Here is the Final Version:
In the political discourse of today’s United States, nobody is saying anything. Whether we are watching TV news media, reading the New York Times, or talking to a buddy, we are exposed to the near-mathematically calculated game of exchange. “How many times can we use ‘freedom’ without overdoing it? Would it be outdated or effective to call our opponent a ‘communist?’ Is ‘progressive’ a positive or negative word right now?” Or even in more every-day discussion: “this is just another typical leftist/conservative/liberal argument.” We might get more complicated: “Stop with your neo-con/neo-liberal/socialist/hyper-capitalist ranting.” But these exchanges do not affect our lives. This language is not created out of a human need or desire to describe or answer – it only lives within the structure of the word game. If we continue to argue within these boundaries, we will never be able to escape them. We are stuck using the same words and describing the same things. Continuing to use these absurdities prevents us from challenging and criticizing the undesirable world we live in, because we are fundamentally using its language. George Orwell identified this a while ago in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language (excuse the anachronistic masculine language),
“A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved, as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity.”
This piece is an effort to figure out how we can get out of this cycle.
Where does this hollow blabbering originate? We, as the willers of language, have allowed these words to pass by without nuance or criticism. What once signified that we have the power to remake the world anew now evokes little more than images of crazed college students hurling Molotov Cocktails at police: ‘Revolution.’ We once used ‘Progressive’ to demonstrate that the world we live in does not have to be accepted as is. It is now just as ideologically limited as the conservatism it once fought. ‘Freedom’ was once a disagreement between differing conceptions. Now we all share in its lack of meaning.
So how can we overcome the empty talk and start discussing our political lives in a way that inspires action? The traditional method used to combat the buzz-game is the establishment of a view that is “unbiased.” The trend in political discussion today is to appeal to a sort of objective, supra-worldly lexicon. The doctrine here is that it is better to be accurate, fair, and balanced before opinionated, controversial, and critical. However, this understanding results in inapplicable language. Such umbrella terminology is so wide that it fails to describe anything at all, when the reality of our lives shows that some of us get wet while others don’t. The key to fruitful discussion is admittance of bias and difference that will allow us to describe particular political realities.
Take a look at this shot from a CNN debate over the role of the Latino vote in the upcoming beaten-to-death-for-2-years-now race for the ’08 presidency
Both of these poor political analysts are trapped in boxes from which they cannot escape. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are asserted here as absolute terms with clear boundaries. Asserted as a comprehensive representation of political views.
This language operates as if we can all agree on its meaning. The debaters are careful to not mention anything the least bit controversial – no opinions are exchanged whatsoever. They are appealing to a political language that does not leave room for disagreement. Tony Harris, on the left (literally speaking, his politics are in every way indiscernible), wears a knowing smirk and turns the floor to the other debater after a certain amount of time. This unbiased mediator says even less than the nothing his debaters are spouting.
But what relationship does this lack of controversy have to the above-mentioned objective political lexicon? For when we are appealing to something objective, something agreed upon, we are free from really explaining, understanding, or in this case, defining it. We don’t explain the table right in front of us, we say “look at the table.” In this way, via objectivity, we are exempt from nuanced definition. George Orwell’s identification of this trend hasn’t apparently done much to help us prevent it. Even in 1946, he demonstrated that “prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.” Using the notion that this tacking together can apply to language is like pulling the plug on our already ailing political system. Ideas cannot be pointed to. They must be understood and expressed. The political culture we live in would like to say, “Look at the freedom.”
Strive for democracy, fight for equality, struggle against oppression, challenge hate, enforce accountability, advocate honesty, foster awareness. As advocates of social change and justice, we feel like these phrases mean something to us but don’t have any real effect on our actions. We have not been exercising our will as human beings, as havers-of-discussions, to create a lexicon that has real implications on the real world. Words should have the goal of inspiring action, not prolonging debate.
What do we want the world to look like, what is in the way of that potentiality, and what do we have to do to get there? These are the real questions, to be answered with the language that is most appropriate, not simply that which we are accustomed to hearing and using. If we desire social betterment, let us create a vocabulary that describes and defends it. I have chosen ‘describe’ for its allusion to language, and ‘defend’ for its allusion to physical action. The lexicon should do both. Let us reopen the channels of conversation, of discussion, in order to inspire action. Next time you are watching CNN, reading the New York Times, or even having a discussion, refuse the bullshit. It’s not getting us anywhere.
