Language Zombified
Just something I’ve been thinking about…
In this article, Bush and Blair are cited as specific examples of political language mongers who have reiterated cliches to the extent that language has been ‘zombified’. I’m sure we’re all aware not only of the poor literacy rates around the globe but that many people just don’t read; and because they don’t read (but instead do more popular things such as shop, watch TV, or play video games - quick stimulation with minimum input), it stands to reason that language use is poor. I’m not campaigning that we should be using 10 cent words when a little one will do just as well; I’m not saying we should exhibit language as a placard of erudition, either. What is so distressing about this is that no one seems to realise the extent to which language has been dumbed down. Using precise language gets you looks.
There is something beautiful and appropriate about precision. Think of some of your favourite poets who use language in an altogether unique way - somehow the way they combine words and phrases allows you a peek into something beyond the mundane. For instance, our new blog title comes from a poem by Emily Dickinson:
Much Madness is divinest Sense—
To a discerning Eye—
Much sense—the starkest Madness
‘Tis the Majority
In this, as AII, prevail—
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
(435, ca. 1862)
Thus the process of making meaning appears largely to be based upon perspective (it is ‘the discerning eye’ which changes the apparent reality of sanity or insanitiy). Sanity and insanity become mere social constructions based on assent or dissent. But there is something beyond the political strictures of law and order in this poem; the first line, “Much Madness is divinest Sense” turns our understanding of what is sensible and what is madness on its head. To a discerning eye, madness itself is sensible, or rather, what is perceived as madness by those who blindly follow the status quo is actually sensible; in short, in the poem everyone (the majority anyway) is confused, locking up those who are dangerous while those with a discerning eye see sensibility in insanity (how many people thought Jesus was off his rocker for instance?). I think most genius fringes on madness. But that’s besides the point.
We have a responsibility to care for language just as we have a responsibility to care for life, for one another and the environment. If we are content to hear about ‘a brighter tomorrow’ or that x, y, z, will ’spread freedom from shore to shore’, we need to ask what does this really mean? Is it just a catchy phrase to get our emotional fervour (either in favour or against) all worked up? And we must ask questions about the use of words - for instance, in this example: whose freedom are we providing - free trade or fair trade; a movement of the people or imposed upon the people; what does freedom entail and is it right to spead it ’shore to shore’? And it’s not just politicians by any means. Our everyday conversation is riddled with filler words and trite phrases; we don’t even think about trying to put our thoughts and feelings into new words and forms but are satiated with being ‘happy as a clam’, ‘down in the dumps’, ‘high as a kite’ and other such nonsense (besides, in what way is a clam happy?). And if you are a Christian, by no means should we be pleased with those ‘witnessing tools’: trite, zombified Christian t-shirts, logos, bumper stickers, etc that is nothing but one of the worst types of kitch I’ve seen. It is remarkable that the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us and because Jesus is the Word, the logos incarnate, how much more should we as Christians not settle for or create art (if you can even call bumper stickers art) that panders to mental atrophy and spiritual cliches that are completely unintelligible and laughable to the secular world? We, more than others, should be concerned about accuracy and precision in language as a way to grow in grace (not to mention as a giving our best, our firstfruits, to God, rather than giving the poor produce of our cliched language).
Well, this has ranged all over the place - sorry - but I hope it gives you something to think about. 
November 16th, 2004 at 8:46 pm
Very nice. I enjoyed this post, very thought-provoking. I couple of weeks ago I was listening to NPR and they had Dana Gioia on the show (this reminds me that I need to get some of his work). He is a poet and heads the NEA right now, I believe. I had previously heard him on a Mars Hill Audio Journal segment. He talked a lot about the same things you mention, generally the major importance of language to a culture. He talked a lot about how little poetry, for example, matters to today’s society.
I can only say amen to your comments about Christianity. I think cliche has become the language of pop Christianity, unfortunately.
November 16th, 2004 at 8:49 pm
When I found my great-great-grandfather’s (Ell Torrance) speech about his experience in the Civil War, it was obvious that the 19th century use of English was much more eloquent, specific and poetic than our current state of political, theological or business dialogue.
Perhaps, in the US, at least, the emphasis on self-esteem rather than self-improvement has had a deleterious effect on the precise use of language. It is a sad fact, that nearly 50% of high school grads heading to college require remedial writing/reading classes.
Perhaps, because of TV, etc., the populace would be unwilling or unable to listen to a politician who spoke both with meaning and with precision, but it would be nice to find out!
But I do have one question. In the article you referenced, John Humphrys blasts politicians for “firing words like ‘dum-dum bullets’.” What does THAT mean? Dum-dum bullets fragment when hitting a body, creating more damage. I’ve heard of a ’shotgun approach’ where one tries to hit everything (metaphorically consistent), but dum-dum bullets? Thoughts.