After reading language in thought and action its amazing how you can see things from a different perspective. For those of you who watched the DNC, did it strike you as having really no informative value? Every word in every speech was used soley for its affective connotation. If you think about it, whether it was Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, or Barack Obama, none of them actually "said" anything. Actually when you think about it, during a political race nobody really seems to say anything of any informative significance.
Everthing said at the DNC seemed to be said at a very abstract level. "We're going to build a better America." "We're going to make health care more affordable." One might be tempted to ask, by what extensional means do you plan to bring about these changes? Can any one person really change America the way politicians like Barack and Hillary say they can?
All politicians use directives to give us maps of the future, these maps are always "better" than the maps we have right now. We must ask, how much of what politicians say will actually come to pass?
The truth is we know at some level or another that politicians can not follow through on all their promises. That's why we have such stereotypes as "all politicians are sleazy and are liars." Is this really true? Is the system that corrupt? Or are politicians constantly working to make there intensional maps become reality? Do they lie, or do they just fall short from time to time?
Politicians are not afraid to use snarl and purr words to influence people's views about themselves and others. Looking back at the DNC, president Bush was incessantly bashed for a less than adequate presidency. Barack said that America is "better than the last 8 years" blatently criticizing Bush. Hillary said that we "didn't need four more of the last 8 years" as a reason not to vote for McCain. At the same time, both Barack and Hillary talked about the democratic party as being able to "bring America back" or "turn America around." Hillary's speech, if nothing else, was symbolic of new unity in the party, and her speech was given in strong support of Obama. Obama's promises of a better future during his speech worked to whip the convention into a screaming frenzy. These words were obviously used for their affectual connotations. But were they uttered out of selfishness and a desire to get a democrat in the White House? Or were they said because Obama and others truly believe that they can make a difference? Or is it alittle of both? what do you think?
(Kevin Trainer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think that these politicians purposely try to be so abstract in their words. It goes back to what Hayakawa said about directive statements and the disappointments that sometimes come with it. The level of abstraction that these politics use tends to make the disappointment worse. For example, a politician says "We're going to make health care more affordable." Even if the politician makes this true for only a small group of people, he still fulfilled the promise in those words and cannot really be accused of breaking his promise.
So overall, yes, I do think that politicians will say things to get themselves elected, even though they may know the affects their words may have on others. Although, I do think that there are cases when the politician does actually believe in the words he/she says. I guess it just all depends on the person...
(mary quien)
I think that what you are saying somewhat goes back to chapter 2. The base of what you are asking is which is more important to them, the symbol or the thing symbolized. Is it more important to them to hold the office, or to bring about the positive change they all discuss. I cannot believe that these people would purposely twist their own words and promises once elected and betray their supporters. I would like to think that at least on the national scale, politicians are not driven merely by a selfish desire to hold office, of course I would not say this for all politicians. I think that the reason they are saying those snarl and purr words is to get themselves into the office as a means to bring about the change they want to see in this country.
(Connor Tweardy)
From Kevin's post, one would have the impression that all of the politicians at the DNC are making false promises. This generalization simply cannot be made so bluntly.
When this topic was touched upon in Hayakawa's writing, the author gave us the example of a politician raving about "making America better for the farmer." By the end of his or her term, however, life may have only been improved for the potato farmer, leaving the cotton farmer in the dust. In reality, the politician's promise was never broken; it was simply understood differently by the public. Yet such tactics are inevitable when stakes are soaring so high and supporters are needed.
(Samantha Maliha)
Of course there was nothing informative in the speeches made at DNC. I don’t think the newly elected person would come out with a new proposal or opinion all of a sudden (especially if he got chosen at that spot only a few hours/minutes ago) since he just got elected and he needs the votes.
I think politicians deliberately pick abstract statements so that fewer people disagree with their views and promises. If a politician specified in details what he/she would do once he/she gets elected, obviously more people would object to the plan.
Jennifer Park
While I think it’s a little jaded to say that politicians try and draw false extensional maps in order to get elected, it is true to some degree. Most of the DNC was all about symbolism and bettering the image of the Democratic party. The “uselessness” and supposed gilded exterior of political promises, however, is not necessarily for selfish gains. The Assistant to the Joint Chiefs of Staffs referenced in a speech earlier this summer (when talking about the situation in Iraq and the varied political promises made there) that the government makes plans knowing that they will fail. Like Hayakawa mentioned, even one small error in an extensional map makes it false. Therefore, it is impossible to have a fool-proof map/plan. This made me think of FDR’s first presidential election and how many people voted for him MORE for his promise of going somewhere and LESS for the actual location/plan/political promise.
As long as the DNC speeches were able to convince party constituents that some plan was in place, the specifics did not matter (to the general population—political bloggers & enthusiasts etc aside). Honestly, would you rather hear Clinton’s promise that the Democrats (if elected) planned “To bring fiscal sanity back to Washington and make our government an instrument of the public good, not of private plunder,” or a long-winded tirade on bureaucracy, the concern of corruption through Congressional re-delegation of tasks to smaller quasi-legislative/judicial/executive Congressional agencies, the exclusiveness of the iron triangle (except for select political action committees), and the cost-benefit analysis practices of the OMB? By filling speeches with purr and snarl words, politicians are playing it safe.
If you are operating under the assumption that all plans will, to some degree, fail (and thus, all extensional maps have errors) the current vague maps being drawn at the DNC etc are good for America. Like a sort of skeletal structure, said maps can be manipulated and fine-tuned after election. The politician gets his position in Congress/as president etc while the public gets a sense of security and a belief that our political system isn’t in shambles (yet). With more time, plans are less likely to fail. In order to get a head start, however, they put out a “rough draft” to tell America that they are at least going SOMEWHERE.
(Grace Yuan)
Jen is absolutely correct. Our two-party system of government has turned every politician into a censor who has to make sure that no one gets hurt or is offended. This is often why progress is almost nonexistant in the never-ending circle known as the three branches of government. These stalwarts are partisan indeed, but honestly, what can they say? Or DO for that matter? Besides, in a country where a great chunk of the populace voted for an incompetent man to be president just because they wanted to have a beer with him, how can politicians say anything meaningful at all? The only thing they can do is pontificate patriotic claptrap and hope that we gobble it up.
It all goes back to affective connotations. Politicians know that at the heart of every common man is a fearful, primitive mammal who becomes intensely aroused by mentions of things familiar to him. Therefore, they toss around terms like "freedom", "change", "supporting our troops", and let's not forget "God".
Perhaps I'm just a cynic at heart. Both Obama and McCain are two immensely smart individuals who have climbed their way up the political ladder to get to where they are today. And maybe they will prove themselves champions of improvement. It seems that every great president, in fact every great leader, had a way of convincing their followers with words. But these words did not define their legacies. It was their corresponding actions in the face of problems that made them memorable.
(Taylor Burke)
Though I agree with the previous posts that the reason for some of the abstraction is so that their vague promises cannot be proven wrong I also believe that a major reason that the speeches of most politicians (especially at places such as the DNC where people are convening about so many issues) are at such a high level of abstraction is to keep some interest. A speech that gave a detailed version of the plans that the canidate wanted to put into place would be difficult to make as interesting. Ultimately politicians do want to have an effect on the feelings of voters, and it's clear that Obama at least achieved this goal at the convention. Would he have brought people to tears and intense applause if he had simply listed his policies in an informative manner. I think it would have been almost impossible. The fact that politicians want their speeches to have affective connotations is inevitable and I don't think a bad thing. Even if someone has great ideas they will have trouble leading the country if they cannot unite it's people and evoke feelings of patriotism and hope.
(Molly Dunbar)
Reading through all of these thoughts takes me back to a few of the points that Hayakawa made in the book.
First of all, affective connotations. This topic has already been brought up, and a point that I would like to add concerning affective connotations is that "there is no necessary agreement about these feelings" (44). For example, something that Barack Obama says might arouse excitement and enthusiasm in a Democrat, but might merely anger or frustrate a Republican.
The second point I would like to bring up Hayakawa discusses concerning more intimate settings, but I believe it can be applied to nominating conventions, as well. In chapter six Hayakawa discusses "noises for noise's sake." He says that "the purpose of talk is... the establishment of communion" (58). As Kevin stated, there was very little informative discussion going on at the DNC, so what was the purpose? It seems the purpose was to arouse the Democrats and as many followers as possible to vote for Obama. So the purpose of the DNC was to unite the Democratic party, or, in other words, to establish communion. Also discussed in this section of the book was the idea that Jen mentioned that politicians speak in abstract terms so that fewer people disagree. Hayakawa states: "With every new agreement, no matter how commmonplace or obvious, the fear and suspicion of the stranger wears away, and the possibility of friendship enlarges" (58). The chances of every Democratic voter meeting and becoming friends with Obama is slim, but the point is still made that with each abstraction of high level that he makes, more people will agree, and there is less suspicion and fear of his policies.
Another note I would like to add can be applied to politics in general. Hayakawa states: "It does not matter much whether misleading directives are uttered in ignorance and error or with concious intent to decieve, because the disappointment they cause are similarly destructive of mutual trust among human beings" (68). Following with what a few people have already mentioned, it doesn't matter whether the directives stated by officeholders (or future officeholders) are said with intent to break that promise in the future or make that promise come to pass, because if those directives don't come to pass, there is a loss of trust in the person, at the best, and in the party, at the worst.
Lastly I would like to bring up one of the things Hayakawa mentions in regard to abstractions: "high-level abstractions aquire a bad reputation because they are so often used, consciously or unconsciously, to confuse and befuddle people" (93). I think that when politicians choose to speak only in high-level abstractions, even though more people might agree with their points, there are also people who will be skeptical. Hayakawa later states that "distrusting all abstractions simply does not make sense" (93), but we must still test abstractions. "The test of abstractions is not whether they are 'high-level' or 'low-level' abstractions, but whether they are referrable to lower levels." (93) So, in application to politics, we can take the abstractions of the presidential candidates, for example, and let them fire us up, but we must make sure that the high-level abstractions used are, in fact, referrable to lower levels of abstraction, and that it is not just ideas that our future president has, but plans to carry out his ideas.
I don't know that I fully understand most of this, but this is my attempt to get my thoughts across concerning these previously discussed topics. Comments would be greatly appreciated.
(Emily Thompson)
Emily's discussion of affective connotations ties in closely with with the map and territory analogy. The politicians should be held liable for their potentially sketched territories because as Hayakawa states, "No harm will be done unless someone tries to plan a trip by such a map" (21). The thing is, however, that these politicians are trying to "plan a trip" by these unstable maps.
I believe that the reason that informative data was discluded from the DNC is because the Democrats' efforts were put toward creating an intimate setting and "forming a sort of communion." In fact, this "togetherness" is the real bread-winner, the creme de la creme, and certainly the attractor of ballots.
Politicians utilize high-level abstractions in order to make it seem as if they are representing a larger sum of people. This may also be the reason that affective connotations are used at nominating conventions, since the abstractions at work are not referrable to lower levels. Does this make any sense?
(Samantha Maliha)
Post a Comment