The old adage that the pen is mightier than the sword is a familiar one. Regardless of whether it is true in the strictest sense, one cannot deny that discourse has a powerful ability to spur action and mold events, for good or for evil. One need look no further for examples of the latter than twentieth century history, with the countless victims of various failed attempts to implement the words of Karl Marx and then Vladimir Lenin. And the profound effect of the relatively simple words of the Emancipation Proclamation provides evidence for the other side.
As someone with a deep respect for the power of language, it is painful to see the precipitous decline in verbal grace that is occurring in our culture, and that we are seemingly powerless to stop. I remember cringing when I saw a televised interview with one of the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, in which he claimed that one of the functions of that publication is to assimilate the usage of English in pop culture. Of course, he probably thought he was showing that the dictionary is not some out-of-touch reference book, but some sort of living document. Of course, the actual purpose of a dictionary is exactly the opposite – to demarcate the boundaries and subtleties between words so that the greatest possible precision in expression is achievable.
A trend that sometimes seems inseparable from this loss of precision in language is the ideology of political correctness. That is, that language, especially in the public sphere, must be tempered (and usually muddled) in order to avoid causing offense to others, whether real or imagined. When asked directly about it, I would guess that most people would now reject it as a philosophy. Nevertheless, it holds a powerful influence over thought and deed at this and many other universities in the nation. Just take a walk through a dorm and read some of the posters if you want proof.
The muddling of language demanded by political correctness has predictably muddled the way in which we think about matters. I think there are some particularly salient examples being thrown around in this election season, a time ripe for observing the dearth of meaning in our language.
One is the word “underprivileged.” I see it frequently, especially in promotions for Teach for America and other such Cohen 3/2/08 omit “such” organizations around campus. It is used as a polite substitute for describing those who are poorer than the average person. But the implication of the word itself is ludicrous: that there exists a certain level of privilege that is ideal for everyone. Anyone below it is deficient in privilege, and everyone above it has too much. By using the term, one’s level of material wealth becomes less a matter of work and individual effort, and more a simple matter of fate. Privileges, after all, have to be granted by some authority.
Another word is the portmanteau “socioeconomic,” which is used in much the same context as underprivileged. One speaks of a person’s socioeconomic status, or the achievement of socioeconomic diversity. Again, the imprecision of the term gives rise to unfortunate implications. Is it to be assumed that there exists one linear socioeconomic axis on which individuals are plotted like so many points? If so, then someone with low economic status is doomed also to a dearth of friends? Surely great wealth is no guarantor of social status; Howard Hughes in his latter days attests to this. The determinism behind the term is deliberate.
And my favorite of these examples, and the one most pervasive in recent times, is “change.” The presidential candidates bandying change around threaten to torpedo whatever clarity and erudition remains in public discourse. Change is less a policy position than a kind of primal grunt against anything that smacks of tradition or even the status quo. Everything is spoiled and the only thing that can save the situation is massive change. These politicians fail to realize that change is what has been happening without interruption in Western politics since the French Revolution. And so, unfortunately, our politics seem to be heading where our use of language is leading it – to decadence.
Goutham Ganesan is a senior biochemistry major. He can be reached at gganesan@umd.edu.
