Approved-By:  Allmusic Editor <MIKE@WVNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:40:39 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Stark Fist of Removal


>You start thinking of words as having concrete, Platonic
>existence of their own.  Wrong.  The right answer is that words represent
>linguistic agreements between speakers of the language.
>So, if the majority of people we know and talk to have already agreed
>that "alternative" includes the Cure, etc. and that "progressive" doesn't,
>for us to use the words in any other way would be the same thing as
>saying that we don't want to communicate with everyone else.
>To hell with "essential nature"s and applicability of the word to the
>thing.  There are no decision makers in the linguistic community, and
>I don't think you've got a snowball's chance in hell of convincing
>everyone that they're using "alternative" wrong.  If you want to start
>your own linguistic mini-community where the Cure's kind of music is
>called "death metal", or whatever, count me out.

  Sorry Sorry Bob Bob.  I disagree.

  See, when record execs looking to make a buck label
their corporate music "alternative" they are abusing
the language.  It is *not* correct to say that words
can be defined and redefined at will.  While they are
certainly fundamentally arbitrary, the word "alternative"
carries a lot of connotative weight, which the men in
suits are trying to capitalize on.

Playing these words games is a tricky and a dangerous
business, people do it all the time, and the correct
response is to harangue folks about the meaning of
the word until you can divorce it, by force of habit,
from the connotative weight, or change the wrong usage.

An example, if you don't mind a bit of politics.  Some
folks did a study of college campuses, and revealed the
alarming statistic that nearly %70 of the coeds had been
raped at some point.  (Please, let's not debate the rape
thing on the list, just hear out the example.)  When one
read the report further, one found those people in the
study insisting the part of the value of the study was
that it raised awareness both in men and women "as many
of the women did not even realize they had been raped."
Whoa!  Some further investigation revealed that in the
particular study, they had defined rape as "to be touched
or kissed against one's will."  Now, I don't want to
minimize the problem of sexual harrassment, and stealing
kisses or inappropriate contact - but the simple fact
is, it is not the same as rape - even if the people involved
in the study want to define, and make us all agree to define
rape in this way.  Ask yourself, for a second, *why* they
want such a broad definition of rape....  They want such
a broad definition of rape in order to pull a fast one.
Whatever the good intentions of the study may have been,
the goal was to abuse the word "rape."  They were changing
the definition, and *counting* on all of the connotative
baggage remaining.

Folks in the government try to do this all the time.  It
is no accident that the cornerstone of bureaucrateze is
the invention of new words.  The reason, this time, is
the opposite of the reason used by the rape study group.
This time, they want to put an emotionally neutral tag
on something which is already labelled with a word filled
with bad connotations.  "Collateral damage"  "Revenue
enhancement."  (A 5% revenue enhancement?  Why, that
sounds great - I mean, as long as they aren't raising
my taxes.)

We must pay very close attention to word misuse.  Words are
the building blocks of thought, and people can mess
with your mind very easily if you let them choose the
words.  Language is power - it is subtle, and thus
even more dangerous.  Madison Ave is slicker at this
than the feds.  "Certs with Retsin"  Wow, must be good!
Any of you folks know what retsin is?  Must be an
active ingredient, eh?  Must make certs more effective,
eh?  "listerine fights gingivitis"  Any of y'all know
what qualifies as gingivitis?  Do you know how dangerous
it is?  "Nutra-Sweet"  Well, with a name like that, it
has to be good for you.  Saccharine sounds like a chemical,
it is bad.  But Nutra-Sweet is Nutritious.  "Alternative
Music"  I'm not getting corporate pop, I'm getting the
alternative.

You are way off-base on this one, Bob.  Arguing the labels
is vitally important.

                            -Tim

Homework - watch the ads on TV tonight.  See if you can
even discover how many fast ones they are pulling on ya.
Ask yourself how you think they are using the words, and
how you are interpreting the words.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU