated than the simplistic generalization allows. I'd also like to point out that I do not think the two readers distorted any intended meaning in my book. Instead, the two readers came to the material from where they stood--they took from what they read what mattered to them. This suggests that readers take away from the same material different things. That does not mean they distorted that material or the meanings.
Here's what I would consider a reader "distorts" the true meaning of the work: If someone reads that book and decides the author (me) believes that war is a good thing, that would be a distortion--an error--in their reading.
Finally, I want to share with you this little video that I think you will find very revealing in terms of the overt and underlying "meanings" attached to words--words that have racialized and politicized meanings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/jimmy-kimmel-obamacare-prank_n_4022424.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
I am struck by the way this conversation places language in a legalistic framework. So many of you have raised questions of intent and of harm, asking how often linguistic problems are intentional errors (obfuscations or propaganda) versus accidents of translation (misunderstandings or miscommunications) versus mere sloppiness (being too lazy to find the "correct" phrase). Is it because we are in a school of criminal justice? Or because there are so many would be lawyers in the room?
Psychology, for example, sets language in a different frame. We call it "poverty of content" when someone's communications seem empty, "alexithymia" when speech has no emotional context, and "word salad" when ideas are not logically contiguous. An over-reliance on cliche, or coining new words where old ones will do, is a communication problem but, more importantly, a relational problem, because usually there can be no consensual validation of our affective (feeling) states without some linguistic agreement. Contemporary psychology also relies heavily on the interpretation of non-verbal realms. In fact, we privilege language less and less lately, precisely because the post modern turn toward deconstructing it has made language not a place of understanding but a battleground.
I brought this up since so much of what you have said is emotionally charged (Apollonia's indignation; Michael's suspicions; Leena's plea for empathy) and, yet, the conversation seemed to divorce-or at least not explicitly cite-the emotional context in which all political utterances are made.
Post a Comment