Concerning my missive of 11:41 11/09/97, Ajit Sinha writes: >What politeness has to do with the politics of language? Are you saying that you do not use racial slurs in your everyday language because your middle class sense of politeness does not allow you to do so? And why don't you speak enough truth to power? Are you kind of scared of the power that be, Jim?< No, avoidance of slurs isn't _only_ because of politeness. Maybe my sense of politeness is middle-class, but politeness need not be so. I think the strategy of "talk softly but carry a big stick" (which to me mans avoiding ranting and rudeness unless one actually has something to back up the words) can works for folks of all classes. I don't speak truth to power enough because I tend to think in paragraphs, which makes me much more outspoken on paper than in speech. I also can talk better when I feel that I share basic assumptions with others. It's a personal thing, not a political principle. >Since when language became not a part of social reality? I thought words had no meaning outside of the context it is a part of.< Then we agree. But some folks -- those who overemphasize "correct" language -- tend heavily in the idealist direction, to the view that if you change the language, you change people's thinking and actions. >Are "real" and "problem" not words? How does one get beyond words and still speak?< Right. Words are just as real as actions. But as the materialist conception of history suggests, actions speak lounder than words (if I may brush off a cliche'). What I have been saying is NOT that we should ignore words and their connotations. Rather, the point is to avoid OVER-emphasis on words. >There is nothing "inherent" in a word. [Right.] It's just a sound. It derives its meaning only in relation to other sounds. Since you cannot think without language, what language you use to think determines your thinking and understanding.< "determines"? Surely there are other, additional, determinants of thinking and understanding? I would say that language forms one, perhaps major, determinant of thinking and understanding. (Here's a situation where the overused word "overdetermination" should be used.) >A critique of language of power that perpetuates the relation of power is essential for a struggle against power. < I agree with this proposition -- except that I would replace the word "perpetuates" with "helps to perpetuate." So I wouldn't just criticize the language of power, but the power itself, which is more than linguistic in nature (though language plays a role). > ... But this 'sensitivity' is nothing but an attempt by the other party to empower itself. It is going to creat discomfort for each and every one of us. But the challenge for us is to recognize the true nature of our discomfort and come to terms with it.< 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. 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.
