Language plays very little if at all of an oppressive role in my social circles. Language is just a means of communication and it does not have the ability to oppress unless you give it the power to. Fuck. Did you pause on that word or did you continue reading without a break. If you paused, why? Do you have a mental reaction to that word? Does it piss you off? Why spend any more time on that word than the others, after all its pretty short so it can’t hold much meaning. You can let words like that affect you or “oppress” you but in actuality they have no power.
The only thing that language oppresses is the rate of communication. That is why we use words that have more feeling than meaning like fuck and shit, because the connotation expresses things that we could not express in a concise matter otherwise.
If words can oppress your actions then you should reconsider the weight you put in non-tangible things. If you were standing next to a man and he began to bombard you with imaginary rocks and weapons would you ignore it, find it humorous, or fall prey to his imaginary assault. This is the extent to which words can be oppressive. You will definitely take notice of the word’s presence and understand their meaning, but whether they effect you is up to none other than yourself.
Have dictators oppressed their countries with language, no. Imagine if Stalin’s regime used words instead of killing everyone he thought would betray him. Does a threat have meaning if it is not thought possible? Language is in reality a tool that can bring much more freedom than it can oppress. That’s why dictators have felt that if they could control the language their people use, they could control their people more effectively. That is why they burnt books, banned words, and forbidden the communication of certain ideas. Because language is much more liberating than it is oppressive.
Can language be oppressive though? Yes it can. If you do not have a mastery of it you cannot communicate what is going on in your mind. This is evident when many people write essays. They cannot wield language successfully to convey their thoughts and ideas so they come off as morons.
Even people who have a mastery of language are oppressed by it. They rate at which thought travels and the rate at which humans can communicate will never come close unless we devise a form of telepathy. Even then our thoughts will take too long to decipher to communicate them fast enough.
All the taboo words are used often in my social circles. They do not oppress, they have more meaning than other words because of the weight given to them by most of society. We can say one word and by the tone of our voice our fellow language users will know exactly what we mean.
The words that oppress certain people can be used by others to liberate their thoughts more. It just depends on how you look at them.
Another person who can fall prey to the oppressiveness of language is someone who is not entirely familiar with the language they are speaking. Whether it is a little one or a foreigner, they will have a hard time explaining themselves sufficiently to be accepted by the other in the social circles they partake in.
Anyways language is only oppressive as you let it be, as of now it is the best method of communicating. But if you want to communicate faster you could always practice to be like this guy.
5 comments:
I think the voice being used here is a negative voice. Argumentative. Voice
I think the voice is intellectual and decisive.
"im thinking angry"
I think the voice is nonchalant and inquisitive.
Remember to have a title. Also, edit the tabs back on the paragraphs so each one is flush left.
Watch the comma splices (“than the others, after all”) and its for it’s.
Good rhetorical move with the “only oppressive if you let them be.”
Effect is a noun. Affect is a verb. Not to be confused.
Perplexing shift with how language oppresses the rate of communication, and your actions.
“That’s why dictators have felt that if they could control the language their people use, they could control their people more effectively. That is why they burnt books, banned words, and forbidden the communication of certain ideas. Because language is much more liberating than it is oppressive.” Nice point.
“Have dictators oppressed their countries with language, no. Imagine if Stalin’s regime used words instead of killing everyone he thought would betray him.” I don’t think this holds true. Dictators do oppress with language in a number of ways. Restricting free speech, or censoring the newspapers.
I think it’s necessary to have some kind of counter argument against people who disagree with you, or to offer an exception to your point (some kind of language which does oppress, regardless).
Clever conclusion. Funny fed-ex commercial.
I feel like the few paragraphs before the conclusion is a grab-bag of ideas that aren’t well developed and you shifted them all to the end because they didn’t fit in anywhere else.
Post a Comment