A thought was tossed around in class this morning that caught my attention; does Confucian thought, in regards to using the proper method of address hold sway in the contemporary political landscape?
In other words, do terms like collateral damage, national security, or nicknames like the defense of marriage act, the war on drugs, terror, etc. dilute or desensitize citizens from realizing a) what they are saying b) the magnitude of what they say and c) what policies supporting or disproving the terms really entail?
Well, yeah, of course such non-specific/non-exact terms will dilute any conversation about the given topics. By using such terms, we remove the original meaning of the discussion, and thus we can't truly have a meaningful discussion about a given topic without using the proper terminology.
ReplyDeleteThis post reminds me of Joseph Stalin's quote "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." The personal actions and death of one person is more emotional than the deaths of millions because we cannot see the enormity of the situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it cetainly does, but is it possble for one to say that using precise names will invoke very strong feelings that result in a violent discourse? This is just as good as running from the situation, but it does not mean that it isn't (no matter how ignorant it is) invokable. After all, people use these desensitizing labels knowingly (appealing to ignorance).
ReplyDeleteSecretive and well-manicured agendas or policies are often steeped in stipulative language. Consider the, Animals Enterprise Terrorism Act, - at first glance we may interpret this as a bill for the protection of animals against tortures or acts of cruelty. But, this bill intends to make illegal all forms of photographic and journalistic activities within the walls of factory farms and slaughter houses. Several states have adopted anti-gag rulings which mean that anyone that documents what goes on in F.F. and abattoirs, or pickets for animal rights may be prosecuted as a terrorist. Large corporations with vested interests in animal usage as property continue to suppress contrary efforts; this may certainly challenge the first amendment. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline promulgated the bill.
ReplyDelete