[ OPINIONS ]

news

opinions

sports

policebeat

comics

(DAILY_WILDCAT)

Language doesn't discriminate, people do


[photograph]



No single element of our culture serves to distinguish Homo sapiens from other known life forms as does the depth and complexity of our verbal and written communication. Without this seemingly common and innate ability, there would be no technology, no ar t, no single impressions of intelligence passed beyond the moment, let alone lifetime, of any one individual. Language is the concrete that lays beneath the structures of culture. Language is the media of the mind.

These kinds of observations are important given the current climate of hypersensitivity surrounding issues of human equality. Language is largely based upon our physical perception of the world, and our perception is based largely upon discrimination. We are unable to quantify light or color, only its difference in relationship to darkness and other hues. Our touch does not tell temperature, only the difference between the temperature of our skin and that of an object. Such is true with most of our senses , thus we form an impression of reality at its most basic level based upon discriminating between differences.

Realizing our language relates inequality in a very fundamental way leads naturally to the fact that it would eventually come under attack by our crusade toward equating all aspects of human existence. We have politically correct terms now for everything, the Ebonics debate continues to rage on, and the feminist movement may well attempt to strike any reference of gender from American English. Coming from a vocal supporter of human rights and opportunity equality, it might seem strange that I am vehementl y opposed to this generalized sort of activity. I suggest that these efforts, though ideologically sound, are functionally misguided.

The language that we speak is not an autonomous entity conductive to arbitrary and culturally motivated restrictions. To borrow from Shakespeare, we know that a rose is such not because of its name, but because of our experiences surrounding it. What is a ccomplished by changing a name if the sentiment behind it remains the same? Absolutely nothing. We have simply reassigned the internal reference to another set of letters and syllables. In this light, we must begin to view the functions and parts of our l anguage that we find offensive as indicators of social ill as opposed to the sickness itself.

It is disgustingly typical of social movements to address the symptoms of disease, instead of looking for the root cause. Can we really be led to believe that poor, inner city African Americans need Ebonics to learn when in other nations children often fl uently speak two or three distinct languages by school age? Clearly, the problem rests in our social and educational structure, not in the intelligence or genetics of these disadvantaged youths. It's simply more convenient to blame them as a small group t han ourselves as a whole.

What of male-gender generality in American English Vernacular? Is it true that we use arbitrary male diction to refer to groups of individuals that are either part or all female? Of course. Furthermore, studies show that when the so-called "generic male" is used, it is not universally interpreted as generic. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since the use of a generic term implies complete abstraction, a concept that human intelligence is unable to grasp.

Thus, the "generic-male" term is not generic and therefore discriminatory toward women and ought to be changed, right? Ignoring the precipitous leap in logic, such a statement seems to be the mood of this age; yet we continue in our failure to ask more ce ntral questions. Why do we see the use of the so-called generic as male, and if it is a consequence of our culture, does the reassignment of the word change any fundamental reality we are concerned about?

It is impossible to be truly polar on this subject, as there is an argument that changing language through education in turn changes social structure. Perhaps. Yet, we must tread carefully as the central weapon of any social reform is not education, but c ensorship. History has shown that moral and/or emotional restriction of human cognition is rarely a fruitful road, leading almost inevitably to new social problems. If we really care about these issues, which has not yet been demonstrated in this country, then we must deny the sense of security and victory that restricting or changing the use of words and languages seems to give us. I fear it ultimately achieves little more than additional lines in Webster's that we could do without.

Jason Pyle is a senior majoring in engineering physics. His column, 'Critical Point,' appears every other Monday.

By Jason Pyle (columnist)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
March 3, 1997


(LAST_SECTION)  - (Wildcat Chat)  - (NEXT_STORY)

 -