Points from the Videos about Language Behaviors
- We should remember that every word, every symbol, every sign or logo, was created by humans, is used by humans, and its meaning is determined by humans each and every time it is used.
- There is no such thing as inherent meaning of terms or symbols.
- We should differentiate between definitions of words (the history of how they've been used) vs. the meaning of a word used in a specific context at a particular time by individual(s) speakers and listeners.
- Word usages change over time. Words that are currently considered profane, obscene, or indecent change from year to year, generation to generation.
- Words and symbols (including gestures) cannot be evaluated or judged in and of themselves, without considering their usage in the context of a specific usage.
Sometimes we can learn a lot about our attitudes toward language generally by closely examining the extremes of language, such as language generally considered to be 'profane' or 'obscene'. These first four clips relate to two of the most volatile, incendiary terms in the English language. What can be learned about our everyday words and terms from understanding a little more about these two extreme words? And why is it that we seem to be so immune to understanding the role of context in the meanings we generate? The fifth clip questions what makes something "offensive"; in this case, the significance of the middle finger.
Read "A Fence Sieve Language" (pdf): Language has always been used as a means for rulers to exercise their power over their dominion. Religious leaders, politicians, business bosses, military commanders, teachers, parents, lawyers … virtually everyone is subject to someone else's controlling or directive language. We have been conditioned to respond to certain words in specific, somewhat predictable ways. Go to church and you can expect to hear language intended to provoke penitence, guilt, grace, thankfulness, humility, or charity. Go to a political rally and you'll get bombarded with carefully crafted words to evoke patriotism, civic duty, fear, pride, outrage. As Alfred Korzybski observed in Science and Sanity, "those who rule the symbols, rule us." Rulers need predictable results and desired reactions. They need their constituents to identify the labels of choice with the rulers' desired attitudes and behaviors. If the people chose to deliberately and extensionally evaluate the assertions expressed by their rulers, then the rulers might well be forced to rule on substance, rather than by symbol. [more]
Read my column, "Why must a federal case be made out of using bad words?": This is like one of those cartoon caption contests. You know, like there’s this completely frazzled fish lying on a psychiatrist’s couch, distraught eyes fixed to the ceiling. And the super-serious but disinterested shrink sits across the room, pretending to listen . . . as he reads Field and Stream. Or picture this: a super-serious attorney passionately pleads his case before nine ceremonially clad justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the feeble old judges peers down over his bifocals to the attorney and asks, "But what if the indecent remark was really hilarious, very, very funny?" One of those scenarios actually played out in real life last week. Can you guess which one? As my late, late-night hero Johnny Carson used to say, "I kid you not." Or as my current late-night hero Jon Stewart would say, "Are you [EXPLETIVE DELETED] kidding me?" [more]
Clips from "F**k: A Documentary" Clips from "The N Word: Divided We Stand"
(Videos may include material some may find objectionable.)
