You all know about: child abuse, spousal abuse, elder abuse, patient abuse, employee abuse and animal abuse. Those are some of the unfortunate ills that plague our society. As ugly as they are they’re pretty straightforward and obvious. There’s nothing subtle about those kind of abuses. But, what about something that is more subtle and insidious? What about language abuse? No. I’m not talking about abusive language. (That takes it’s toll on a society, as well. But, that’s a topic for a different discussion.) I’m talking about abusing the written and spoken word.
Language abuse is almost always done with a kind of emphasis, and/or inflection, to connote a negative meaning to a word that wasn’t designed – in any way – as a negative. It isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, but we’re seeing it more and more, in the media and in politics - especially in politics.
Probably, THE most classic example of this is the word “liberal”. Traditionally, it’s an adjective. Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free. Synonyms include: generous, bountiful, munificent, openhanded, and broad-minded. (Courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online) All pretty positive, no matter how you look at it, right?
But, when someone repeatedly and continuously says the word with an audible sneer in their voice it soon takes on a totally different meaning. Many people are very suggestible. When they hear a word constantly being used, with such disdain, they eventually associate it with something bad. These pseudo-wordsmiths will even drag out the word, for added affect. “Llliberal!!!“ It’s like you’re calling someone a criminal, or a leper, or some other kind of person to be avoided. It’s actually pretty comical, except that it’s only too effective, as a kind of conditioning tactic. It’s a very manipulative tool in training the suggestible.
But the latest abused word is “cling”. You know, as in “they cling to guns and religion”. Hillary Clinton was the first to try to demonize the word. She wanted to make hay, and score some politcal points with working class whites (with limited education), by taking the line completely out of context. But, she really went out of her way to stress the word “cling”. As though ”1 a: to hold together b: to adhere as if glued firmly c: to hold or hold on tightly or tenaciously 2 a: to have a strong emotional attachment or dependence” was a bad thing. I think most of the people, being referred to in Obama’s speech, are actually proud to hold on tightly to guns and religion.
But, the way that Hillary stressed the word was to try to evoke “clingy”, which denotes more of an emotional dependence than a strong adherence. So, when you take the line out of it’s context AND stress a word, in a misleading way, it makes what Obama said sound like an insult. But, in reality what Obama was saying is that the federal government has let these people down, for so long, that they really don’t have a whole lot to hang on to.
If you haven’t heard the line in it’s proper context this what he actually said. “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” He was explaining the frustrations of the working class Americans, and how the government has let them down. But the opportunistic wordsmiths saw an opportunity to exploit a few words (and a line) to their advantage, and to the speaker’s disadvantage. And in doing so, actually exploit the very people that it’s referring to.
Hillary may have started this one, but John McCain – and his camp – are eagerly playing this up, to make Obama sound like an elitist who can’t relate to the working class. You will be hearing this clinging remark repeatedly, leading up to the November election, because they’re pretty darn sure that enough people will be taken in by the way they have chosen to frame it.
These are just a couple examples of language abuse. There are, and there will be, plenty more where these come from. If we consider all the other types of abuse as criminal maybe we should consider those who – so flagrantly - abuse language as criminals.
Your Uncle Rave
What’s Wrong With America?!
Published June 12, 2008 Commentary , Current Events , Language , Media Leave a CommentTags: Commentary, Language, Media
This could very easily develop in to an entire series of posts. There are just SO many areas of American society that have gone off-course over the years. This country used to adhere to a number of unwritten rules and courtesies, and plain old-fashioned manners that just seem to have fallen by the wayside. The *whys* are myriad. It’s a fast paced world, and we’re all in such a rush. The steady influx of non-European immigrants – legal or otherwise - with their various cultural differences. Today’s mainstream media, which is still primarily: television, movies, and modern/popular music, but also includes things such as video games and this most democratic of medias – the internet. To an ever lessening extant, unfortunately, you could even add the print media to the list. There’s too many of *us*, and our personal space seems to be shrinking a little more each day. Some of these things, all of these things, and more things than I have listed, all have contributed to (more like subtracted from) our collective consciousness.
Today’s pet peeve? The vanishing art of the apology. More and more adults are forgetting how to do so, or, like so many of today’s children/youth/younger people (what have you), they’ve never really learned the value of a true, not necessarily formal, but sincere apology. Some would argue that – like the old John Wayne line - apologizing is a sign of weakness. Lawyers and legal experts equate the apology with culpability and financial responsibility/restitution. (Probably one good argument for there being too many lawyers, and why our society has grown so litigious.) This is where we’ve gone wrong, though, because an apology is less about accepting (personal) blame, and more about acknowledging another’s pain.
What are people doing instead of apologizing? They’re making up excuses, such as: “I didn’t know.” Or, they’re rationalizing the situation: “This wouldn’t have happened if you . . .” (See, they even go so far as to turn it around, so you’re to blame) And, of course, the hip and happening end-around to actually apologizing is: “My bad.” My bad, or sometimes just: “My B.” is actually accepting the blame, but it doesn’t acknowledge the other’s pain. It’s just a gutter/ghetto Mea culpa. (At least by saying Mea culpa one sounds literate.) There’s a kind of disconnection with a “My bad”.
In my opinion, the vanishing art of apologizing is going a long way towards making ours one callous society. It shows both a lack of sympathy and empathy. Withholding an apology is a very selfish and cowardly act. People who refuse to utter those two simple words – I’m sorry – are fooling themselves into believing that they, somehow, have the upper hand . . . when all they’ve really done is taken the lower road.
Two simple words. Three little syllables. When they’re said to you, without force and/or sarcasm, don’t they take just that much of the sting away? Knowing that the other person understands your pain is what keeps us, as social beings, connected. Two simple words, kids.
Your Uncle Rave