Language as Control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Given that you chose to describe my disagreement with Virgil as a ‘grievance’, may I be permitted to draw my own conclusions about why you ‘feel obligated’?

Still picking up breadcrumb sins, eh Robin? Pass the umbrage. Don’t fret (even if you use a mollifying smiley), I am not planning to provoke offence: ‘unleash’ was an indication of the perplexing nature of messrs Baudrillard’s and Lyotard’s work, nothing more.

---

Conclude away, but you could have just asked; I feel obligated because my avatar is a superhero, and hence seeks to combat injustice anywhere. I felt your comments were unjust and that Virgil was an innocent being unfairly criticized--hence my defense.

And there's no need to ram a tone down my throat; the smiley was not for mollification but clarification. Namely, clarification that the comment was meant in jest and likewise did not intend to cause any offense.

I dont really follow all of the theorists and things the rest of you have been on about but lets see if I can agree with everyone and noone shall we? :p

Language is both restrictive and freeing in that you need languge to express an idea or a concept but the languge is alrady linked to preconcived notions which differs for everyone who recives/hears it (realitivists theory).
So in a catch 22 you are freed by the languge but at the sam etime bound by it in that should I say "I feel high as a kite."
This could be an expression of soaring feelng victory, winning joy. Or the preconcived link to high being drugs . I could be linking myself to drugs or equally that whole expression might mean Im drunk.

But I may be straying fom the point being in the hannds of people who know languge well it can be a key they know how too use it to make it work for them, while for others it can be the tool that controls the masses as it were.
Now a real life example thats very political but Im afraid I cant help it just say I dont agree with it.
About 5 maybe 6 years ago when I was still living in Egypt there was this whole thing where someone said the Israli's nurse their babies on blood which makes them blood thirsty. It was a turn phrase an expression of speech but it caught on, like wildfire as it were and the newspaper cartoonjis took it up and everything. Anyway A few weeks later Im on the school bus and a little 8 year old I think she must have been starst tellin me about the jews feeding their babies blood with theremilk , now no matter how I try and convibnce them these kids KNOW this becasue the newspaper said so, so did the television. In fact others jumpned in 10 and 11 year olds all insisting that this is what was being said and obviously it was true and I could not get them to understand that it was a figure of speach. Now maybe when they grow up theyll stop belibveng that but there are 100s of illiterate people in Egypt and words like that have power and have control and in the end that is how propaganda works, words.
And should these people realise that it was a turn of phrase it will still color their thoughts and emotions towards the Isralis and in turn all jews as part of the association they have with them.
And thats all for now.

:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DigitalCrash

Language is a way to express concept, when you think of the word "Love" you think of its concept, not the word love, and its what it means that makes the word itself important. When Hitler said "Kill the Jews!" it's not what he said, its what he meant that got people worried.

---

The philosophy goes, that language exists first, the concept comes after. The concept, the meaning, is formed by what it is not. We know what the word 'love' signifies because we know what it is not (it is not hate, etc etc), as signified by the other parts of language. I think Unnamable explained this earlier on.

And yes, for the record, I do agree, in essence, with what Unnamable has written. THere are some small things I don't agree with, which were probably mostly just things written out quickly for convenience. (eg Can you really say that the word disability carries the assumption that education is important?)

It feels that this thread is lacking a little explanation. THings which Unnamable seems to take as a priori truths (language creates us, has a role in controlling us, all interpretations are ideological etc) should be more closely analysed; then maybe we would get some headway in terms of sharing ideas instead of getting frustrated...

First, ideology: I won't add much to what Unnamable has said, (

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNNAMEBLE

While it might be true to say that before the structuralists appeared most writers were not consciously aware of the ideological basis of their own assumptions, it is certainly not true to say that they were ‘objective’. They are permeated with value judgments.

---

) except to maybe explain why this might be the case. Interpretation of literature is ideological because the very process of reading a text requires that we have an understanding of language; this understanding of language will be situated in our particular ideology (how else do we understand the meaning of symbols, if not from a particular world view?); thus our [inescapable] ideology effects our interpretation of literature. Moreover, the implication is that each time we read a text, we do not just read it; we re-create it.

Secondly, language as control: Yes, it's not a conspiracy. But is that really the point? Language doesn't just persuade us, which seems to be the view which Virgil has taken; it also constitutes and shapes the very way in which we think (ie, we think through language) and therefore effects how we behave. Having said that, the relationship is incredibly complex and to say that 'language controls us' or that 'we control language', is both, I think, an over-simplification. It is as much social relations as language; social relations are reflected in language, which in turn effect social relations. Take the definition of 'rape'. For centuries, rape was only defined for a man and a woman who were not married. This reflected social relations at the time. Ok, so women were 'controlled' in the sense that the law said that if they were raped in marriage, they couldn't seek redress. But, this is just a law, and we can change it, since we control language, right? Well sure, but what if you've you've grown up in a society your entire life that has told you that a wife has NO legal rights, that 'this is what rape is' and that ****ing her husband is part and parcel of marriage, etc etc? Then the definitions could become so thoroughly entrenched in the way that you think that you don't seek to change them (of course, many women also didn't have the power to change them. But even when they did, the law of rape remained like that until 1992 in the UK, at which point, the change in thinking enabled the change in defn.).
Anyway, I'm not trying to provide another example of how language controls people. I'm trying to show that in saying 'language is control' we're referring to complex social relations (which I doubt I can explain, and which I"m sure I've over-simplified) But reading some of your posts (unnamable, virgil), it sounds a bit as if you're arguing points that arent' mutually exclusive (Altho I think that Unnamable understands that social relations shape language as much as vice versa, Virgil seemed to think we were looking at a one-way street)

Finally, Language forming identity: I find this the hardest to grapple with. I like Lacan's theory about how people form a sense of self, but I don't see how this means language creates us. :confused: I think language contributes to our sense of self, how we identify ourselves and the basis on which we identify with others, but that doesn't mean that without language we wouldn't have a sense of self (perhaps we would have one which we didn't define..). At any rate, given that people create a sense of identity by setting up similarities and differences with those around them, but also that people influence us and we influence people, a 'self' never really can be described or defined independantly. A 'self' by itself never really exists, can never be defined (Not only across time and situation, but even within one point of time and one situation); in that sense, the concept is flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

About 5 maybe 6 years ago when I was still living in Egypt there was this whole thing where someone said the Israli's nurse their babies on blood which makes them blood thirsty. It was a turn phrase an expression of speech but it caught on, like wildfire as it were and the newspaper cartoonjis took it up and everything. Anyway A few weeks later Im on the school bus and a little 8 year old I think she must have been starst tellin me about the jews feeding their babies blood with theremilk , now no matter how I try and convibnce them these kids KNOW this becasue the newspaper said so, so did the television. In fact others jumpned in 10 and 11 year olds all insisting that this is what was being said and obviously it was true and I could not get them to understand that it was a figure of speach. Now maybe when they grow up theyll stop belibveng that but there are 100s of illiterate people in Egypt and words like that have power and have control and in the end that is how propaganda works, words.
And should these people realise that it was a turn of phrase it will still color their thoughts and emotions towards the Isralis and in turn all jews as part of the association they have with them.
And thats all for now.

:D:D

---

Night - Are you saying that these people didn't freely believe it from their own free will? Are you saying that they were brain washed? Are you saying it was universal, every single person believed it? Not a single person who doubted it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fayefaye

Finally, Language forming identity: I find this the hardest to grapple with. I like Lacan's theory about how people form a sense of self, but I don't see how this means language creates us. :confused: I think language contributes to our sense of self, how we identify ourselves and the basis on which we identify with others, but that doesn't mean that without language we wouldn't have a sense of self (perhaps we would have one which we didn't define..).

---

I don't know Lacan. I'll have to look him up. But anyone that has had a dog as a pet knows that canines have a sense of self. Absolutely. Last time I checked my dog didn't speak any language. Children, before they learn to speak have a sense of self. Look it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fayefaye

First, ideology: I won't add much to what Unnamable has said, () except to maybe explain why this might be the case. Interpretation of literature is ideological because the very process of reading a text requires that we have an understanding of language; this understanding of language will be situated in our particular ideology (how else do we understand the meaning of symbols, if not from a particular world view?); thus our [inescapable] ideology effects our interpretation of literature. Moreover, the implication is that each time we read a text, we do not just read it; we re-create it.

---

Yes, we always bring ourselves to a text, but the goal of critics historically has been to interpret the text, at least with an effort of objectivity. No single critic defines a work; an community of critics honestly doing their best to be objective will formulate an understanding of a work. What is revolutionary in these theorists is not only they suspend their objectivity but that they project ideology into a text, whether the author intends for it to be there or not. And surprise-suprise, (and I'm not saying they are trying to be political, and again I understand the difference) but whatever they percieve in the text always seems to support their ideology. What they see reinforces what they believe. This approach may be good for a sociology department, for all I know, but it is shoddy literary criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fayefaye

Can you really say that the word disability carries the assumption that education is important?)

---

No, I can't. I was cutting corners. I should have said that the phrase ‘learning disability’ carries this assumption. I thought that was implied and hope you can now see what I mean. A lack of ability to learn is deemed sufficiently significant as to warrant a special label.

I’ll get back to you about Lacan, although I don’t know how much use it will be as I find him extremely difficult. I think I can see why he considers the unconscious as structured like language though, which is what you appear to be interested in.

What a busy busy thread. Thanks for your defense, Unnamable. I'm a he, by the way. My comment about politics wasn't meant to be directed at you but at a bit of my own line of reasoning - as I remember it.

Unnamable's right, Virgil. The fact that I say I've read Chomsky or that I'm opposed to privatisation doesn't prove I'm projecting my ideologies onto any texts not specifically about those subjects. I'm really not sure what your comment regarding this is based on. My whole post was an attempt to show that deconstruction was effective because it didn't oppose, but instead showed how ideologies and argumentative positions could and would unravel themselves from the inside. This implies that the deconstructor must work without a governing ideology.

Of course it would be naive to suggest that this always works in practice. Derrida's subjectivity notoriously crept in when his good friend Paul De Mann was revealed to have worked for a pro-Nazi newspaper in Belgium during the war and Derrida deconstructed his texts for this paper to try to demonstrate that they were actually pro-Jew. Raised eyebrows all round.

Nevertheless, what's funny about your comment is that, precisely because of the pains a lot of theory takes to avoid subjectivity and ideology, it's more often accused of being too negative, offering no alternative to the things it critiques or simply being too abstruse and sealed off from political reality to make a difference to anything -especially if it's concerned with matters of language.

Rachel, what a fascinating account of your time as a journalist. It couldn't be more apt in relation to this question of offering an alternative - the alternative to corruption and crime should (but sadly doesn't by any means always) go without saying. Your reference to the ownership of a newspaper by a political party points strongly to the idea that those in power have no doubt about language's efficacy as a method of control. This brings us properly back to the subject of this thread. What brings me up short about material like this is the part that does not appear to be about language - the violence. We can say that all the violence you describe is concerned with language in that it is specifically directed to silencing it. But it feels almost obscene to talk about the violence itself as language. I would say, the moment when someone is shot in the head or drowned in a canal is not linguistic - the moment - but we return from that moment to language almost instantly. The immediate effect of the act is a death, but that death almost instantly becomes something reported in language and, in itself, a method of communicating a message to the wider world, roughly translated: keep your mouth shut.

Digital Crash - 'language is a way to express a concept', you say, as if it's the most simple thing in the world, then pick a concept, love, the nature of which is perpetually in dispute. Since the subject of this thread is language as a method of control, let's stick to the way this example applies to that. I think a lot of what is being argued here points to the fact that it is precisely this blasé assumption that language is a simple tool for accessing reality that often allows us to be controlled by it. 'I love you', says the debonair huckster - and the fey, inexperienced millionairess swoons with pleasure as if she knows what he means. Meaning is dependent on context. Language is a system of relations. We ignore its complexity, ambiguity and manifold possibilities at our peril.

Your second point, Digital Crash, about Hitler, is easier to address. The point about Hitler is not that he said, 'Kill the Jews' - he didn't, publically - but that he spread propaganda about them that allowed him to curb their rights more and more, up to and including the right to life. There really couldn't be a more obvious and frightening example of language used as a method of political control. And don't forget, Hitler was elected. His entire agenda was something he convinced people of with language, not, initially, force.

Nevertheless, 'language is a way to express a concept' you say, and that seems to me to be worth considering a little more. First of all, importantly, do we really have access to that concept except through language? You say we say 'love' and think not of the word, but of the concept. But what happens when you feel love? Isn't it the case that the word itself pops up nonvolitionally right away? Don't we start to describe the condition using the word - whether to ourselves or others - right away? What then is beyond the word? What is real other than the language? And how do we know it's real?

Part of the reason I ask this is because of the Neitzche quote that Unnamable gives as a kind of starting point for all this - no facts, just interpretations. Later on, Unnamable, addressing me, you say that using deconstruction may make me unhappier, but at least my life will be 'real'. Well, broadly speaking, I agree, though not about being unhappier, but I wonder how you square this notion of what's real with a lack of facts.

And lastly, you're way ahead of me on most of this, Unnamable and I've barely skimmed the surface of Lyotard and Baudrillard - and then about a decade ago. I look forward to your unleashing of them with interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DigitalCrash

Couldn't that also mean that the child is obtaining a conscience? when he(or she) is born, she/he has absolutely no grasp of reality, no logic, he's aware of things that are there(a subconscience), then he starts to obtain a conscience and awareness of his surroundings and how they work.

---

I don't think so. According to Freudian theorist Melanie Klein:

"at a very early age the infant will harbour murderously aggressive instincts towards its mother's body, entertain fantasies of tearing it to bits and suffer paranoid delusions that this body will in turn destroy it."

So much for the innocence of childhood. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I don't know Lacan. I'll have to look him up. But anyone that has had a dog as a pet knows that canines have a sense of self. Absolutely. Last time I checked my dog didn't speak any language. Children, before they learn to speak have a sense of self. Look it up.

---

I did. I've had a dog and a cat as a pet and I have no idea how you can be so sure of this. Have you ever been a dog?

I apologise to everyone for bringing up Lacan. I tried to read his 'Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis' once and I barely understood a word. Alright, there were a lot of individual words I kind of understood, but next to each other they were a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

I did. I've had a dog and a cat as a pet and I have no idea how you can be so sure of this. Have you ever been a dog?

---

I am aboslutely sure of it. Have you ever seen a dog who knows its dying? He's very aware.

night and virgil, you both have good points. I personally believe that unless a person freely uses the mind and heart and conscience to come to a conclusion about something, we do have free will and thought even if some try to deprive us of it-unless we do that we tend to live in a Truman world, accepting the reality we are given. That is why when like little fires erupting, a person here and a person there begins to carefully weigh things and try to find out for themselves and then become a conscientious objecter-unless this happens the lie becomes a truth and soon mere conditioning and acceptance makes it somehow a religion. And another generation lives and dies in ignorance undue hate and violence. How sad.
animals without fail, at least cats and dogs absolutely know when they are about to die, especially if they have been sick a while. All my pets if this occurred and I wasn't expecting it would go to a quiet place after licking me in love or purring and laying against me. And in that quiet place they died. that is my experience at anyrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

I don't think so. According to Freudian theorist Melanie Klein:

"at a very early age the infant will harbour murderously aggressive instincts towards its mother's body, entertain fantasies of tearing it to bits and suffer paranoid delusions that this body will in turn destroy it."

So much for the innocence of childhood. :)

---

Yikes. I have to say, honestly, that's rather disturbing.


That IS just theory, right? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Night - Are you saying that these people didn't freely believe it from their own free will? Are you saying that they were brain washed? Are you saying it was universal, every single person believed it? Not a single person who doubted it?

---

Im not saying they were brain washed as such but that it never occurs to people to doubt it, and yes its pretty much the universal point of view in Egypt not that the feed thier babies thblood but that they are blood thirsty monsters whoi will stop at nothing from slaughtering e innocent. Unless you have good reason to doubt it, like coming from a mixed religoun family (like me) are a Jew or know jews personally, so you realise they are human beings. I think its more a case of social power and the abuse of it. People who other people follow like sheep giving out there very biased opinions.

Im not saying that this is a consiparcy or delibtrate (although knowing how people are on this particular issue it very well might be) Im saying peoples ideas are coloured by the languge used. Of course people doubted it (me, although I was once accused of being an alien or some other non-human thing :p) but even the greatest control and propaganda will have faliuers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fayefaye

Secondly, language as control: Yes, it's not a conspiracy. But is that really the point? Language doesn't just persuade us, which seems to be the view which Virgil has taken; it also constitutes and shapes the very way in which we think (ie, we think through language) and therefore effects how we behave. Having said that, the relationship is incredibly complex and to say that 'language controls us' or that 'we control language', is both, I think, an over-simplification. It is as much social relations as language; social relations are reflected in language, which in turn effect social relations.

---

I think thats what Im trying to say put nicer and clearer. :D :nod:

Virgil,
you remind me of Dr. Johnson:

‘After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."’
Boswell: Life of Johnson