Hello All, Rob Schaap writes, Rob: .... Sometimes I think lefties help produce offensive terms, though. One example is the word 'Abo'. Now Australians shorten every word they can, so in itself 'Abo' need not have caused offence (I'm not saying it didn't - I can't know - but I'm trying on an idea) but the first time *I* heard of its potential to offend was from the white left. I remember that, because I thought it peculiar at the time that this particular abbreviation was bad, but all the others were okay. Anyway, according to my experience of the process, once the world was told it was offensive, it naturally became offensive, and to use the term now would indeed be obnoxious. I suppose what we, who so carefully avoid this abbreviation in a milieu built on abbreviations, get out of this is the feeling we are expressing our moral superiority over others (we do love to do that, if lefty mailing lists are any guide). Alas, I doubt Aboriginees are the slightest better off for the production of yet one more hurtful tag ...
.... Cheers, Rob. Doyle In any meaningful sense, language constantly drifts and changes. Rob's comment is not precisely about the common experience of changing word content (either pejorative or otherwise), but in the phenomenon of conflict between social groups (as often experienced by individuals in the moment). One of the peculiarities of Eurocentric history is how dictionaries freeze the meaning of words into a precise definition at a particular moment. The dictionary suggests that speech acts are precise in the sense of writing down meaning actually implies. A dictionary elevates the tool of writing at the expense of the fluidity of human cognition. The fluidity of human cognition is reflected in how emotions shift from time span to time span. Having said that, that leaves little clarity about what it is one might be talking about if one takes seriously what Rob is saying. That is what are we really talking about in terms of human conflict where we consider word production? Rob is asking if there is some way to avoid creating new pejoratives out of concern not so much with word meaning shifting, but with respect to creating hatred where there wasn't any before. The primary issue is of course when someone says something hateful to one that in that moment we have remedy. Let's take the phrase, "fuck you", when written down, the phrasing is certainly immortal, but what does the phrase mean? Really it is a label at that moment of one persons emotional intensity versus another person (who may may not share emotional intensity). It usually does not mean I want to have sex with you since I disagree with you. It really signifies that when I have sex with you against my will that is a very intense form of disagreement (alluding to rape). Such intensity varies with time in every human being so that feelings cool down from the moment of intensity. When written down, the phrase, "fuck you", lasts indefinitely as words anyone can read from that moment onward. We know that language drifts, and that one could reasonably expect that "fuck you" won't mean the same thing to people one hundred years from now. But what people will grasp is that at one moment between two people they intensely disagreed. To understand this in some sort of meaningful way, we have to switch away from a focus upon words and see that conflict comes from working together in collaboration. And keeping to the context that Rob puts forward, to knowledge work and knowledge production concerning words. That we understand when we work together, that many things are contingent as well as recognize feelings shift in time. For example, watch out the heavy object over your head is about to fall! My intensity conflicts with your focus of attention. We are rapidly negotiating the life process together in order for you to avoid injury. And the feelings are appropriate to the moment not to lasting anxiety over centuries. The economic meaning of this is important now not so much to address Rob's concern about producing pejoratives, but working together via electronic communication. Most English literate people are familiar with the litany of complaints one might have with miss communication through email, letters to the editor, book reviews, and so on. None of which has the demand upon it of real time collaborative work processes. Some gauge in information technology is worthwhile to consider; http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/summary.html >From the first page of this web site at UC Berkeley School of Information Management Systems estimates that one to two exabytes (10 to the 18th power, or one billion gigabytes) of data is produced per year world wide, distributed evenly across the world population would equal roughly 250 megabytes per person (though we know that sort of information is concentrated in the developed countries). To organize and use practically such quantities of information which will grow substantially one must consider such issues of how we feel about the information we take in. In research the usual way to phrase that is are we happy with our computer today? But literally in real time can we work collaboratively through electronic channels? thanks, Doyle Saylor
