On Language
At first glance, language appears to be a method through which we express our thoughts and feelings. But have you ever wondered if our thoughts and feelings, in turn, are shaped by our language?
Let me give you a few examples.
Think about the word you'd use to describe a man of loose sexual morals. Not many options to choose from, are there? Perhaps you came up with "player", but that doesn't really fit, does it? It also implies a dashing, confident figure at the same point. Now think of a word to describe a woman of loose sexual morals. Bet you have no problems there. Slut. Whore. Tart. Prostitute. No wonder that so many of the female variants have been derived from in order to refer to their male counterparts, such as the "man-slut" or "man-whore".
Speaking of gender roles, there's no word to describe an appreciate for male culture as a countrpart to a Feminist. What would you use? "Masculinist"? The closest thing in common usage is Misogynist, but that's not even close to being accurate, considering that it implies a hatred of women. Speaking of which, what's the term to describe someone who hates males? The closes equivalent is "Femi-nazi", which isn't even a real word, and is a more fitting description of someone who endorses a rigid version of Feminism.
Then we get to the modern media. "Terrorism"? Is it any wonder that when we hear this word, we're confronted with the shocking image of someone hell-bent on destroying our way of life to promote their own perverted ideals? The term "terror" is right there in the word. Yet when the Taliban was fighting the Soviet Union in the 1980s, they were "freedom fighters".
And what of the "War on Terror"? How is it that you declare war on an emotion, anyways? Is President Bush handing out nightlights and sedatives to prevent Americans from being gripped by fear? And if we were to go strictly on the basis of mental health, shouldn't it be "War on Anxiety" or "War on Depression"? I guess "Anxietists" and "Depressionists" doesn't have the same ring to it. Though when you think about it, "Depressionist" is a reasonably accurate term for someone who's attacking America's means of economic well being.
Finally, it's noteworthy that there's no term in the English language that implies a state of balance in which all of your needs are being met, or a term that describes the complete appreciation of a given situation or event. ("Aprovechar" in Italian, for example.) Nirvana? Not English, and it implies a non-physical reality. "Frugality" is close, but implies stinginess. In contrast, there are many words that describe some kind of move towards or away from progress and growth. Growing. Improving. Getting stronger. Weakening. Declining. Fading.
In 1984, author George Orwell used the imaginary language of Newspeak as a metaphor for how language can shape our thought process. In the book, words were systematically and purposefully deleted in order to make human thought and emotion easier to control. A sunset ceased being "beautiful" and became "double-plus-good". I can't help but think that he was on to something there, but I think it's more complex than that. I think the values and beliefs of society influence our language, and that language in turn influences society.
Thoughts?
posted by Ryan @ 8:48 p.m.
6 comments
6 Comments:
'nee: Comfortable's about as close as it gets, but it still doesn't encompass what I'm looking to express. It implies balance, but it doesn't imply the richness that lies in the golden mean. Comfortable also has certain connotations of laziness. Ie. "Why aren't you going for that stock broker job?" "Oh, I'm comfortable where I am now." vs. "Why don't you get off the couch and go for a run?" "Oh, I'm comfortable where I am now."
As for the male terms, jock still conjures "athlete" (maybe a dumb athlete, but an athlete none the less) while creep is more of someone who's a little on the strange side. Gigalo is also close, but that's someone who receives material compensation of some form or another for their, ahem, services.
Also, I just found out that the opposite of a misogynist is a misandrist. But the point is valid: when was the last time you heard someone called a misandrist?
How about sufficed or sufficient?
It's interesting that you bring up how male oriented the English language is. The other day I was helping a student with just this topic. Her text book made note of the fact that many words have a male root word as the base form and a female-ish addition to change it... Steward - Stewardess, Actor - Actress, Waiter - Waitress.
I tend to think of many guys as sluts or whores (myself included sometimes!) and not so much as man-whores or man-sluts... Although those words are more humourous. I do, however, recognize that this way of thinking is not common.
What is the opposite of a cougar?... A kodiac?... I guess a craddle-robber is, but that usually implies really really old vs just middle-aged (like cougar does).
Channing: It's close, but it doesn't have a ring to it. "How are things at work?" "I'm sufficient." Or perhaps it's our own cultural biase that makes that sound less than ideal. But if you want to contribute to the evolution of the English language, we could start referring to men who'll bed anything with legs as "channings".
I think "slut" is definitely a word that's changing, but if you used "slut" in a non-gender-specific manner, most people would think of a girl. That's just the root of the word.
Erin: It definitely describes the state of balance, but it's not in common use. Also, it leaves out the richness that's found at the golden mean.
Still, the next time someone asks me how I'm doing I may say, "I have obtained equilibrium" to see how they react.
But you're right - no reason why we can't bridge the gap to use these words in new ways and with new meaning.
Orwell wrote a fantastic essay about politics and the English language, available here. A little long, but stick with it.
Two other things come to mind, both language-related. One, as a follow-up to citing Orwell's essay above, Samantha Bee had a recent piece on the Daily Show ("The Hall of Same") featuring a guy who works with the Republican party, arranging things like Bush's phony "town hall" fandangos. Funny and scary.
But, if the words themselves weren't troubling enough, it's the context in which they're set which worries me more... sound bites, scrolling tickers, headlines-as-news, talking points, and spin masquerading as analysis. (I suppose I could sit here pining for likes of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but I doubt that'd ever happen again on a continent which has been conditioned to think that quicker is always better.)
JTL: Good article. Interesting that Orwell would end up railing against both the truncation and the unnatural extension of language. It's quite fitting, though, when you consider the earlier discussion of the "golden mean". It makes sense to have the goal of using enough words to convey nuanced meaning, but not so many as to smother the reader in pseudo-intellectual fluff.
Post a Comment
<< Home