prompt response 9/5

"To what extent has language played an oppressive role in your social circle?"

In order to assess this prompt properly, one must first ask, can language be oppressive? The prompt asserts so, but what does oppressive mean when used in terms of language? If we are to thoroughly inspect this query in pursuit of a substantial answer, the prompt must be broken down into smaller questions first.

There are many ways define the term 'oppressive.' Certainly people can choose to be offended by certain words of phrases. But the question this topic raises is, are those who are offended by words justified in feeling oppressed? I think there are plenty of people who have their reasons for disliking certain phrases or idioms. For example, the founder of Cool Beans wrote an article called The Power of Words, in which she expresses her concern for the growing use of the word 'retarded' as an insult.

Alternately, some people are offended by words and don't even know why. Take for example, a 'nameless' poster on antiopression.tribe.net confesses that they are offended by the term 'lame,' but doesn't know why. She asks others whether or not she should be displeased with the word. In this case, it seems as though the poster is not justified in taking offense to the word because she can provide no explanation as to why she is offended. After comparing these two examples and other similar cases, it seems logical to conclude that yes, language can be offensive, but perhaps should only be considered so if the person feeling oppressed can give justification as to why, in support of their claim. As mentioned by one of the respondents to the anti-opression blog, the offensiveness of a word could vary depending on the context in which it is used.

Now presuming that 'verbal oppression' can exist so long as there is support as to why it is hurtful, let's look at what it means to be verbally oppressed. 

Both examples given in paragraphs two and three refer to only a specific type of verbal abuse. But what about, for example,  when a bully at school tells the weaker kid that he's worthless? Or when a husband raises his voice in such a way that he scares his wife into submission, just as a dog barks loudly to make others feel inferior? Shouldn't these be considered forms of verbal oppression as well?  Where as the first type is oppression by a word (or phrase) with a specific history of derogatory usage, the second is by means of a personal attack, and the third is simply the tone in which a statement is said - all forms of verbal oppression make the victim feel inferior. This is what it means to be verbally abused. 

Regardless of the clarity in which an argument is made, there is always opposition to what is said. Some people would claim that words cannot be oppressive, because they cannot do physical damage. They might say that in any circumstance, one has the power to choose not to listen to what they are being told. After all, words are only as powerful as you let them be. But there are a countless amount of situations where those who are being verbally abused don't have the will power, or even the developed capacity to refute what they're being told. 

Children for instance, learn most of what they know from whoever raises them. Their understanding of life comes from their parents. So if their parents abuse them, they have no choice but to listen and assume what they're being told is true. This kind of abuse can scar a person for life, so surely this proves that verbal oppression is possible, and in some cases completely unavoidable. Sarah Stauffer provided a perfect description of how words can seriously affect kids, when she said, "Words can be as painful as beatings, as verbal vituperation is a spiritual attack as well," in her article Verbal Abuse Breaks Children. 

Whoever makes this argument- that verbal oppression is only what you make of it- has a false interpretation of what oppression is. Our tested and tried definition of oppression is, simply making one feel inferior, whether verbal or physical. But not exclusively physical or verbal. Therefore, saying that words do not have the power to affect one's self esteem is ignorant and untrue. 

As for my own social-circles, I personally hear the most verbal abuse against religious affiliation, or political preference. The verbal abuse in many cases is not direct, such as feeling put down simply by over hearing a denigratory conversation, or being amidst a group of people who are unaware that the butt of their insults is standing among them, silently embarassed. I find that most commonly people offend each other not with the intention of doing so, but rather due to having an attitude of indifference toward the thoughtful consideration of those around them. In other words, it seems as though people offend each other more because they don't realize that their words are hurtful, as opposed to consciously putting someone down. However, ignorance is not necessarily ok, and it certainly doesn't mean anyone will be less offended. Actually, many people would be more offended to hear someone use verbal oppression indirectly, because it shows that the person giving the bad remarks is sincere. 

After having reviewed multiple perspectives and analyzing various interpretations of the word oppression, the result appears obvious. Verbal oppression is not only possible, but is practiced on a daily basis by many. The extent of it's effects vary greatly, but are felt by a great quantity of people, in a multiplicity of ways. With my experience, what is overheard by chance is often times more hurtful than what is said upfront. But for others, it may be as direct as a personal insult, or as subtle as a snide remark.