Second part of paper - DodgeBoard.com

wordsmythe · #1 (**permalink**) 12-21-2005, 05:48 PM

If you're staring here go back to the other post about the paper I found.

Sorry it's so long but reactions are interesting to this.

Have they really been helped by this? Yes, their sense of self worth has been increased, but they may now be ignoring the health risks associated with being fat. In this case it would seem that the real problem has been hidden by another.

The Whorfian Hypothesis suggests that language controls thought. By changing the way people speak and the words they choose to use we will, eventually, change the way they think.

In this view, human thought is so affected by or rooted in language that language may actually control what you can think about. As language and gender scholar Julia Penelope (1990) put it, “What we say is who we are,” (Ivy, Backlund 71).

I disagree with this line of reasoning. While I can conceive of language and thought being connected I don’t believe that language controls thought. Rather, I see it as the other way around. If language was in control of thought and people really were what they say, then it would follow that sexism, racism and most forms of discrimination would be gone. Since mainstream use of PC language is now an accepted norm it would have to follow that these things would be, for the most part, things of the past. This is not the case.

All too often the user of PC language will rigidly follow the rules governing it. While in the public eye or under scrutiny they always say the right thing but then when they are a part of a group of friends where they feel comfortable they will tell an off-color joke or use a sexist or racist comment.
What happened to their language changing thought? It didn’t happen. When they get with people who think like they do the, thought process took over and changed the language.

Forcing people to use certain language and telling them what they can or can’t say seems to be the easy solution to the problems related to language. Unfortunately, this solution won’t have much long-term effect. Eventually the terms heavy, obese, large and portly will take on the same meaning as the word fat and then someone will have to make up a new non-offensive term.

An analogy I have used in the past is quite graphic but illustrates my view on thought-language relationship. What if when the English language was formed, assuming you can pinpoint a single instant, the meanings of the words WASH and **** were reversed? Then people would **** their cars and wash their sexual partners. This illustrates, quite graphically but it makes the point, that giving something as less “offensive” term doesn’t change how people think about it. The words which represent these two, very different, connotations have changed and as the words are reversed so are the connotations.

It seems that we have come to a point where we, as a society, are so concerned with making everyone feel good about themselves by forcing change in language that we have forgotten the dangers of suppressing free speech. The First Amendment does not exist to protect popular speech; it exists to protect the very opposite. Just because something is offensive or unpopular doesn’t mean it has no value. The founding of our nation is full of writings and expressions that were unpopular and offensive and now they are considered national treasures.

A simple idea seems to have been forgotten in most of the literature I have read. That idea is that the truth will stand on its own. If something is expressed and it is blatantly wrong, it will eventually wither and die. The truth will survive. In this line of thinking – I would rather that a bigot, racist or sexist say exactly what they have to say. As education and diversity work their magic they will be shown to be the fools they really are. Forcing them underground allows them to congregate with others who think alike and reinforce each other.

This reinforcement gives them enough cover to remain ignorant and to teach their children to be as they are. Under the scrutiny and tutelage of others, they can learn the truth. Otherwise, they become one of those discriminated against classes who will someday need the protection of others and it all begins again.

When we get to this point, where controlling people’s thoughts by limiting their speech seems to be the best answer I have to question it. No, I more than question it. I gather weapons, store supplies, make plans and seek allies because this moves us into taking away freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. These are the very rights that keep the people of the United States free.

Reference List

Carlin, G. (1997). Brain droppings. New York: Hyperon.
Feldstein, R. Political correctness: A response from the cultural left. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Garner, J. F. (1995). The princess and the pea. Once upon a more enlightened time (pp. 21-28). New York: Macmillan.
Kors, A.C. & Silverglate, H. A. (1998). The shadow university: The betrayal of liberty on America’s campuses. New York: The free press.

lurker · #2 (**permalink**) 12-21-2005, 07:46 PM

I made an acquaintance with a Lady from Russia who was teaching the little troublemakers at Youthville and she was a challenge to her troublemakers because her native language controlled her emotions. Being cussed at in English didn't shake her. She told me what words spoken in Russian would trip her out.

I was taught: "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me."

Wordy; Is your job government funded?

wordsmythe · #3 (**permalink**) 12-21-2005, 08:27 PM

Kinda sorta.

Why?

Highwayman · #4 (**permalink**) 12-21-2005, 08:32 PM

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

Quote:

Leftist scholars blame the Right wing conservatives for demonizing the term giving it a “Big Brother” connotation and making light of this once noble ideal. It is possible that instead of protecting the rights of disadvantaged groups and making it easier to gain equality, it now crushes and tramples the rights of everyone else. (Kors & Silverglate I presume).

Kors & Silverglate make an observation here about crushing the rights others. My observation would be that it is true, but in the sense that it has gone beyond just terms used to describe people (and things for that matter). It has become a weapon used to attack folks with a different point of view. The big one we see on this forum is the discussions about illegal immigration. It doesn’t take long until someone gets called a “racist”. Then it becomes a fight over who’s a racist and who isn’t. The original problem becomes lost. I’ve seen this tactic used in public forums with elected representatives to sidetrack the real issue. In the end nothing gets solved and those opposed to change in effect, win. It’s not a win with a better idea but rather a win by default. Game called because of rain. In effect, it has crushed and trampled the right of free expression of the folks that have a problem that they want to deal with. Even if the only thing they hoped for was to air their views and get it off their chest.

With that, I have to agree with your conclusion;

Quote:

When we get to this point, where controlling people’s thoughts by limiting their speech seems to be the best answer I have to question it. No, I more than question it. I gather weapons, store supplies, make plans and seek allies because this moves us into taking away freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. These are the very rights that keep the people of the United States free.