This Book Comes with a Self-Destruct Button, and it’s Called ‘Chapter 3′
February 13, 2009
Oh no! We’re being oppressed! It’s time to look into our brick again, in which we will surely find the answers that will lead us toward salvation.
Chapter 3 is about word tricks and ways in which the ‘establishment’ uses language to inspire specific connotations. This tickles me, because the first thing that led me to distrust our valiant brick was the language that the authors used. I was raised in Poland, so I do have some experience telling the objective information apart from ‘devil’s poetry’. It’s ironic that the book is so inadvertently transparent that it actually gives us the tools to uncover its own bias and agenda.
In fact, how about we try a little challenge? I say that for every word trick listed in chapter 3, I will be able to find an example of that very word trick used by the authors somewhere else in the book. Let’s give it a shot!
Purring (Using synonyms that make the speaker’s team look better):
How about ‘critical pedagogy’? Why did the authors try to blend in with that otherwise noble bunch, instead of just calling their approach by a name like ‘alternative interpretation’, ‘oppositely biased’ or simply ‘radical leftist propaganda’? I think that it’s because people who support the kind of critical pedagogy that actually lets the students think for themselves, have already gained a certain amount of respect in the field.
Snarling (Using synonyms or metaphors that inspire negative connotations):
This one was the easiest by far. Our brick is so full of snarling, you’d think the authors are into some kind of furry fetish. As a matter of fact, I found a case of snarling in the very paragraph that explains it. How else can you describe calling the government ‘assassins of the welfare state’? – Page 30, 3rd paragraph.
Putdowns (Less aggressive purring/snarling):
It’s hard to find anything less aggressive than snarling in this book, but a case of less aggressive purring can be found in the introduction to Chomsky’s article, where the author claims to be interested in ‘the quest for global justice’ – Page 79, 2nd paragraph. Looking at the tone used in the rest of the book though, it seems like the authors and their friends are more interested in ‘having things their way, consequences be damned’. They appear seek no common ground with the opposing party and settle for no compromises.
Playing down violence (Using words that make acts of violence appear less extreme):
“It is obvious that a thorough democratization of the media can only occur in connection with a drastic alteration in the structure of power and political revolution.” – Page 41, 2nd paragraph. Holy crap! What are you proposing, Edward S. Herman?
Obscuring appeasement of client state terror (Say what? Is that the scientific term? By definition it means “making sure that the terror goes unnoticed,” which assumes by default that terror actually takes place. Very objective…):
This one is tricky, because it was designed specifically in order to be used against the government. It also presents itself by the absence of information, so I can’t pinpoint it specifically in the book, but it is interesting how the authors seem to avoid any serious discussion about how media are controlled in communist countries like China.
Facilitating innuendo (Making long-shot connections between someone who is clearly disliked and someone who the speaker wants to be disliked):
In order to find an example of this one, I just scanned the pages of the book for the name Adolf Hitler. It’s such a cliché to compare opponents to him, it managed to become trivialized, resulting in terms like ‘grammar nazi’ (do you really expect to be gassed for using the wrong tense?). Anyway, let’s get back to the point. Surely enough, after less than 30 seconds I found comparisons with Hitler (maybe I was lucky). On the 2nd paragraph of page 26, the British Conservative party is compared with Adolf Hitler. I cannot imagine a bigger smack in the face for history. Winston Churchill (a member of the Conservative party) must be spinning in his grave.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the Conservative party. Yet, I also think that very few people or groups of people can compare to Hitler. Genghis Khan? Probably. Churchill? Not really.
Personification and use of collective words (generalizing a group which in reality is diverse):
This happens any time the words like ‘government’, ‘establishment’ or ‘state’ are used. Congress is part of the government and it includes both political parties. Thus, it is more diverse than the authors would like us to believe.
Falsely imputing benevolent motives (Justifying improper actions with good intentions):
“Democratic media would encourage people to know and understand their neighbours and to participate in social and political life.” – page 39, 2nd paragraph. in contrast with “Commercial media aim to entertain and divert.” – Page 39, 2nd paragraph. Maybe I’m weird, but to me it sounds like ‘democratic media’ would tell people what to do. If the author’s idea of democratic media is anything like this book, I imagine it would be stock full of propaganda. Not unlike the Polish government-owned media during the times of Communism.
Removing agency (omitting the doer of a disapproved of action when the doer is on the speaker’s side):
There are brief mentions of soviet downfalls scattered about the book. Yet, people like Karl Marx are never mentioned in those instances. Is it because the mentions are too brief, or is it because of the author’s agenda? Personally, I think it’s possible that it’s due to the brevity of the mentions, but this demonstrates how easy it is to falsely accuse someone of this ‘trickery’.
It’s no news that politicians use word trickery to present themselves in a better light. It’s part of what makes it such a dirty job. Teachers are a different story, though. Their goal isn’t to win elections. It’s to inform and educate the students about the world.
Perhaps this book wasn’t written by a teacher, but by a politician?
To finish off, I present you with a little bit of hard science about our current ‘oppressed’ world:
