From: dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 20:26:37 GMT


> Mike writes:
>dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>>> Chris writes:
>>>As George Orwell pointed out in Nineteen Eighty-Four, language and
>>>how we speak  *does* have significant impact on how we humans think.
>>
>>That is only one half of the picture.  The relaionship is much more symbiotic
>>in that I think our culture and ideologies impact our language as well.
>[...]
>>I don't think you eradicate sexist or any -ist thought by wiping out the
>>words that it uses.
>
>You go on to expound this quite clearly.  However, I'd suggest you're
>missing one attraction of the attack on -ist language rather than -ist
>thoughts.  [Aside 1: it's not an either/or choice; Aside 2: attacking
>thoughts directly is damn tough.]  I agree that impelling (by whatever
>means, including Alan's prescription of hipness) Jack and Jill the
>-Ists to use fairer language derived from fairer concepts does not
>automagically given them those concepts.  Consider, however, any
>children Jill and Jack have.  This is the coal-face of societal
>attitude: the development of a fresh consciousness without any of the
>old-dog-new-tricks problems of re-education.  Little J grows up, not
>being preached to about the neccesity for equality, like some grotesque
>Pledge Of Allegiance every morning, but grows up in a world where the
>communication implies fairness.  I can see a lot of good in that.  As
>ever, no magic bullet, but don't just limit your vision to the
>generation of -Ists you're taking to.
>
>Who knows?  I may even be agreeing with Alan here ...
>
>Mike

Might be a question of force of change.  I don't see that if Lil' J is taught
a gender neutral pronoun but goes home and is exposed to sexist behaviour
that the language change will have much effect.  It might be more a question
of not concentrating effort on changes that will have a marginal effect and
will be academically resisted beyond the worth of pursuing them.

Personally, IMHO(etc), I would think that if Lil J grows up in a non-sexist
environment sexist words and langauge would look alien, and more
importantly, become inherently inadequate to express thoughts, emotions and
ideas.  The sexist component of language will disappear without a whimper.
Language develops as a communication utility, and words and constructs that
aren't able to convey our thoughts wither away.

I guess it boils down to believing that if we change the way we think, in
a large and fundamental way, language will change with us.  But if we put
language changes first, people will fixate on that, and we'll all waste
effort on a marginal topic without much potential.  I also think that its
more valuable to write in a non-sexist manner with the langauge we have been
given, because you have to think to do that, and police your own
prejudices, whereas inventing words and rules for usage offers much
less challenge to sexist communication and ways of thinking.  To put it
more bluntly, only humans can accomplish the first feat because it requires
human thinking, while a good grammar checker (and therefore any autonomon)
can do the second.

*But*, since this is mostly IOHO (In Our Humble Opinions), has anyone ever
seen a study on the effect of language on attitude?  It would be interesting
to see.


Brad

Newsgroups: soc.bi