 |
| Point of view |
Words used might have unintended consequences for many of those using them, but not everyone who uses them is unaware of their power. Any speech writer for any politician, regardless of political persuasion, is very much aware of how words position people, and the relative advantage (or disadvantage) to which those words place them. The oldest trick in the book is to shore up one's own position by contrasting it against that of 'the other' regardless of who that is. We have all been put in the position of 'the other' at some time, and it is not nice to be the foil against which the desirable is made manifest. For some, though, the position becomes so entrenched that those advantaged by it do everything they can to maintain their relative advantage at the expense of 'the other' who is then... where? How demoralising to be raped and labelled a 'comfort woman', to be attacked and called 'a victim', to be labelled in any way that takes responsibility away from the person acting unethically and places it on the person who has behaved to the best of their ability.
As writers we need to be conscious of this in the words we use.
How abhorrent a label 'comfort women' is! It doesn't even come near to the truth.
ReplyDeleteI get what you're saying about putting the onus back on the perpetrator of a crime and not using labels to trivialise a crime, which is what the label 'comfort women' does.
But I don't know how you get around using labels, especially one such as 'victim'. To me, it implies blamelessness for what happened, which is true, and I would have thought, appropriate. Does it imply something bad? Not to me anyway. What other label do you use in that circumstance?
Two things seem to cause the problem with labels: (1) if there are negative implications associated with the label, and (2) if we come to be known only by that label.
When we come to be defined by only one, or even two, of our labels -- whether it be victim, mother, father, businessman, female, boy -- even if the labels have 'good' implications, we're not being seen as an individual or a full and rounded person. We're being stereotyped and pigeon-holed. I am much more than a 'mother' or a 'writer', but as that label, that's how I'm expected to act and think.
I know that in Medicine there is a trend away from labelling people by their disease. People are not called 'diabetics' anymore, they are a 'person who lives with diabetes'. This helps stop people being defined by their disease.
But, I hope there doesn't come a time when this might escalate to calling a mother 'a person living with children' or a boy 'a small person living with male genitalia'! The simple fact is we all use labels, and we can't escape it.
Thanks for taking the time to enter the discussion Louise. Much food for thought there. My thought is that language by its very nature uses labels but that some have more of a mixed message than others, although I guess we each experience the same words differently. I agree that the word 'victim' implies blamelessness, which should be a good thing but meaning changes over time with context, what the culture values, and with repeated associations. The word 'victim' is now being experienced as disempowering for some to whom it is applied - a point made by a person in this position the other day at the writing group, following a home invasion (more loaded words). Maybe the feeling has to do with a police, legal and/or media response to a person who has been attacked, as these social messengers focus more on what a person might have done to avoid it, than on why harming other people is a crappy thing to do. And it might be done for the best of reasons, but there can be a broader negative spin-off. Someone else in the group suggested that 'a person who is targeted' might be a preferable descriptor. I don't think there are any easy answers - just awareness of the words and the context in which they are used, and an ethical attitude to their potential power.
DeleteI take your point. I went off on my own tangent there!
ReplyDeleteMe too! I love tangents.
DeleteNo disagreement from me on any of your points, ladies. I think the key thing to remember, alongside the power of words to evoke and enforce attitudes which may or may not be intended or appropriate, is that ALL understanding, whether or not it is conveyed by language, necessarily requires something to be distinguished from something else. In other words, all comprehension invokes boundaries and a degree of separation, a degree of 'otherness,' insofar as the thing being described or contemplated MUST be distinct from something else for it to be understood in its own right. Clearly, respect and empathy are also necessary in this process of identification to help ensure that such distinctions do not become too narrow or unfairly exclusive.
ReplyDeleteSuch a timely discussion with the disrespectful comments directed at a certain footballer recently. Ultimately my feeling is that it's about respecting one another's humanity and individuality. The important thing is to be free to speak out, to feel free to speak out, hopefully with a real desire to communicate, exchange ideas, and understand one another's perspective. As you can see, I am a big fan of Polly-Anna. Is that how you spell it? Nothing wrong with aiming high.
ReplyDeleteTerrific Blog Iris and I couldn't agree more with all of the above. Labels are tricky, and writers need to be aware of their power. For instance to describe someone as a bean counter - instant assumptions, usually derogatory; Bogan - same thing; The Housewife; A Greenie. The list is endless. Labels are typically a quick and lazy way of describing someone.
ReplyDeleteThanks Marlish. Lovely to have your thoughts on this.
Delete