I actually didn't think of the sapir-whorf paradigm when i read this, but did note its most famous application-george orwell's NEWSPEAK. i was tickled by the idea that you could change the world (or at least your little bit of it) by changing the language.
it was only after thinking about it further that this is nothing new. it is, in fact the basis behind the original political correctness. someone has been using 1984 as a training manual.
i remeber in the late eighties, going to a course orgainsed by the equal employment opportunities board. the gist was the damage that phrases can do in diminshing certain groups effectiveness. phrases like "the little woman" were right out. one of their focuses was on the disabled; how it was unacceptable to say anything that may present them as victims. one of the exercises we were given was to take a phrase and reword it to be more positive. i was given the phrase:
poor jenny is in a wheelchair
and translated it into
jenny has a wheelchair but no money
and was accused (not without justification) that i was not taking the session entirely seriously. i maintain, though, that as a literal translation, it was accurate.
at the time, much of this sort of thing was mocked but looking back, its amazing how much our language (and our tolerance) has changed over the last twenty off years.
the basic principle behind that course, and indeed poilitical correctness itself was that, while changing the messaging wouldn't change society on its own, it would have an effect.
the "out" words in the article indicate not where society was but where the legislators of the time hoped it would be. nooow that there is a new government, with a new point of view. they have changed the messages in the hope that the staff will alter their focus. what is most interesting is that neither the in or out words mention anything about healing the sick, which you might thing would be at least one of the messages the department of health would want to send.
still, the modern vocabulary is an interesting thing. the media severs up "horror smashes" and "killer storms". just this evening they have referred to the relationship between the ceo of the department of corrections and its minister as "toxic", just as they did last week with minister of health and the head of a district health board and other minister and public servants for months.
in my last post, i mentioned my wish to exclude "moving forward" from the modern lexicon. its seldom needed in a speech and seems to be the corporate equivilant of the teenagers "like" or "whatever". a place holder for an appraoaching thought.
i have also been having a battle for the last few years to stop managers using "learnings" as a noun. especially when there is already a perfectly good noun already in place.
the one that is really grating on me at the moment is "inappropriate". it seems to be a weasel word, trying to avoid making a judgement. instead it sounds vague; saying that
mr x acted inappropriatly
almost implies that, in certain circumstances, embezzling $50,000,000 might be appropriate. when was the last time someone said that what someone else did was just plain wrong?
i'm not a pedant, or a grammer nazi, really i'm not. i just prize clear communication rather highly.
I rather like this and there is a lot I could comment on but I'm just going to make three points ...
ReplyDeleteIn recent years I’ve become rather less enamoured with the ‘change the language change the world idea’. It’s a process fraught with tensions. Certainly what I do agree with is the way that the acquisition of a new concept (and associated term) can suddenly draw my attention to an aspect of the world previously overlooked. Personal examples include the way that Eric Berne’s concept of 'a game' drew my attention to a facet of human interaction. Another is ‘permanent campaign’ to describe the priority given to campaigning over governing. Suddenly I see the business of government in an all new light. but here are a few problems ...
A few years back I worked for a school development programme that introduced a new vocabulary to schools based on the idea that new ideas need new words. Reasonable enough assumption but what we found was that the vocabulary was seen as jargon and could alienate some of the people it was intended to bring together. And I think that this is the problem with some of the vocabulary lists that are in or out.
The second problem relates to the way that education can be a distraction from the real work. I think that instead of educating people to use words that do not suggest that disabled people are dependent I would rather adaptations to buildings, employment policy etc are made so that they can work, participate like everyone else and not be dependent. This is the real educative act.
your last point, exactly
ReplyDeletecourses on changing language, check
ramps and disable friendly builsings? not so much