Friday, September 5, 2008

Ramblings about Oppressive Language

Two things need immediate definition: the phrase 'social circles' and the word oppressive. A social circle is any group of socially connected people, people who interact commonly. It's a rather vast and inclusive phrase, but I suppose that the circles that I dwell in are those of my family and my friends. Oppression is trickier, but I would define it as anything that inhibits a person's ability or will to do or say something. I know that probably means about the same as 'anything that inhibits a person,' but I'm trying to sound more specific.

We have all grown up with the usual oppressive household language. Kids who don't want to talk about something can stop a conversation in it's track by spitting out the word 'whatever.' They can even use body language: rolling one's eyes is an effective way to strip the value from a legitimate argument. It's not as though legitimate arguments show up around the house that often, though, as parents are also efficient conversation-killers. A good argument is never safe from the infamous line 'because I said so.' To this there is no counter, and because all humans need a reason before they will do anything, this phrase is essentially irrational. Because someone told you to do something carries the indirect threat that the person speaking may create consequences, but in itself provides no real incentive. Language like 'you're just tired/cranky' is also an easy way to devalue everything that person has said, and is almost never true; crankiness/tiredness can cause a person to bring up a problem, but it never creates that problem.

Vagueness in family conversation is also an oppressor. Phrases like 'you never listen to me' are not supported by facts or specific events, and thus can be tossed around whenever someone has nothing of substance to say.

Oppression among my friends' language is more subtle. What personally oppresses is me the expectations that I talk like everyone else. I read a lot of books when I was younger, and I picked up a more expansive vocabulary and a greater command of the language than my high school friends. But for some reason if I talk to my full potential, even though all of my friends can understand every word, I will still get called out as a nerd. The language that I use is oppressed by the language of the status quo. Because of this, I actively have to check everything I say in my head before I say it, just to make sure I'm not about to say anything intelligently, or, you know, nerdy. I probably haven't said anything the way I originally intended to in the last Seven years. Because I am unable to speak in the way I want to, my language and I are both being oppressed. What makes me feel kind of bad, though, is that I would probably laugh at someone who spoke like that, too. Hypocritical revenge.

Growing up in this era, I suppose another social circle that I inhabit is the Internet. The Internet is mostly free of forced lingual oppression. Sure, there are places where people speak strange languages (l33t, anyone?), but you don't have to subscribe to that culture if you don't want to. What is up for debate is whether this lack of oppression is a good thing. If you've ever been to an open forum on almost any topic, you know how people change with the anonymity that their browser provides. They lose all sense of how to form a solid argument and instead throw derogatory insults and stupid Internet smack talk at one another. I'm sure that somewhere, intelligent online arguments must rise out of the muck, but I've yet to see one. Were these people actually in a room to see one another face to face and had that same argument, they would make an effort to actually come up with some good points and perspectives. If the average person spoke in reality like they did on the Internet, they would look very much like an idiot. Myself? Guilty of the same.

It's probably pretty obvious that this essay is a shitty first draft, what with it rambling all over the place and having no real structure. If I made it nice and concise and only wrote down everything that was worth reading, I wouldn't even have close to enough words to fulfill the word count. This just isn't really my prompt.

After reading some of the other posts, I guess I had a different understanding of what the prompt was asking. Apparently we are supposed to be writing about offensive language, not just oppressive language.

5 comments:

Nick Longley said...

I feel you, man. This was a weird prompt.

I really can't place much of a voice in your essay, except near the end you sound sort of defeated or tired. I don't know if that's intentional.

It wasn't that shitty, by the way. A good read.

jordanraabe said...

No, I think you nailed the prompt, Logan. Somewhere around our last day of class, we started accidentally substituting the word "offensive" for "oppressive." It was accidental but it caught on and caused some confusion.

As for the voice... hard to place. You speak of your own crimes a fair amount. I can't tell if that's an affected voice you being honest. But I'm going to go with something along the lines of "honest" or "upfront."

Oscar Manzo said...

I agree with the other two comments, but I think you were trying to sound confused/ trying to confuse the reader.

Logan Merriam said...

I had a wildcard. So I guess this is my 'writing an essay at 6:30 in the morning' voice.

professorjfox said...

Yes, I think not choosing a specific voice – just going for the general – probably made writing the essay a bit more difficult, or at least come off as slightly more dull than if you’d chosen a voice that gave you trouble.

I’d say this voice is more levelheaded or rational, especially since you start with definitions. Unfortunately, neither of the definitions add anything to our understanding of those terms. In other words, since they are dictionary definitions, we already know them. When you define terms, define them in a unique way as appropriate to the assignment. For instance, you could define the social circle in very limited terms – daily interaction, close friends only – and oppression as that which makes you feel regretful about yourself. (or something).

Don’t generalize: some people didn’t grow up with the usual oppressive household language. “We” is always dangerous, because someone always thinks “You.”

Interesting take in that paragraph on “oppressive” household language. Is this really oppressive? I think you need to argue – not assume – that it belongs in that category.

The vagueness in family conversation is underdeveloped – make this paragraph go somewhere rather than just stating the fact and letting it lie there without support.

Details: it's is its.

“The Internet is mostly free of forced lingual oppression.” I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but it seems highly debatable at best. Plus, the internet has boundaries – what about internet in China? Language is restricted there, which might be considered oppressive.

Talking about the essay itself is definitely a bad way to close off the essay. If anything, it turns the paper into a meta-voice: an essay that talks about itself (think Charlie Kaufman writing eng. Composition papers). Also, it’s painful to read excuses why it can’t be nice and concise and worth reading.

Nope: on the board was oppressive, which is different than offensive: you could have defined the difference in your first paragraph.