In the postmodern world ideologies are not dead, far from it. If anything has been decaffeinated for a little scope. One of these ideologies decaffeinated of our time is the emphasis on "politically correct language." I am of the opinion that this way of putting things can and should be criticized and argue later. But that does not mean you agree with the most common and topical reviews that are made. In fact, I think another decaffeinated ideologies of our time equally superficial and not very committed to the gut reality-is the systematic and thoughtless opposition to the "politically correct language" in these cases we adopted a pose, a mask that makes us assume that more interesting, more intelligent, aware and independent, furthest from the platitudes and the "thinking dominant. " But in many cases it is a superficial position and also topic, linked to the "bias of the oppressed majority" that will discuss another time, there is no thought more dominant than the obligatory ideological rebellion who is believed to outwit the masses. To avoid falling into this error, I think we should examine two considerations: first, why is it criticism ideology politically correct language? Second what about truth in it? For all ideologies, like all myths, they have a really interesting background that may be interesting to unravel and sometimes exploit. First, we could criticize the politically correct language as it is euphemistically. The categories that designate the subordinate groups tend to take on a pejorative connotation, but the truth is that words are many twists throughout the story. Some words originally neutral acquired over time insulting tone did not come as standard ("moro" natural = Roman province of Mauritania), others, however, arise loaded with the most cruel contempt, but are then taken, and reclic subverted by minority groups, who take the word for their own use (as has happened with "gay" and more recently with "queer.") Some categories are so variable that you never know what the politically correct fashion, and what that has become abusive (like the multiple ways of referring to "blacks" or "elderly"). Sometimes we do not stop looking for three feet to the cat, because all the words seem to pose problems ("handicapped" "disabled" and not say "moron" or "moron"). The truth is that sometimes we behave as if there were any magical virtue in the words themselves rather than on the social meanings attributed to them. In my opinion, this is one case where "the intention is what counts, not the word used (although it's always good to have a certain touch to avoid confusion), the desire or not to insult, feeling, contempt, tone, context, meaning. That's enough, without having to obsess about finding less ugly euphemism, do not forget the euphemisms try to hide or disguise a reality that is perceived as negative and therefore, in these cases usually have a point " excusatio non petita ... " When one does not assume the normal ending of "negritude" pronounce the word "black" seems to produce some discomfort, which is sublimated perhaps with the desire not to bother and you end up saying "colored", although made to look for the three-foot cat, would be a category error, because attributes the "color" only to the category selected.
In any case, I can dig a little deeper in the critique of ideology light politically correct language. In fact, I think it can sometimes look like a ritualistic religion or self-righteous that rewards those who meet a set of external requirements and condemns the unbelievers who "do not meet the law", even without asking too much the reasons that gave meaning to these precepts. Thus, the contradictions arising from inequalities of power that occur in social reality can be mapped to a field magically imaginary constructed through language. And apparently can be solved in these imaginary realms by simply saying magic words. Why Anglophones call tokenism and that we could translate as "front" or more graphically as "burial money." "Everything must change" (in the world of language) "to continue business as" (in the social reality). I'm not saying that this always occurs, but I think it is an inherent tendency to purism (Puritanism) in examining the "correctness" language policy.
But what is interesting about these demands for political correctness? For the reasonable assumption that, to some extent, are determined by our cognitive categories and by language. We speak the language, but we are also spoken by language. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that our "life world, our universe of perceptions, is determined by the language with which to construct the social world. This is what is called linguistic relativism. " It is a reasonable assumption if not taken to the tremendous. Who came first, the chicken or the egg? "Language constructs to society or is society that builds language? "At the very beginning was the Word?
Some forms of vulgar materialism of the world despise the human symbolic value, which automatically judged as "superstructure" (they would say in Marxist terms) as if things were as such "infrastructure" or "superstructure", nothing more Platonic less materialistic. I suppose then disregard the value of money or stock transactions, purely symbolic elements and "soft." I think from the "reasonable materialism" must mean something else. Indeed, the society builds language and language is largely a reflection of actual social relations. The language has an ideological dimension, in the worst sense of the word when used to build imaginary worlds where they are projected to solve real problems magically distorted and that everything remains as is, as stated above. This function ideological or superstructural, incidentally, is not far from negligible or trivial, but it really affects the reproduction of social relations. But on the other hand, language is the main substrate or instrument through which social relationships are built them, through which the work is divided socially and relations are of domination and exclusion.
So, what is important is not words but the bottom surface, and the effects they produce. Words can be magic words, to the extent that cause social effects. In this context, the important thing is not the word that finally we use, but make timely reflection for us not thoughtlessly affect the automation of our mental categories. I said once that I prefer to speak of "migration" rather than "immigration" as a constant reminder that migrants "came from somewhere " and that international migration should be seen in the context broad as possible. But then I do not mind the word that people prefer to use, the important thing is to have succeeded in making this analysis.
Now that I have explained roughly what I think about the issue, perhaps we can focus on some specific aspect. In the next post is surely how we construct the categories of "them" and "us" at the present time. Here the language is the area through which we can detect the use of mental categories to play a subordinate social status.
[ The image is the cover of a book of politically correct fairy tales parody key from here recommend, and its sequel "more politically correct fairy tales" ]
0 comments:
Post a Comment