Argument on a Language Controversy

¶ … Language Controversy

The art of argumentation is a style of reasoning with civility that is the foundation of discourse in business, public affairs, and group process. The emphasis on freedom of speech in a democracy is based on a civil society's need to resolve complex problems using discourse and argumentation instead of violence. In the interpersonal sphere, mastering the rhetoric of reasonable argumentation is an effective way to get people to listen to and respect what one says.

Americans are lucky to live in a society that offers its citizens freedom of speech. This freedom has, for decades, provided Americans with the right to have ideas that are originally and not necessarily "politically correct." However, in today's society, many people are joining a movement aimed at stripping us of freedom of speech in an effort to become more politically correct.

In Michiko Kakutani's essay, The Word Police (1996), the author discusses how language is used in society, and how people are placing such a strong emphasis on being "politically correct." Kakutani's article is somewhat humorous as she describes what conversations would sound like if everybody were completely politically correct in his or her language.

Kakutani talks about Rosalie Maggio's book, The Bias-Free Word Finder, a Dictionary of Nondiscriminatory Language, in which Maggio proposes changing the daily language of people simply because she believes that much of our language has negative connotations. Maggio thinks that the work "black" carries a negative connotation and suggests changing the term "blackball" to "ostracize," "black eye" to "mouse," "black sheep" to "outcast," and so on.

Words such as "ostracize" and "outcast" are already strongly used in the English language and it is ridiculous to insist that we change our language to exclude phrases that use "black" in them. For this reason, I must agree with Kakutani when she states that the fight for becoming a politically correct nation has become ridiculous. She uses humorous persuasion to help get her point across and the effect is very powerful.

Language is the human use of voice sounds, and written symbols that represent the sounds, arranged in combinations and patterns, to express personal thoughts and feelings. These thoughts and feelings give meaning and purpose to language. Gloria Naylor, author of Nigger: The Meaning of a Word (Goshgarian, 2001), says that "Words themselves are innocuous; it is consensus that gives them true power."

Naylor is basically saying that the true power of language is based on its meaning and the beliefs of the speaker. The speaker is the source of the thoughts and beliefs that the language is used to project, making the speaker's identity an extremely important factor. Identity can be used to describe race, gender, religion, social status, and many other things. An excellent example of the power of language being specifically based on the identity of the speaker is the use of the word "nigger."

The word "nigger" was used in a negative way in the days of American slavery. Even today, the word has a stereotypical connotation and can be considered an insult. However, the word has been used as a friendly term, as well, as many African-Americans use the word when referring to friends. It is viewed a positive word when a fellow African-American speaks of a good friend, saying, "That nigger is one of the great ones." Yet it takes on a negative vibe when a white woman refers to a black woman, saying "He let that nigger get ahead of me in line."

According to Naylor, when the speaker and the subject have equal racial identities, the word's connotations are positive. When they do not, it becomes negative. This concept shows how the identity of a speaker can enhance the meaning of language.

Naylor uses personal details about her own family, friends and experiences to expalsin how the word "nigger," which is basically taboo in our society, can have a positive meaning. She also uses languages to persuade the reader to understand both sides of the argument.

In Ward Churchill's Crimes Against Humanity (1991), the author compares the use of politically incorrect language with the tragedy that occurred during World War II. Churchill reveals how the Nazis labeled the Jews using language that carried negative connotations. Churchill shows how powerful language really is, as it convinced an entire nation that the Jewish population was worthless and should be executed.

In addition, Churchill attacks the use of politically incorrect language in sports teams. According to Churchill, being labeled as savages in sports dehumanizes Native Americans. To make his point, Churchill adds some fictional sports teams, including "the St. Louis 'Sluts,' Boston 'Bimbos,' Detroit 'Dykes,' and the Fresno 'Fags.'" Churchill's use of language hits home for his readers, and he also appeals to their feelings of sympathy by showing how language can dehumanize people.

By using such explicit names, he is able to make a very poignant point. Churchill uses language to appeal directly to the reader's feelings of sympathy. He does this with his references to World War II and the dehumanizing names of sports teams, causing his argument to be very strong in its appeal to the emotion.

Rosalie Maggio, in Bias-Free Language: Some Guidelines (Goshgarian, 2001), uses concrete examples and situations to explain the power of language and get her point across. Maggio shows how the generic association of masculine pronouns with the Presidency makes it hard for people to imagine a woman in office.

Maggio also points out that when one racial group becomes so accustomed to using derogatory language to label other groups, it becomes easier for them to justify inflicting harm upon these groups.