On Parole
Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
parole/pəˈrəʊl/
▶noun
- 1 the temporary or permanent release of a prisoner before the expiry of a sentence, on the promise of good behaviour.
- 2 historical a prisoner of war's word of honour to return to custody or act as a non-belligerent if released.
- 3 Linguistics the actual language used by people. Contrasted with langue.
The private and the public spheres intersect all the time, everyday, and often it's a seamless movement; often, nothing much is stirred, uncovered.
The understanding which seems to accompany the system that is language has built into it the clues which signal to all that a statement needs modifying before it can be made public, or that it needs modifying before it can be absorbed in informal exchanges.
But the once fluid division between the public and the private is becoming more rigid, less flexible, clearer even as it confuses (me anyway!).
Because why else would any of us integrate into our daily exchanges disclaimers of all types?
Language is one system. When it is used by individuals it temporarily becomes a function of that individual's thoughts, opinions and feelings, while at the same time remaining an abstract monster which exists in spite of any one speaker's will or influence. It is very much like Frankenstein's monster. Created but, once unleashed, no longer dependent on its creator.
At the same time, individuals modify, add, subtract, mix, superimpose meanings, images, sounds, and paralanguage to improve or impoverish language, every time they use it.
What interests me is the tragic development I see all around, whether in written or spoken language. I see people - individuals and groups - forgetting that when they speak, they have the power to influence listeners AND language; that when they speak, they do not have to integrate any of the vices, habits, clichés, opinions, metaphors and similes already dancing around the collective atmosphere. Every engagement with language is a chance we all have to express our own thoughts and feelings according to how we see the world, instead of adopting someone else's views wholesale.
Our current obsession with choice is an amusing thing. While adamant we do not want only one or two possible alternatives when it comes to food, politics, and a number of other things, we seem to be unaware that is exactly what we are getting. The existence of different brands of the same exact product does not mean we can choose between or among different objects.
The best example I can think of right now is news channels. MSNBBCNN. This Friday I watched the news on TV for a while, after a moratorium I imposed on myself since March 2010. CNN, BBC News, Sky, Al Jazeera, France 24... At the same time in the evening, this Friday, ALL these channels were telling me the exact same thing. All of them. They all start their "financial news" at the same time. It is almost as if the directors of each channel phoned one another and said "ok... ready? NOW!" and had their people press PLAY on the same stories. And how varied, creative, at least authentic! do you think each channel's report was with regards to the words they used in the story? They're in more perfect unison than the choir in my local church.
Is this choice?
This happens with language and when it does, it is even worse, because more insidious. The irony is this silent threat is loud.
Speak with 12 people and ask them all the same question. See how many give the same answer.
Speak with 12 people and see how many use the same expressions, turns of phrases, metaphors, similes, etc, to express their opinion. See how many differ in terms of their opinions on the same issue.
Speak with these 12 people and, at the end, see how many of the expressions they used to convey their wildly differing opinions can be traced to MSNBBCNN.
Recently, talking to someone close to me, I broached this topic, and she said it is because there are a lot of not v bright people in the world. Maybe. I'm even willing to agree with that. But, I asked here, wouldn't that translate into, say, 12 or at least 10 DIFFERENT stupid opinions? How come the stupidity is so uniform? Why is the putative stupidity being expressed in the same ways? Surely there isn't a Stupid Club, like the Trekkies have, whereby ppl get together to exchange views on whatever, and come up with a small collection of things to say? The "government line" of stupidity?
But not even governments can keep their cabinet members from stepping into piles of sophistry designed by journalists who work for papers which exist thanks to advertisement from companies whose interests go against the people, sovereignty, and democracy.
Manufacturing Consent (MC) shows this. I know I am not discovering anything new. What I find is that the processes outlined and examined in MC are spreading to private exchanges, to informal conversations. The property language has of becoming a flexible tool to anyone who uses it is eroding, and no one has to make an effort to make it so. It is just happening because too many people's mental inertia is allowing it.
The public use of language is invading our private exchanges and not being renewed by individuals' linguistic creativity, or at least not at the same rate. Like eroded soil, linguistic rain is no longer penetrating the atmosphere, and condensation is more and more a concentrated version of a compact formula of pollutant elements designed to incite apathy and ostensible transparency. No! Not even. Transparency is NOT a positive thing. Seeing THROUGH something is not seeing the something itself. I sit corrected and, after having thought it through, hereby declare those clouds to be of ostensible opacity.
Fratelli, let's think, please.
Yknow how in churches the pastor, priest, preacher, will say, "brothers and sisters, let us pray" ?
Please, let us think.
You know it is the same thing, but saying THINK instead of PRAY changes something, does it not?
Why does it change something?
According to me, it is because we think for ourselves, but pray outwardly. Thought is introspection, as good prayer ought to be, and often isn't.
Let us use language to fit our real thoughts.
Like the economy and economic theory, language exists and was created by us, to suit our needs, both to communicate and create. Like the economy, it needs to fit our lives and benefit us, not the other way around. We should not modify our thoughts merely to fit around the economy and the language being imposed on us.
Language, like the economy, does not belong to pressure groups, political parties, or academics. Like Castro Alves said "the public square is the people's, as the sky is the condor's". Language is the biggest public square. Let's not let malls own it like they do so much of the literal public square now, too much.
Let us let language fit our need to create.
We do not have to use the expressions ppl on telly use. NO ONE has the monopoly on language. It belongs to all of us, and we can ALL of us use it how we want to use it.
I want to put Langue, according to Def #3 at the beginning of this entry, ON PAROLE, and free Parole from the outdoors prison in which it currently floats. Seriously. And I'm not talking about JamesJoyce Syndrome.
This is so important because language shapes thought. Try to think without words. Can you?
The understanding which seems to accompany the system that is language has built into it the clues which signal to all that a statement needs modifying before it can be made public, or that it needs modifying before it can be absorbed in informal exchanges.
But the once fluid division between the public and the private is becoming more rigid, less flexible, clearer even as it confuses (me anyway!).
Because why else would any of us integrate into our daily exchanges disclaimers of all types?
Language is one system. When it is used by individuals it temporarily becomes a function of that individual's thoughts, opinions and feelings, while at the same time remaining an abstract monster which exists in spite of any one speaker's will or influence. It is very much like Frankenstein's monster. Created but, once unleashed, no longer dependent on its creator.
At the same time, individuals modify, add, subtract, mix, superimpose meanings, images, sounds, and paralanguage to improve or impoverish language, every time they use it.
What interests me is the tragic development I see all around, whether in written or spoken language. I see people - individuals and groups - forgetting that when they speak, they have the power to influence listeners AND language; that when they speak, they do not have to integrate any of the vices, habits, clichés, opinions, metaphors and similes already dancing around the collective atmosphere. Every engagement with language is a chance we all have to express our own thoughts and feelings according to how we see the world, instead of adopting someone else's views wholesale.
Our current obsession with choice is an amusing thing. While adamant we do not want only one or two possible alternatives when it comes to food, politics, and a number of other things, we seem to be unaware that is exactly what we are getting. The existence of different brands of the same exact product does not mean we can choose between or among different objects.
The best example I can think of right now is news channels. MSNBBCNN. This Friday I watched the news on TV for a while, after a moratorium I imposed on myself since March 2010. CNN, BBC News, Sky, Al Jazeera, France 24... At the same time in the evening, this Friday, ALL these channels were telling me the exact same thing. All of them. They all start their "financial news" at the same time. It is almost as if the directors of each channel phoned one another and said "ok... ready? NOW!" and had their people press PLAY on the same stories. And how varied, creative, at least authentic! do you think each channel's report was with regards to the words they used in the story? They're in more perfect unison than the choir in my local church.
Is this choice?
This happens with language and when it does, it is even worse, because more insidious. The irony is this silent threat is loud.
Speak with 12 people and ask them all the same question. See how many give the same answer.
Speak with 12 people and see how many use the same expressions, turns of phrases, metaphors, similes, etc, to express their opinion. See how many differ in terms of their opinions on the same issue.
Speak with these 12 people and, at the end, see how many of the expressions they used to convey their wildly differing opinions can be traced to MSNBBCNN.
Recently, talking to someone close to me, I broached this topic, and she said it is because there are a lot of not v bright people in the world. Maybe. I'm even willing to agree with that. But, I asked here, wouldn't that translate into, say, 12 or at least 10 DIFFERENT stupid opinions? How come the stupidity is so uniform? Why is the putative stupidity being expressed in the same ways? Surely there isn't a Stupid Club, like the Trekkies have, whereby ppl get together to exchange views on whatever, and come up with a small collection of things to say? The "government line" of stupidity?
But not even governments can keep their cabinet members from stepping into piles of sophistry designed by journalists who work for papers which exist thanks to advertisement from companies whose interests go against the people, sovereignty, and democracy.
Manufacturing Consent (MC) shows this. I know I am not discovering anything new. What I find is that the processes outlined and examined in MC are spreading to private exchanges, to informal conversations. The property language has of becoming a flexible tool to anyone who uses it is eroding, and no one has to make an effort to make it so. It is just happening because too many people's mental inertia is allowing it.
The public use of language is invading our private exchanges and not being renewed by individuals' linguistic creativity, or at least not at the same rate. Like eroded soil, linguistic rain is no longer penetrating the atmosphere, and condensation is more and more a concentrated version of a compact formula of pollutant elements designed to incite apathy and ostensible transparency. No! Not even. Transparency is NOT a positive thing. Seeing THROUGH something is not seeing the something itself. I sit corrected and, after having thought it through, hereby declare those clouds to be of ostensible opacity.
Fratelli, let's think, please.
Yknow how in churches the pastor, priest, preacher, will say, "brothers and sisters, let us pray" ?
Please, let us think.
You know it is the same thing, but saying THINK instead of PRAY changes something, does it not?
Why does it change something?
According to me, it is because we think for ourselves, but pray outwardly. Thought is introspection, as good prayer ought to be, and often isn't.
Let us use language to fit our real thoughts.
Like the economy and economic theory, language exists and was created by us, to suit our needs, both to communicate and create. Like the economy, it needs to fit our lives and benefit us, not the other way around. We should not modify our thoughts merely to fit around the economy and the language being imposed on us.
Language, like the economy, does not belong to pressure groups, political parties, or academics. Like Castro Alves said "the public square is the people's, as the sky is the condor's". Language is the biggest public square. Let's not let malls own it like they do so much of the literal public square now, too much.
Let us let language fit our need to create.
We do not have to use the expressions ppl on telly use. NO ONE has the monopoly on language. It belongs to all of us, and we can ALL of us use it how we want to use it.
I want to put Langue, according to Def #3 at the beginning of this entry, ON PAROLE, and free Parole from the outdoors prison in which it currently floats. Seriously. And I'm not talking about JamesJoyce Syndrome.
This is so important because language shapes thought. Try to think without words. Can you?
 |
| I haven't read it but like the cover |
No comments:
Post a Comment