At 09:48 12/09/97 -0700, Jim D. wrote: >Sure, but is fighting on the language front the _best_ way to >empower those without power? If a moralistic perspective that "you >guys have to speak 'correct' language all the time" alienates >potential allies, is the language battle the best way? Wouldn't >fighting for affirmative action be better than insisting that >everyone use the "correct" terms? > >An overemphasis on "correct" language seems to be a phenomenon of >bureaucracy rather than a grass-roots fight for empowerment. In the >Pentagon, "correct" language flows from the top: you can't call them >"civilian casualties"; they should be called "collateral damage." >Corporations also have their "correct" language: we don't call them >"profits" anymore, while you must call employees "partners" if you >want to be promoted. > >My impression, which may easily be wrong, is that the strongest >advocates of correct language on the left are those with either a >bureaucratic position or a bureaucratic mentality. That is, they see >the imposition of the correct rules on others as somehow the only >way to solve social problems. > >For example, instead of getting the male and female firefighters >together in the fire station to discuss -- and fight about -- how to >deal with sexism (probably with some facilitation of the discussion >from the leaders), the person with the bureaucratic mentality thinks >that simply pushing the men to follow rules (no pin-ups in the >public spaces, etc.) will solve the problem. It reflects a profound >distrust of the firefighters' ability to think for themselves, to >figure out solutions, etc. It may reflect fear of unionization. > >>I don't think critique of language is about establishing the same >power relation the other way round. You are continuousley thinking >from the point of view of somebody who is in position of power; e.g. >how do you control adolescent speach etc. How do you call yourself >'progressive' or 'revolutionary' with such identity with power? Put >yourself on the other side, man! Be a teenager and subvert the >language imposed on you by the adults.< > >Continuously? "identity with power"? how do you know how I think? >does my language simply reflect my thinking? can you read my mind? I >now know that I shouldn't play poker with you. > >Frankly, I don't think insisting on correct language is the >teenaged way to subvert racism, sexism, capitalism, etc. Teenagers >tend toward action more than words. I think they're right, though >the actual action they choose might be misguided (it depends on >which teenager you're talking about). Put it this way: a sit-in >would be more effective, even though sit-ins have their own >limitations. > >The overemphasis on language is like insisting that politicians make >good promises without insisting that they follow through and >actually make good on their promises. Sure, it's great to hear good >promises, but what's important is that they are put into action. ________________ I'm sorry I don't understand what this is all about. Sounds more like Jorge Bush and Denesh DeSuza led attack on "pc" even though "pc" was their own creation and not Duke University's. I don't think language politics has much to do with "pc" or imposing anything on anyone. It is simply a critique of everyday language that exposes the hidden, and at times not so hidden, social power structure--vary much a similar game as Marx's CAPITAL was about the capitalist economy. Now, if CAPITAL helps workers to launch a revolt and attack on capitalist's exploitation, then would you call it workers imposition on the freedom of the capitalists to exploit? The problem with whole sale language critique is that it creates discomfort for all of us at one time or the other. That's why we all need sense of humour. But it is the victimizers who need sense of humour and not the victims, in any given particular situation. Both you and Michael Perlman seem to be asking the victims to have sense of humour, which is a bit troublesome. By the way, there is a popular joke in America, and I'm sure you must know it, that goes like this: "I'm all for multiculturalism as long as 'they' behave like us". I think people who are too sensitive about others being sensitive should remind themselves of this joke. Cheers, ajit sinha > >in pen-l solidarity, > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html >Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. >7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA >310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 >"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way >and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A. > >
