How to Lose – Language and Exclusion

Last updated on: November 12, 2016 at 8:37 pm by Robert Hunt

How to Lose – Language and Exclusion 2016-11-12T20:37:25-07:00 Robert Hunt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Every election is a negotiation. And the most dangerous thing for any candidate, whether he or she ultimate wins or loses, is speaking a language that excludes part of the electorate. For the loser it is because it means losing touch. For the winner it means being out of touch.

I spent most of my adult life in non-English-speaking contexts. As a result I have extensive experience in being part of conversations where I could not fully participate because my capability in that particular language was limited. I know what it is like to sound like a barbarian in the midst of an elegant and refined conversation in Malay. I know what it is like to sound like I’m an under educated nine year old in the midst of an academic conversation in German.

Whenever language is deployed at all it both includes and excludes people from the discourse. Sometimes that exclusion seems unavoidable. Academics like myself frequently use technical language forms that are usefully precise, but which affirm our social status and excludes others. The very act of producing this blog follows a certain model of rational discourse that creates a domain that includes and excludes people not familiar with its rules.

Moreover, language involves a great deal more than just using certain words and expressions. It involves a whole set of rules about things you can and cannot do in particular discourse settings. And each of those rules creates boundaries that include and exclude people from the conversation. Almost everyone (certainly everyone whose attended a convention of professionals) knows what its like to be on the outside looking into a conversation carried on incomprehensible jargon made up of identifiable English language words.

Finally language excludes when the words and expressions denigrate or leave out whole groups of people. Obviously racial and gender slurs create an environment in which groups won’t feel welcome. More subtly gendered language that places maleness at the center of the conversation tends to leave out women.

And I haven’t even mentioned non-verbal behaviors that include and exclude.

This said, consider the substantial portion of the US population, enough to elect a President, that has felt itself excluded from public political discourse.

One form of felt exclusion is what those excluded speak of as “politically correct” language. Such language (which de-legitimizes a range of terms and expressions related to race and gender) was created precisely to include those who felt that excluded by such terms and expressions. And within the subculture that created it the intention seemed virtuous enough and the rules simple enough that it should be easily adopted by everyone. Why would anyone want to continue using language that excluded racial minorities and women?

Overtly no one. Yet like all forms of language, that of political correctness varied from situation to situation and in many cases sought to overthrow longstanding habits that weren’t easy to change. Getting rid of racial slurs was relatively easy, and they were excised pretty quickly from public discourse. Political correctness with regard to gender was more difficult, if only because gender exclusive language forms are more deeply embedded in our language. It still baffles many of my students both male and female.

As importantly, politically correct language never seemed to take into account language that excluded by its use of blaspheme. Astute politicians might avoid it, but blaspheme was the bread and butter of some of their supporters, people who would never use excluding language with regard to race and gender. This could make the development of pc language seem like less an effort to create a universal language of inclusion than an elite effort to shift the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion within the language to exclude those offended by blaspheme.

Nor is it just politically correct language that excludes. Part of the language of American political discourse for a long time has been the language of street protests, public shows of solidarity, and confrontation with authority. This language is rightfully seen as the language of those otherwise rendered inarticulate by social marginalization and an exclusionary media.

However, it is also a language that many Americans cannot themselves use well and the deployment of which makes them extremely uncomfortable. So when it becomes the focus of media attention, and becomes central to political discourse as has happened in the last several years, those Americans find themselves excluded from this particular form of political speech. And worse, despised by self-identified activists precisely because they do not choose to join into that particular conversation.

What this election has made clear is that Americans do not really have a shared language of political discourse, one that includes everybody and excludes nobody. Politically correct language and the language of the street were an effort to create such a language. But they have been only a partial success. Worse, those who spoke them fluently eventually quite listening to those who couldn’t. We dismissed them as backward, or naive, or ignorant. Not so different from the way an Austrian University professor would have turned away from my efforts to explain in German my views on Schiele’s art.

The vote is the one language everyone can speak. And the vote on Nov 7 should be a revelation to both sides – because it was close. Many of the marginalized who were finally beginning to feel part of the political conversation find themselves today excluded and wounded. For some there is a legitimate fear of physical harm. Many others feel that they have suddenly found their voice. Unfortunately that voice hasn’t merely been politically incorrect, it has perpetuated cruelty and harm. This is not a sustainable situation.

We need to find a common language of political discourse, one that reaches across significant cultural divides. Until we do we will continue to stumble politically into endless, fruitless, conflict that advantages no one, and continues to leave the most vulnerable in our society marginalized.

Christian Identity

Home Page

Previous Post

November 11, 2016

How to Lose an Election - Wealth as a Symbol

Next Post

November 18, 2016 You Can't See When You Turn Your Back

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Christian Identity Christian Muslim Relations Home Page Inter-Religious Dialogue Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 July 2010 May 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz