Words are powerful. Words can be very specific, and words can also be manipulated. Words can be as sharp as knives and penetrate like bullets. Although not trained as a linguist or philosopher, the brilliant comedian George Carlin understood language with depth like no one else. He famously said, “The quality of our thoughts and ideas can only be as good as the quality of our language.” Listen to our use of language today, how it’s been bastardized, obfuscated, propagandized and weaponized; it’s clear that George was right!
In the moment modern humans came into being, the need to communicate came with them. Symbolic expression came first. Petroglyphs, pictographs and cave paintings appeared between 150,000 and 100,000 years ago, while spoken language evolved simultaneously between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago. Language became the ‘oral tradition’ of storytelling and history-keeping, but it was impermanent, and the written word was invented by the Sumerians around 3,400-3,300BCE. For centuries the written word was a one-of-a-kind thing, only reproducible by scribes copying original documents by hand. This limited availability, keeping the general population uninformed and uneducated, kept kings and popes educated and powerful. When Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press in 1439-1450 (the exact date is uncertain), the written word became available to the masses, much to the chagrin of the powerful elites, who could no longer keep the general populace ignorant and thereby under control.
In Strunk and White’s guidebook for writers The Elements of Style, the most important thing to know about words and writing is right there in the foreword: “Be Clear.” I first encountered a profound and purposeful lack of clarity as an art student reading art reviews. I’d read words (not found in the American Heritage Dictionary) like ‘deconstruction’ and obtuse phrases like, “… exemplifying a paradoxical depth of spatio-temporal stereotypical gender position ….” This annoying lack of clarity is known as ArtSpeak. It’s used by academics and critics to make them feel intellectually superior to the art-viewer, but only serves to deter the general public from visiting art galleries. It’s true that every specialty has its own vernacular, but ArtSpeak has a level of absurdity all its own.
Often ‘soft’ words are used in place of more direct expressions. In my April article, “The Older I Get, the Faster I Was,” about motorcycling, I substituted a soft word. We seldom said, “I crashed,” instead, “I took a spill.” ‘Spill’ is less dramatic than ‘crash.’ Hunters, whose sport is killing animals, often say, “I took the elephant,” knowing it’s a less traumatic (and less accurate) word than “I killed the elephant.” The elephant is still dead, but this is soothing enough for the listener or reader. Police will often make a statement in terms to aggrandize their reports. They’ll write ‘lost control of the vehicle’ to stigmatize the driver instead of using more accurate words like ‘slid on black ice.’ This is done to negatively influence a potential jury. How often are crimes distinctly captured on video, where the perpetrator is clearly photographed, but reporters are still required to use words like ‘alleged’ and ‘suspect,’ so as not to influence juries. Yeah, sure, they’re not convicted yet, but come on, there are clear pictures!
Just above I used the word ‘captured’ instead of ‘photographed.’ This variance came about with the invention of the digital camera when, somehow, photographers went from ‘taking’ or ‘shooting’ pictures on film to ‘capturing’ from a sensor. There’s no real difference, but ‘captured’ can sound cool and make the photographer feel special.
I’ll admit that sometimes it’s better to use softer terms. Once, as a young photojournalist, I was at a press conference and said, “I’m here to shoot the President.” That was innocent stupidity on my part and led to an aggressive interrogation by a dozen Secret Service agents, which I’d have avoided if I’d simply used the term ‘photograph.’ Oops, my bad — see, it’s just a camera!
Some words simply become overused and lose clarity. Who else is tired of hearing ‘unprecedented,’ ‘tremendous’ or ‘awesome’?
Sometimes words and names are purposely mispronounced or misused to insult or demean. How many people’s names had been purposely mispronounced by bullying fourth-graders? Mine was, and it was hurtful. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s name is often venomously mispronounced as “Newscum.” There is no such thing as the Democrat Party, the correct name is Democratic — it’s a small thing, but this miscasting is really a form of microaggression. It stuck because, for some reason, the Democratic party won’t correct its misuse. The Affordable Care Act was re-branded as Obamacare. There were many who really liked the benefits of Affordable Care but hated Obamacare, not realizing the two terms mean the same thing, ‘Obama’ being the trigger-word. Sure, it’s easy for those with an agenda to hate Obama, but nobody really hates ‘affordable.’ Sadly, the Democratic Party co-opted the term to their own linguistic disadvantage. Another thing the Democrats get wrong is calling to tax the rich when their point would be more palatable if they said, “tax the greedy.”
There’s another style of speaking I heard a lot when I lived in Texas, mostly from women. If you’ve ever heard a Texas woman say, “Well, isn’t that special,” “Bless your heart” or “hissy fit,” you’ve been insulted in Texan. A word of warning if you visit Texas: never, ever say, “you guys.” The proper Texas term is “y’all” or its plural, “all y’all.” Take heed, you’re warned!
Politicians are often masters of word misuse, and we can thank them for the death of eloquence. They’ve killed courtesy in political discourse with an aggressive lack of congeniality. ‘Socialism,’ ‘fascist’ and ‘liberal,’ to name just a few’,have all been weaponized, obscuring their true, useful meanings. “My honorable friends” has now become “deranged liberals” in the relentless pursuit of advantage in a supposed zero-sum game.
This is not always a both-sides thing, only one side is against equity and inclusion, but I’ll stick to the politician’s use of words, not politics itself.
Now there’s a relatively new phenomenon called “word salad,” popularized for a certain 2008 vice-presidential candidate. She’d toss out gibberish sentences, all lacking subject-verb agreement, but include just enough key- or trigger-words to impress her followers, letting them think she’d made a point. The word-salad style of speaking (and only spoken; when written, it’s obvious that it’s gobbledygook) has been taken to a new level of babble by the current occupant of the White House. His manner of speaking should be defined as Maglish.
Finally there’s the weaponization of the word ‘woke,’ which has been misused, misinterpreted and incorrectly defined by so many for so long that its original meaning is hopelessly lost. It’s been co-opted as a hate-word, in direct opposition to its real meaning. The real and true definition of ‘woke,’ cut and pasted directly from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is: Woke developed in African-American English and has been used to describe a state of active attentiveness to issues of racial and social justice since the mid-late 20th century. It gained widespread use and attention beginning in 2014 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, and eventually developed pejorative use describing people, policies, practices, etc., seen as too politically liberal or progressive. It evolved from a specific awareness of racism to a broader alertness regarding social issues. Opponents quickly flipped its meaning and applied it as a general pejorative for anyone who is or appears to be politically left-leaning. ‘Woke’ is just a way to mock people for having empathy or caring about inequality.
‘Woke’ is a near synonym for ‘empathic,’ the difference being that empathy is the universal ability to connect with another’s experience, often viewed as compassion, where ‘woke’ is specific, modern and now politically charged. In essence, ‘woke’ is so similar to ‘empathic’ that to be anti-woke really means ‘anti-empathy.’
Based on the misuse and willful misinterpretation of the word, there is movement across America to enact ‘anti-woke’ laws, often labeled ‘anti-wokeism.’ To be very clear about ‘anti-woke,’ it now means it’s acceptable to be racist, sexist, against the First Amendment and pro-oppression. Anti-wokeism is upheld by many Christian churches. This amounts to the normalization of hate speech.
Once they saw the word ‘woke’ I’m pretty sure many readers stopped reading and formed a negative opinion of this author. But facts are facts and words have power, and in this case it’s the power of hate.
Because of the weaponization, propagandization and misuse of certain words, we must be especially mindful and critical of what we hear and read. Most people won’t, either out of ignorance, laziness or because weaponized words fit their preconceived biases. They’ll never admit they’ve been manipulated, and it’s useless to correct or argue with them. This is so sad that sometimes I wish we’d just go back to chipping symbols into rocks, but unfortunately, given the prevailing mindset of our culture, all those symbols would likely be pictures of middle fingers.
