This Prompt Is Absurd!

It's the first two weeks of school, and we've already gotten one of those vague, collegiate essay prompts! As he stands up at the front of the room, our dear professor reads us what amounts to a death sentence for students – “To what extent has language played an oppressive role in your social circles?”. What does that mean?! Oppressive?! Language?! Social circles?! In?! By the gods, this prompt isn't even a prompt at all!

It's very easy to be tricked by this topic into writing a whole paper that doesn't really matter. It could be a simple matter to go on a pseudo-intellectual writing spree about the downtrodden masses or the countless injustices faced by the writer or their “social circle”. But we are not going to do that! Not today!

Or...are we?

I'm an atheist. Social circle? Probably. The word atheist probably conjures countless examples that I could bring to the table – let's see what I can come up with.

Many people would argue that atheists are, in general, intellectuals, and when one thinks of “oppressive language”, they most likely imagine some snide person in a debate using big language to destroy another person, metaphorically speaking. However, is it possible that the opposite is true? How many atheist presidents have we had? How many atheist senators do we have? Hell, how many politicians of any rank or level can you name who are professed atheists? I'm willing to bet the answers are “none”, “none”, and “hardly any”. Are there really almost no atheist politicians? Of course there are! Atheism is the new gay – people are afraid to “come out” lest they be thrown into "political oblivion" - a phrase used by Richard Dawkins. And yet when almost all of these politicians claim to be good ol' God-fearing bible followers, they're applauded for doing so! And atheists are the ones doing the oppressing?! Please!

Sounds like I've got a good basis to go off of, doesn't it? Well, guess what? It's wrong. It's not the idea that is wrong, it's the fact that I might as well be asked “Why are cookies delicious?” and respond with “They are delicious because...”. It's easy to submit a cookie-cutter (pun most definitely intended) response like that. Oh, lordy, is it easy! But it doesn't make much sense. It's not logical. It's downright ridiculous. “Then what the heck are you going to talk about, Mr. Smarty-Pants,” asks the readers. Well, calm down for a minute, Sparky, and I'll tell you! The problem begins with the prompt. It's always a good idea to solidly analyze any prompt you're given – I think most people would agree with that. So just what the hell does this one mean?

First, we have to figure out just what the heck language is! Is it someone talking? Where? To whom? In what context? Are they talking at someone, or with someone? Is this a debate, or an argument, or do they agree? Are they telling a joke? What kind of joke? Are there people who might be offended by the joke present? Is the joke intended to be offensive? Is the joke intended to be offensive through parody?

Or, maybe language is body language. Is it the way you act in certain situations? Is it physical actions? Is it actions meant to be offensive? Are they meant to be inspiring but have the opposite effect? When the Iraqis and U.S troops pulled down the statue of Saddam, was that a form of communication, and therefore, language? Couldn't we then apply the term language to war? Could we not then go further and say that shooting someone is language? And that beating the crap out of someone is language? It would seem to me that any action, regardless of intention, is language. How are we supposed to write an essay about THAT?

“Oppressive role” can be shortened down to “oppressive”. What is oppressive? A dictionary would summarize it as something “distressing”. As they list, many things can be oppressive, from weather to laws. Oppression is physical. Oppression is something that in one way or another has a physical effect on someone, or perhaps simply a measurable effect.

Can language do this?

From here, we could go three separate directions, for the question being posed can take on three forms. It is either

1.) unanswerable because it is fundamentally flawed

2.) unanswerable because there are a nearly infinite amount of versions of "language", or

3.) Answerable, but not in the way the prompt intended. I'll finish up with this one, for the others have nowhere to go.

When was the last time someone called you an idiot and you were stricken to the ground? Did you ever develop a bruise when someone intentionally ignored you?

The answer is an obvious and emphatic no. It's easy to see that the effects of language – the prompt's intended version of language - are merely mental. We could extend the term mental to mean immaterial, immaterial to mean non-existent.

It would seem to me, then, that language can never be oppressive, because language can never produce physical results – in fact, the effects of words might as well be the same as the voices a hobo hears in his head; they don't exist! And since the necessary requirement of oppression is that it be measurable, language is in fact not oppressive at all!!

It seems like any way you slice it, this prompt fails. If our loving professor was its creator, I apologize, but it doesn't make it any less true! I've spent enough time on this thing already. Let's pack it up and go home, boys!