Class:Honors 491G - Fall 2007/Graded Exercise

From UMassWiki

HOW WORDS CREATE REALITY

Note: This is an exercise in deconstruction. Your job here is to unpack, so to speak, a "cultural" label - that is, a word which, for some reason or another, encapsulates something that you think is very representative of the "culture" in which you have lived for a while. You have a lot of freedom in terms of how you unpack your chosen label. The point here is to show that there’s a lot hiding behind “a simple word,” that choosing a label over another has real consequences in terms of the behaviors made possible (or impossible) by that label. The first part of this handout explains why this exercise is important and offers a few suggestions about how you might go about completing it. The second part of the handout is an example of a deconstruction (i.e., of the expression “to intimidate”). You do not have to write as much as I did in that example; some three or four good paragraphs will do.

Contents 1 Why mess with "simple words"? 2 Some ways to productively analyze a label 3 Unpacking "to intimidate" (example) 4 Actors 5 Conclusion 6 /Students' responses

Why mess with "simple words"?

From Wikipedia.com: “The goal of changing language and terminology consists of several points, including:

1. Certain people have their rights, opportunities, or freedoms restricted due to their categorization as members of a group with a derogatory stereotype.
2. This categorization is largely implicit and unconscious, and is facilitated by the easy availability of labeling terminology.
3. By making the labeling terminology problematic, people are made to think consciously about how they describe someone.
4. Once labeling is a conscious activity, individual merits of a person, rather than their perceived membership in a group, become more apparent.”

“Social construction of reality” (through language): Labeling a piece of lived experience as “X” (versus “Y” or “Z”) does more than just name something; it also tells us how to deal with “X” and how not to (through reference to implied social rules and norms). Calling something “X” and not “Y” positively creates a new social world in which “X” (and one’s relationship with it) shapes expectations and goals, values and beliefs, attitudes and, ultimately, behaviors.

So, why “unpack” (or “make problematic”) a simple word or expression?

1. To show how the label under examination is more than just a name for a thing. “What else are you saying when you call an object ‘X’?”
2. To show how the very act of naming an object prescribes certain attitudes and behaviors towards that object (through reference to social norms and rules).
3. To unearth some of these social norms and rules.
4. To unsettle the “taken-for-granted-ness” of these labels and show that the label is dependent on an entire scaffolding of social conventions (which could, given awareness, volition, and time, be changed).
5. To learn to look at a word as a genuine map for our social world, a map which would allow one to trace some of the numerous relationships between language, culture, and values, norms and attitudes.
6. To examine the label’s progression through time (remember: meaning is circumstantial, perpetually negotiated, unstable, never finished).
7. To provide some interesting answers to the question: “On what does this word’s meaning depend on?”
8. To show how the concept: 1) is itself socially and culturally constructed, and 2) in its turn, partakes in the construction of a new social/cultural world.
9. To become aware that many of our “realities” are constituted through language and can, indeed, also be changed, at least partially, through language.

Some ways to productively analyze a label

ETYMOLOGY Look at the etymological root of the word. Is it composed of several other words (or, just one word plus a prefix or a suffix)? What other words is it related to? Are some of these relations surprising to you? Why? What does the etymological root tell you about the culture in which this word was first used / first acquired a meaning? Has the word’s meaning changed since then? What (social, historical, economic, cultural) factors might have provoked that change?

METAPHORS Is the label often used as a metaphor or is it itself constituted through a metaphor?

THE POWER OF DEFINITIONS Look at the various definitions that the dictionary (a repository of our contemporaries’ linguistic and cultural conventions) gives to that term. Which definition best matches the most frequent kind of usage of the word? Judging from the point of view of each of these definitions, what connotations does the word have? (at the very least, think “good word,” “bad word”). How might these connotations be related to (social, historical, economic, cultural) factors existent in our contemporary society?

ASSUMPTIONS What are the assumptions (cultural, political, or otherwise) that go into the creation of this label?

THE QUESTION OF POWER Who decides what the meaning of this word is? Who finds him/herself at the short end of the stick when this word is used? How does the very act of labeling (i.e., the using of this word and not another to label a piece of lived experience o an object) create power relations?

ACTORS AND USAGE In your experience, who tends to use the concept and in what circumstances? Why do you think that is? Why is that word such a convenient tool / weapon (choose your metaphor – but be aware of its implications) for this kind of people in this kind of circumstances?

IMPLIED RULES What are the socio-cultural norms and rules that regulate the usage of the object after it was named “X”?

GENERAL QUESTION What attitudes and what actions does the label prescribe through its connotations, its preferred usage, its preferred users, its assumptions, etc.? In other words, how is this label responsible for the creation of a “new social world”?

Unpacking "to intimidate" (example)

Etymology: from Latin timidus (“timid”). Personally, I find this connection rather surprising, because “to intimidate” to me does not mean “to make timid” (or “shy”), but rather “to make fearful.” This, in turn, makes me think about what “timid” means to me… Actually, it makes sense: when people are timid/shy, they are afraid of some sort of negative reaction on the part of “the others.” The definition of “timid” is “easily frightened.” Why do they specify “easily”? I think what’s implied here is a social norm: “It is not normal and/or desirable and/or expected to be frightened simply by the prospect of people’s disapproval.” Hence, “easily frightened,” that is, “one who is not normally frightened” (i.e., in situations where “everybody” would be frightened, like when somebody is threatening you with extreme physical violence). (Source: The Online Etymology Dictionary). Our culture tells us that to be “timid” or “intimidated” is not a good thing (= negative connotations of the two words) because it connotes weakness (which is a bad thing). (Etymology = “the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).

Definitions (Sources: The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and The Safe Schools/Bullying Act):

1. To make timid or fearful;
2. To compel or deter by or as if by threats. Intimidation implies inducing fear or a sense of inferiority into another.
3. Wearing a mask of being "untouchable so that people keep an emotional distance from you and yet do for you what you desire.
4. Convincing others that you are the "only one with enough experience, wisdom, intellect, and insight to give direction or to have the "correct answers to life's problems. Acting in such a way that no one would dare question or stand up to you over any of your decisions, opinions, or directives.
5. Unintentional verbal or nonverbal cues which put people on guard when they are with you.
6. Any act, including speech, that "seriously alarms, annoys, harasses or is detrimental to [someone], and which serves no legitimate purpose [and] would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress."

Judging from these definitions, “to intimidate” refers to a lot of different things:

1. a forceful action – “To make timid;” “To compel.”
2. the threat of a forceful action – “Acting in such a way that no one would dare question you.” [Is a threat a forceful action in itself?].
3. a process of persuasion – “Convincing others,” “Acting in such a way…”
4. a state of being – “Wearing a mask.”
5. a collection of meaningful behaviors – “Cues which put people on guard.”

So, what kind of power are we talking about here? If “to intimidate” is to force someone to do something they wouldn’t normally do (e.g., avoid questioning or standing up to you), then we are talking about power-as-coercion. If “to intimidate” is to persuade someone to do something (e.g., believe that you are the only one with enough experience to answer questions), then we are talking about power-as-seduction and/or power-as-judicious marshalling of “facts,” appeals to emotion, and appearances/personal credibility. [In Rhetoric, Aristotle calls these three dimensions (which are necessary to a good speech / rhetorical act) logos, pathos, and ethos. Read more here. If “to intimidate” is to deceive someone, then we’re talking about power-as-judicious manipulation of appearances. Each one of these perspectives on “intimidation” prescribes a certain attitude and behavior (and not others) for both the intimidator and the intimidated.

All of the definitions above are fascinating and all could be “unpacked” (i.e., “problematized”), but the last definition (f) is extra interesting:

• “Any act, including speech, that ‘seriously alarms, annoys, harasses or is detrimental to [someone]”  Why “seriously”? Is “intimidation” a matter of the degree of harm caused or of fear induced? If you “mildly” harm someone, is it not “intimidation”? And “alarm” and “is detrimental” are not equivalent at all: to “alarm” someone is to indicate to him/her that something detrimental might be coming soon (but hasn’t come yet!). “To alarm,” then, speaks of something bad that might happen in the future, while “harasses" and "is detrimental” speak of something bad that is happening in the present. So, from this perspective, “to intimidate” refers to both a threat (of a harmful act) and the harmful act itself.

• “which serves no legitimate purpose”  Here’s another very interesting distinction! So, if “to intimidate” is to threaten/cause harm without a “legitimate purpose,” it follows that if you threaten/cause harm with a “legitimate purpose” than you are not “intimidating” (which, given our discussion above about positive or negative connotations, also means that you are “a good guy”). So “intimidation” depends for its meaning on the context, too, not just on the act itself. What does “legitimate” mean, anyway? According to Merriam-Webster, it means “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.” And what might those “recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” be? In other words, what “accepted rules” regulate which forceful act or threat gets labeled an “intimidation” (i.e., a “bad thing”) and which gets labeled something else (such as a “putting one in one’s place,” “establishing order”)? I think in order to answer this question, one has to also look at questions of:

1. “order” – in my experience, people see an act that forces someone to do something he/she wouldn’t normally do as justified (and hence not an “intimidation” by our definition) if that action contributed to the (re)establishment of “order” – of “the way things should be like.” But what gets called “orderly” and what gets called “disorderly”?

1. ranking of goals – another instance in which people see an act that forces someone to do something he/she wouldn’t normally do as justified is when it serves a “higher purpose.” “Higher” than what? Higher, maybe, than “the mere pleasure of exercising power over someone,” of “inflicting harm on someone.”

A crucial matter with both of these “legitimizing” situations, is the distribution of power. Exactly who gets to decide what “order” is or what “goals” should be ranked like? In other words, who gets to look at the situation and label an act as “intimidating” by virtue of its lack of “legitimacy”? [Whose “recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” are they? “Recognized” by whom? What are the institutions through which these rules and standards are “recognized”?].

• “[and] would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress” – So “intimidation” is also dependent on the reception of the harmful act, too! According to this fragment of our definition, an act is “intimidating” only if it causes suffering in other person. So one literally depends on the other for one’s act to be “intimidating”; for if the other does in no way see him/herself as suffering “emotional distress” as a result of the act, then the act is not “intimidating.” We are then raising a question of control: who has control over “intimidation”? [And how can one achieve control over it?]. As we’ve just mentioned, the intimidator depends on the other for his act to be called/seen/felt as “intimidating.” [This is an important point, because if the other doesn’t see your act as “intimidating,” then what have you achieved with that act?]. And here’s where we arrive at an interesting paradox: On one hand, “intimidation” is an act of coercion [whereby the intimidated is forced to do things he/she wouldn’t normally do]. On the other hand, “intimidation” depends on the other – conceivably, then, the other can refuse to be intimidated, thus denying the intimidator-wanna be his/her “intimidation.” The only way out of this paradox is to go the psychological route, that is, to propose that there’s some mechanism in the mind of the intimidated which registers the attempt at intimidation and reacts to it with fear – all without the conscious interference of the person him/herself. [Because who would choose to be intimidated if he/she could simply refuse to suffer emotional distress?].

Actors

Who tends to use the concept?

Since in contemporary American society, “intimidation” has a primarily negative connotation, most intimidators will not qualify their actions as “intimidation.” Rather, they will use the vocabulary of “legitimate use of force” (e.g., “I had to put him in his place,” “I am in charge and it’s only fair that they listen to me,” “She needed to recognize that we are not equal, because I have earned my authority over her [by acquiring experience, through hard work, talent, etc.]”). So the concept of “intimidation” is predominantly used by two other groups of people:

1. those who find (or have found) themselves at the short end of “intimidation.”

1. third parties (i.e., observers of an interaction that may be labeled “intimidation”).

What happens when you characterize someone’s actions (towards you or towards a third party) as “intimidation”? The words “intimidation / to intimidate” are generally used as an accusation: “He is trying to intimidate me/them.” To label somebody as an “intimidator” is, more often than not, to express a fairly strong dislike for his/her actions. At the same time, it could also be a call to cease a certain course of action (in other words, a proposed script for action).

What are the assumptions that go into using this concept? When one speaks of “intimidation” having taken place, one is also, arguably, speaking of:# Power – Intimidation is one way in which someone can assert power over someone else. Coercing someone to do something he/she wouldn’t normally do is the very definition of power. Threatening someone is also a naked attempt to establish power over him/her – by virtue of a promising to deliver punishment if your conditions are not promptly met (thus also expressing confidence that you will indeed be able to dish out punishment, should the situation require it).

So, when you “intimidate” someone, you are also saying:

“I want to have power over you” (intention). “Indeed, I have power over you” (observation of “facts”). “I am able and willing to punish you, if necessary” (promise/threat, plus offering information) …and the corollary: “You are weaker than me, and you will suffer if you do not obey me/recognize my supremacy” (observation, plus expectation). “If you do obey me, I will not hurt you” (providing a plan for action [script], promising, framing the interaction as a transaction; maybe even establishing reasonableness – “See, I’m not that bad, I give you a way out!”).

When you accuse someone else of “intimidating” you, you are also:

1. Defining that person as a “bad guy,” because he makes use of illegitimate coercion and because he is willing to hurt/punish you.
2. Rhetorically positioning him/her in a place where he has to defend him/herself (“No, I’m not trying to intimidate you/him. I was just trying to...”). And, when you put someone on the defensive, you are also establishing your power over them. Labeling someone an “intimidator,” then, is not just a simple observation of a state of affairs; it is also a rhetorical counterattack, an attempt to even out the balance of power.
3. Moreover, accusing someone of being an “intimidator” shows that you already do have some measure of power. Think about it: slaves do not accuse their masters of being “intimidators” – they can’t afford to, plus it’s a ridiculous accusation. [And why is it ridiculous? Because “intimidating” someone is a bad thing, but not that bad of a thing! Slaves are made to suffer from much more than “mere intimidation” – which also tells you that the intimidator-intimidated power relationship is not as unbalanced as the master-slave relationship].
4. Conflict – Intimidation is predicated on disagreement about the exercise of power. There’s no need to intimidate someone whom you expect to obey you at all times. So intimidation comes as a response to a previous event (i.e., disagreement).

Conclusion

Labeling a piece of lived experience as “an act of intimidation” (versus “an act of reestablishing necessary order”) does more than just name something; it also tells us how to deal with “the act of intimidation” and how not to (through reference to implied social rules and norms). Calling something “an act of intimidation” and not “an act of reestablishing necessary order” positively creates a new social world in which “an act of intimidation” (and one’s relationship with it) shapes:

1. Expectations: “Now that you called it ‘an act of intimidation,’ I expect more violence from this guy.”
2. Goals: “If this is intimidation, my goal is not to allow him to make me do something I don’t want to do.”
3. Values: “Coercion is bad. Weakness is bad.”
4. Beliefs: “If this is intimidation, than he is doing a bad thing and he is a bad man.”
5. Attitudes: “I don’t like what he’s trying to do. I don’t like him.”
6. Behaviors: “I am going to fight him. I am going to condemn him for doing something bad [with the belief that, by that, I might make him change his behavior].”

/Students' responses