I’m a writer. As such, words and their uses are important to me, and it bugs me when I hear them used inappropriately or in ways that I know are wrong or intended to mislead. It’s like an itch I can’t scratch. Most of the time, I let them slide, because I know there’s nothing much to be done and I don’t wish to sacrifice what little sanity I have complaining about Other People’s Ignorance and/or Language Abuse.
But the other day I listened to an essay by Jeff Nunberg. He’s a linguist and I usually catch him on NPR on the Frech Air program. This piece was about the word–the term–Lifestyle.
Nunberg has a new book out about the way in which the Right has stolen language in politics in the last couple of decades, and he lays it out clearly the way in which a masterful job has been done by those not liberal to take the “high ground” linguisitically in our national debate. The book is called Talking Right and it’s on my list. I’ve been listening to Nunberg for years on this subject, so I think I know what the book contains. I recommend it to all and sundry.
His piece on Lifestyle centered on its use as a substitute label socially and politically for discussions about choices and the way in which the word has come to denote everything about us. Our politics, our spending habits, our taste in clothes, even our personal hygeine and sexual preferences. The latter got me thinking. Nunberg points out that it is absurd–but effective–to speak of “the homosexual lifestyle” since the term “lifestyle” connotes that one has a choice about it. We don’t really hear anyone talk about a heterosexual lifestyle–as if there is only one. But the fact that it is not spoken of that way actually does suggest that there is only one and that anyone who hasn’t chosen a homosexual lifestyle is automatically in the heterosexual lifestyle category. (We hear about married lifestyles, single lifestyles, and so forth, but there are whole suites of behaviors subsumed under those terms the majority of which have little to do with sex. When there is a variation, the term lifestyle drops off–open marriage, monogamy, polygamy, polyamorous, bisexual: we rarely ever see these terms coupled with “lifestyle”, presumably because…well, I’m not sure why. Choice here is obsviously presumed, whereas with homosexuality the presumption is less clear–do gays “choose” to be gay or are they born that way? Use of the term “lifestyle” becomes a wish, a prayer, a hope on the part of the one using the term that maybe, like those other choices aforementioned, gays can at some point stop doing it, be reformed, convert to “normal”….)
It’s a ridiculously sloppy term. Most people never get to choose their lifestyle–that takes money, freedom, self-awareness, opportunity. Most people have what they have. It’s not a style, it’s a circumstance.
But as a marketing term, it’s powerful. It hands people the assumption that they can choose, and then drives them into spending frenzies most can ill-afford in order to live that choice.
There are two other popular expressions we hear from our politicians on regular bases that make me cringe. I heard one this morning.
“We are closely monitoring the situation.” Or watching or observing. Okay. And? Just watching something doesn’t really mean anything, but by claiming to do so “closely” implies action. It suggests that the might of our intense scrutiny has the power to effect circumstances. But in fact, unless such watchfulness is backed up by something concrete, it means nothing.
“Yeah, I saw that,” would be more honest, but obviously doesn’t let the speaker off any moral or ethical hook. But “closely monitoring” seems to do so, as it gives the impression of responsible attention leading to solution.
But my problem is with the reverse–so what about those things you do NOT “closely monitor” but which perhaps you should? Like the appointment of a director to FEMA…?
It’s a vacuous phrase, over-used by people in public who may well not be able to do anytinig about a situation, but can’t say that and do not wish to appear ineffective. Worthless rhetoric. Verbiage that takes up space in which something meaningful and constructive might be said.
The other phrase I would like to take this opportunity to beat up on is one that I’ve been hearing for going on, oh, maybe 25 years. Maybe longer. Maybe I only began to notice it 25 years ago. You hear this one during investigations.
“You failed to do such-n-such.”
Ken Lay failed to tell the truth to his stockholders. Ollie North failed to disclose documents to Congress. So-and-so failed to file tax returns.
No, they didn’t fail. To fail at something, you have to try–and not make it. No attempt in these cases was made to try to tell the truth. In fact, in many, the exact opposite is the case–they tried to lie, they tried to hide documents, they tried to cheat on their taxes. They SUCCEEDED. No failure occurred. They simply did not do something.
There are vast implications attached to the expression “he/she failed to do such and such” which are misleading in the extreme. In this case, I think it gets used because it sounds…what?…polite? Better than saying, “Mr. Corporate Exec, you lied.” Lie, cheat, deceive. These would be appropriate verbs. Fail is a misleading cop-out. No, the corrupt CEO did not fail to do anything–except avoid getting caught. If he didn’t know how to do something, mistakes happen, that’s one thing, and maybe that is originally where the use of this phrase began, but it is used now for EVERYTHING. “You failed to not pull the trigger.” “You failed to threaten the victim with nonlethal force.” “You failed to leave the woman’s clothes on after she screamed and indicated her refusal for consensual sex.” “You failed to keep your clothes on in the motel room with the minor.”
And then, of course, they all failed to confess.
I think we should be a bit more intolerant of language that purports to mean one thing when in fact it means either nothing or something completely different. When the president says “We’re monitoring the situation closely” a reporter should ask “Do you mean you don’t know what to do?” or “Does that mean you were unprepared for these events?”
Or perhaps I’m simply failing to hear the meaning latent within the obfuscations.
Print this post [1]
[2]