To my mind, one of the most striking aspects of the internet
is the way it so often brings out the raw power of colloquial language. Many areas of public debate are
much shallower than elites and pundits would have us believe.
Social, political, economic – many important aspects of apparently
complex subjects are easily described in pithy colloquial language – even crude
language.
Most politicians are
lying scum.
No, I don’t mean this kind of simplistic yet curiously
accurate language. Although it has been enlightening to discover quite how accurate
it is. Too many politicians are lying scum aren’t they?
No, I’m thinking of colloquial language in general. How easy
it is to use ordinary language to tease out a valid and useful aspect of almost
any complex social or political issue. In other words, there is not as much depth to these matters
as we may have supposed or as we may have been told in the past. Nobody needs a
doctorate in political history in order to say something worthwhile about
politics.
We common folk may not have imbibed heaps of academic data
about political language and the classification of political trends, but it is
surprising how often a simple colloquial summary is good enough.
Politicians always
brown-nosing vested interests.
Oops – still somewhat basic, but I think the point begins to
emerge well enough. One could write a treatise on political pressures given
enough patience and nothing better to do. No doubt somebody has or is doing or
will do in the future, but it’s easier and possibly more constructive to keep
it simple and colloquial.
To the horror of many and the puzzlement of many more, institutions
such as the BBC, the monarchy, established churches, major charities and
numerous others are not nearly as trustworthy as we once supposed. Not nearly
as truthful, adaptable or transparent either. Even their supposed expertise is tarnished
as the world becomes less deferential, more inclined to explore alternative points
of view.
There is less depth to many areas of debate than the pundits
and experts would have us believe. Yes there may be complexities and yes there may
be mountains of data, but many orthodoxies are essentially shallow and easily discredited
by even the most limited investigation. And perhaps some sharply descriptive colloquial
language.
Something is crumbling, something essentially false, ugly
and repressive. The shallowness of social distinctions, the elusive and
misleading nature of genuine expertise in the more complex and intractable
areas of human life, our tendency to allow determined dullards to place
themselves on pedestals. The absurdity of it all.
Perhaps the resources of language and mass communication are
killing off something we need to kill off. Yet perhaps the resources of power
and mass communication will ensure its survival via censorship and the mighty
power of money to confuse and misdirect. As yet we cannot tell but...
Most politicians are
lying scum.
4 comments:
A good pithy precis is often better than a lecture.
That point about the destruction of trust - that's the big one in this era. And when we reach the point we can't even trust our currency because the government is shaky [soon perhaps after the referendum], then we're in trouble.
As for language, what a minefield.
The Church kept to Latin to avoid the risks of using ordinary language in its business. Now that ordinary language is so debased and twisted perhaps we should go back to Latin. Sed libera nos a malo.
Woodsy - I agree. A lecture can be inspirational if done well, but too many are too long.
James - yet trustworthy leaders and institutions are what we all want.
Demetrius - if we go back to honesty it will baffle quite a few.
Post a Comment