The Language War

Rating:
Summary: A Linguist Takes a Stroll Through the Newspaper!
Review: A deconstructionist I am not. I get uncomfortable around such phrases as "interpretive framework" and "language community." While this book is deconstructionist in style, it didn't feel as akward as, say, reading Derrida. Much of her thesis, in fact, seemed quite the domain of common sense - almost as if the author was trying to say radically what might have been explained better non-radically.

In "Language War," Dr. Lakoff presents her thesis that much more of public policy (than we realize) is not a war of ideas or policy-solutions, but of WORDS; more than we think, language drives our perception of the state of national debate in the policy arena. She goes on to explore, for instance, how a term like "politically correct" originally used sardonically by the left, has become a word used by the right to demonize the same left. Dr. Lakoff "deconstructs" how language and how it was used played a huge part in the Thomas/Hill affair, has helped shape Hilary Clinton's (then) negative image, and the ebonics scandal in Oakland.

In a sense, Dr. Lakoff makes many decent (I hesitate to say 'good') points. A key idea of hers (that most examples attempt to back) is that she who is first to define how a term is used - the sardonic uses of "communist," "politically correct," and, yes, "deconstructionist" - is she who sets the 'ground rules' for the debate. Dr. Lakoff also sensitizes us to exactly how many seemingly trivial language tricks are NOT trivial, but highly effective - the use of "we" in political pundit's articles to connote the illusion of audience solidarity, or the political 'apology' that is not: "I'm sorry the media took me out of context."

But did we not know this on some level? Was it not obvious, to some degree, that elections are run more by rhetoric than ideational concerns? Did we not realize that much of what political pundits and spin-doctors do is play a "war of language" with eachother? (After all, founders like Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson were quite brilliant at it.)

I guess on some level we certainly DID know these things. But Mrs. Lakoff provides an enlightening 'stroll through the newspaper' driving the point home that how we use language - even the details - have a huge effect on public discourse.

While one star is subtracted for the sheer silliness of some of these essays (does anyone CARE how language was used in the O.J. trial, or the Thomas/Hill scandal?) the other was for the authors extreme left bias. In fairness, she admits this right in the introduction - she comes out and says it: "I'm a lefty." But sometimes this forces her to engage in language games of her own. At one point, even, when talking of Clarence Thomas's history on the bench, she talks of the republicans having been "forced" to bring on black judges - yes, the word she used is 'forced.' Forced by whom? (Answer: it was rhetorical!) Other times, she simply applies her theory unevenly: conservatives demonization of the word 'politically correct' was attrocious, but liberals demonizing of the word 'reactionary' was simply...well...justified. So much for trying to argue honestly. While I am no republican, I was quite struck by some of her more gauche moments of bias.

Anyway, read the book anyway; if anything, it will ensure that you never look at language (whether you want to include ebonics or not) again.

Rating:
Summary: A P.C. tome
Review: I read linguistics books in order to keep up with research in the field and to learn about theories that may impact on my own work as a speech-language pathologist. I do not read them in order to subject myself to a long, politically correct, "here's my opinion and it is important because I say it is" essay about absolutely nothing but what the author's pet peeves are. Who cares? And more importantly, if you are going to be so predictably feminist and P.C., there is no reason to read anything you have to say. All I have to do is remember the rules of PC discourse and I can write a book myself. Professor, no one cares what you think. How about some facts? How about some research so we know what IS, not what you like or don't like? And if you are going to do some thinking, please have someone check to see that it is original before flinging the manuscript at the public. We have all heard this before - and it is sheer ignorance to think that anything you have to say is an original contribution. All it is is more hot air - and very stale air at that.

Rating:
Summary: How many feminists does it take to drive a car forward?
Review: Question: How many feminists does it take to drive a car forward?
Answer: Feminists have such backwards politics that they can't drive forward. They can only drive in reverse.
I was assigned this book in class and it gave me a lot of insight into the moldy mind of my professor. I am 21. She is 58. She is an intellectual relic from another age and I think her mind has not grown since she began to teach.
1) there isn't any, I repeat, ANY research in this book. This is a set of opinions. The author did no surveys, no studies, no experiments. It is one LONG editorial. This might work in a humanities department where everyone is making a living by pointlessly dissecting Sylvia Plath for the millionth time but it deserves absolutely no respect from anyone else in the world. Hint: GET SOME SCIENCE BACKGROUND!!!! DON'T IMAGINE WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT SOMETHING, GO OUT AND GATHER DATA!!! This annoys me because older feminists are always assuming they know what women want and what they think. HELLO!!!?? Did anyone ask any women what they thought or felt? I mean women under the age of 35, not the old bags who run women's studies departments. Of course not!! If they did, every one of their assumptions would be destroyed. Most of the women I know are sexually active, career oriented AND politically right of center on most issues except child care and abortion. Stop electing yourselves as spokesbitches for us younger women. OK??
Also, stop with the tired tropes from a generation ago. I am sick of this nonsense with the tired language and terminology. I have news for you: AS SOON AS YOU USE DECONSTRUCTIONIST CLICHES MY EYELIDS START DROOPING. Speak in plain english.
I am not really sure what is and isn't politically correct but I do know this: I know a lazy intellectual avoiding mental exertion with cliches when I see one and THIS AUTHOR IS ONE!!!!