Kevin Rudd and the Corruption of Language
July 23rd 2008 21:18
Do you recall Desiderata ? As a child I used to take this seriously, although I did wonder what a unitarian might be - an American nun who ate wholegrains perhaps. It was, of course, all a sham and pretense - a child of the sixties rather than the universe. You have to ask, though, "In what does the corruption of language truly consist?" Willy-nilly dropping of the accusative case or insensitivity to pendant prepositions - as truly evil as these be - are only the beginning.
An opinion article in todays Australian by Baden Eunson , a Monash academic, suggests that Kevin Rudd engages in systematic obfuscation as a form of discourse - or more precisely, instead of discourse. Eunson seems to make the mistake of thinking that politicians, like Rudd, are trying to communicate and failing because of a lack proper linguistic technique. They speak too posh for the unlettered to understand.
No, the problem is that their utterrances are designed NOT to communicate. They are a code, an encryption.They fulfil expertly the purpose for which they were designed. It is a problem that goes back to Plato - the Phaedrus has a few hints. Essentially it is a form of deception. I'm pretending to give you information about the world and my reaction to it, but what I'm intending to communicate is that you don't belong to the inner circle, to the exclusive "we" who are making the decisions. That's the purpose of gratuitous jargon - it defines a world to which others do not belong. Language, or increasing it's absence, is power.
There is nothing wrong with this in some contexts. Being proficient in latin and greek I understand the wierd dialect of the medical classes - it sometimes makes them uncomfortable. There is at least a peceived benefit in keeping the patient in the dark, using short hand and invoking a chain of cascading medical concepts by using pig latin and canine greek. There is a lot of power maintenance going on, but some ideas are so closely attached to specific, technical words that you need to use. You communicate information and ideas.
The corruption of language begins when you seek to communicate something different from what you are apparently communicating. To take a mundane example - signs on railways platforms and in carriages. If the average Joe Blow can't read a phone book, he'd have no idea of what Railcorp was trying to tell him. As an exercise, just try translating them into anglo-saxon.
An opinion article in todays Australian by Baden Eunson , a Monash academic, suggests that Kevin Rudd engages in systematic obfuscation as a form of discourse - or more precisely, instead of discourse. Eunson seems to make the mistake of thinking that politicians, like Rudd, are trying to communicate and failing because of a lack proper linguistic technique. They speak too posh for the unlettered to understand.
No, the problem is that their utterrances are designed NOT to communicate. They are a code, an encryption.They fulfil expertly the purpose for which they were designed. It is a problem that goes back to Plato - the Phaedrus has a few hints. Essentially it is a form of deception. I'm pretending to give you information about the world and my reaction to it, but what I'm intending to communicate is that you don't belong to the inner circle, to the exclusive "we" who are making the decisions. That's the purpose of gratuitous jargon - it defines a world to which others do not belong. Language, or increasing it's absence, is power.
There is nothing wrong with this in some contexts. Being proficient in latin and greek I understand the wierd dialect of the medical classes - it sometimes makes them uncomfortable. There is at least a peceived benefit in keeping the patient in the dark, using short hand and invoking a chain of cascading medical concepts by using pig latin and canine greek. There is a lot of power maintenance going on, but some ideas are so closely attached to specific, technical words that you need to use. You communicate information and ideas.
The corruption of language begins when you seek to communicate something different from what you are apparently communicating. To take a mundane example - signs on railways platforms and in carriages. If the average Joe Blow can't read a phone book, he'd have no idea of what Railcorp was trying to tell him. As an exercise, just try translating them into anglo-saxon.
| 42 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Politicians' labyrinthal lines of communication are communicating what they're saying: "Get lost!"
I'm not sure if it's a corruption of language to communicate something other than what is apparent.
It's my belief that writers, people who make pretty arrangements of words, are always communicating something other than what is apparent - even to themselves, perhaps.
But then again, maybe that speaks of personal corruption extended to their work.
(What I'm really saying is: "Look at me, I'm smart too!")
Not smart enough, you might say.