Fresh from insisting that I write like shit, someone calling himself “frameone,” pontificating at length in ODub’s comments, follows up on yesterday’s discussion of racist sigification by setting the intentionalists straight:
You guys misunderstand. Articulate doesn’t just mean what it means, it also signifes a level of cultural capital that, by and large, goes without saying (unconsciously) when whites speak positively about other white peers. (A white adult might refer to a white adolescent as “articulate,†for instance, but that has much the same patronizing implications as in the case before us here.) Often times, however, when well-meaning whites speak about blacks their conscious desire may be to praise the person but unconsciously they feel a lack in their own use of language born of deep-seeded racist thinking that they themselves may not even be aware of. In the sentence under scrutiny here, Steele’s ability to “use clear, expressive language†that is his ability to communicate, is doubly emphasized in the use of the word “articulate†and the comparison to Reagan. One cannot be inarticulate and a good communicator, neither can one communicate well and be inarticulate. But the larger point is this: Mastery of language, whether you want to call it articulateness or effective communication, connotes a particular level of cultural capital closely tied to power. As such the words used to describe it are carefully guarded and regulated subconsciously.
At any rate, I don’t know why what you still have your panties in a bunch. I’m saying the writer meant well but ultimately fell victim to unconscious structures beyond his control  if not beyond his ability to recognize and correct for.
Of course, what is striking about this bit of faux-intellectualized piffle is that it has the practical effect of suggesting that “frameone,” by virtue of his supposed understanding of language and his predilection for phenomenological interpretation (which, for that to work, needs to ascribe to Captain Ed’s original utterance “unconscious†motivations that “frameone,” presumably thanks to his preternatural ability to tease out hidden substructures in the dialogic web, can identify), is above falling prey to the very forces he claims are informing Ed’s language.
In short, he is intellectually masturbating to the specter of his own assumed cleverness.
Bottom line: it is simply silly to suggest, as “frameone” does, that one need be articulate to be a good communicator, as any mime or puppeteer might tell you. And it is doubly silly to suggest that one can see into the souls of whites, or to assume that, because it’s possible to have unacknowledged racialist motivations for choosing certain words, it is therefore likely—or, worse, that it is perfectly fair to assume that such motivations exist simply because the utterer is white.
That is racist. And as a deity capable of divining the motivations of others, you’d think “frameone” would have noticed that particular flaw in his own intellectual makeup.
On a linguistic level, “frameone’s” assumption is that a signifier (the mark “articulate”) carries with it what he calls the “cultural capital” is has gathered over years of usage. Which is really just another way of making the Derridean claim that a signifier is haunted by the ghosts of all its potential signifieds.
This is true, so far as it goes (on which more later), but it is also irrelevant to the meaning of Captain Ed’s utterance, which is dependent upon the actual signified he applies to the signifier “articulate.” That is, it redounds to Captain Ed’s intent. Which, for all his talk about cultural capital, is precisely the same claim “frameone” is making when he argues that Captain Ed did imbue the signifier with a racialist intent—he just did so unconsciously. Because an unconscious intent (insofar as it is eminates from the same subjectivity as a conscious intent) is still an intent, which means “frameone” doesn’t need to appeal to “cultural capital” carried by the signifier to make his argument. He simply has to say that Ed did intend to signify “articulate” in a way that betrays his unconscious racism—which, I take it, is a bit too judgmental for “frameone’s” nuanced tastes.
Which is why he chooses, at least superficially, to dress his argument into the garb of post-structuralism, his suggestion being that the signifier “articulate” itself “carries” with it “cultural capital” that is beyond the control of the original utterance. This, as I say, is true—if by “carrying cultural capital” “frameone” means that we, as interpreters, have many cultural instances of the sign’s usage to draw from when we attempt to reconstruct the intent of the utterer.
That is, because “articulate” has been used in the past as a kind of backdoor denigration of Blacks, one of the ways we might interpret it is to consider that it’s being used that way in this instance—which, when such a interpretive maneuver appeals to intent is perfectly acceptable: if we truly believe that Ed meant to use “articulate” as an ironic way to denigrate Blacks en masse, we are perfectly within our rights as interpreters to make that case.
But the linguistic problem here arises when we believe that we are doing something else, specifically, when we believe we are making the case that, regardless of Ed’s intent, because the signifier “articulate” has been used pejoratively in the past, it “means,” in addition to what Ed intends it to mean (and my argument is that he is interested in using it in its standard iteration of “characterized by the use of clear, expressive language”), everything it could potentially mean, and that the interpreter is free to pick and choose and ascribe to the utterer any one of those potential significations.
When this happens, the interpreter—and Oliver and “scratch” are the prime offenders here (“frameone,” though he talks the pomo game, is actually appealing to intent, as I’ve shown above)—is making the claim that the signifier exists as a sign (signifier + signified) outside of the process of signification. But a mark is just a mark until it is supplied with a meaning—the thing that turns it into language—and that happens either at the point of utterance or at the point of interpretation (we see a cloud, which has no intent to signify, and turn it into a fluffy bunny humping a rocking chair, for instance).
In both instances, an agency has signified the mark and turned it into language. So the question becomes, whose agency do we give primacy to when we interpret. My argument has been that granting primacy to the interpreter for determining “meaning” relativizes language and destroys the ground for interpretion. Because what is happening is, the interpreter, when he ignores original intent, is creating meaning through the process of resignification, and is therefore taking control of the utterance from the utterer even as he lays responsibility for the utterance at the feet of the utterer. Or, to be more concrete, it is precisely this maneuver that allows Oliver or Scratch to suggest that Captain’s Ed’s use of “articulate” is racist, because it successfully marginalizes his intent.
But in the place of Captain Ed’s intent, Oliver inserts his own: specifically, the notion that, because “articulate” can be used pejoratively, it is valid to suggest that Captain Ed is responsible for our capability of interpeting it as such.
In short, Oliver uses a faulty notion of language in order to justify the use of a faulty notion of language.
****
More, from All Things Beautiful; and Captain Ed responds here.
I dunno, Goldstein. If I wanted to chit-chat about semiotics, I’d call up my English MA’d ex-girlfriend. I come here for the GAY PORN COCK OF LIES, because of the TASTY FRUIT FILLING. When do we get back to business?
So you’re saying that he is putting words in Captain Ed’s mouth.
Judge me not by the color of my skin. For I have always been there with you. I was there when George and Weezy moved on up to the East Side.Hallelujah! Those were happy times!But, I was also there for the bad times.When Florida lost James to that tragic auto accident.And I was there when Tootie got those terribly painful braces! Yes! And when Arnold Jackson got beat up by the Gooch, I was there.
So before you decide I don’t belong here, remember this I was there!
Well, actually I’m trying to show how it’s done, why it’s dangerous to allow it to happen, and what the potential consequences are should such an understanding of language gain primacy and become institutionalized in law rather than simply in University English departments and as the building blocks for racialist polemics.
Can we all just agree to compliment Oliver Willis by declaring that he is in no way articulate?
Cordially…
What you said.
Most adults agree that shitting one’s britches is a no-no. When a mentally-challenged individual leaves a plate of bun fudge in his underroos, very few people think this is going to somehow become institutionalized.
In other words, I think you’re giving the racist blob too much credit. Had you not pointed it out, only about 3 other people on the planet would have noticed.
The discussion of the actual semiotics of language is interesting, but I’d like to ask a separate question that was addressed more in the first post than in this one.
To what extent is Captain Ed responsible for knowing the baggage that a word carries, and for choosing it in light of that baggage? In other words, there is no excuse for anyone who criticizes the use of the word “niggardly” – it means what it means, and to the extent that the listener is an ignoramus, the speaker is not to blame.
But for every rapper that calls his posse “my niggas” and every homosexual that attempts to recapture “queer” there is a retrograde douche that calls them niggers and queers unrepentantly and with unambiguous intent. The use of “articulate” to describe a distinguished black man is a similar instance.
I don’t want to impute ANY racist intent to Captain Ed. But at the same time, I doubt that he is unfamiliar with the patronizing usage of “articulate” (in the same way that every white ballplayer is a “scrappy gym rat”). Are you saying that the author has no responsibility to account for the larger context in which words will be heard than his own intent when speaking?
Jeff,
I think you did an excellent job. My flippant remark doesn’t do the piece justice.
Wow, interesting read. Color me impressed, Jeff.
No, wait…my comment is racist…..
I suggest, to keep everything clear and avoid confusion, we replace “articulate†with “talking all white” when discussing anyone African-American.
Much less chance of offeding someone.
Well Charles, until Oliver ‘Like Krptonite Stuck on Stupid’ Willis made the stink, I’d never considered the word to have any meaning other than ‘well spoken’. Usually a wee bit of context is needed to determine intent.
For example, the word queer still means ‘strange’.
If I were to write ‘Watching the train derail left me with a queer feeling’, am I being hateful?
‘Watching the train derail left me with a queer feeling’ = Homophobia
Good question, Charles, and I addressed it a bit in this post. But it seems to me it is a chicken / egg situation.
I could reframe the question and return it to you this way, for instance: to what extent are we<i> responsible, by dint of thinking that a speaker <i>should be at least partially responsible for avoiding potential meanings that aren’t his, for a rhetorical culture in which certain words should be avoided by certain people who don’t have the requisite authenticity to use them, which has the effect of allowing motivated individuals seize control of certain signifiers?
I don’t mean to dodge the question. But my argument has been, you’ll recall, that part of the problem here rests with how we think interpretation works. Which means that I’d suggest that rather than cow to fears of being misunderstood (or, to put a more positive face on it, are careful of the offense we could potential give to those who misinterpret our meaning), the solution is, instead, to insist that such interpretations are simply wrong, in that they rely on something other than the speaker’s intent.
To me, being offended by a sound or mark that is unintended is, at base, a political position that furthers the victim culture and, insofar as it lays blame at the feet of the utterer (rather on the misinterpreter, where it belongs) undermines personal responsibility.
Man, that was some lengthy analysis.
we just want to say, we’re so very proud of our very own, Oliver Willis.
viva los defeasists!
now bring on your scorn and wrath, ye bitches.
So, how can I, as a ‘not exactly white’ person ensure his language is sanitized to the extent that nobody can ever take offense?
Or is the word ‘HOW’ inappropriate for native indians?
DOUBLEPLUSS UNGOOD!!!
All I know is the Captain compared him favorably to Ronald Reagan, which is one weird-assed thing for a Republican Conservative Racist to do. Oliver apparently forgot about that.
I think that’s exactly what he’s saying. Language is used a means of codifying ideas and intent, in this case Ed’s thoughts and intent, so they can be decodified by his audience (or community of readers). It’s the simple process of communication … the sender has a thought, encodes it, the receiver reads it and thereby decodes into thought. For a receiver of Ed’s message to ascribe any intent that was not there when Ed codified his message is, quite simply, not “truth.” It’s merely meaning added to the message by the receiver, for whatever reason (ill intent, skewing of the message because of the receiver’s past experiences, whatever).
Am I close? Damn, I’m a sucky writer.
I’ve greatly enjoyed this series of posts, BTW.
PW: ground: as in, “O-dub’s been consuming way too much 75% lean ground beef lately.”
Maybe frameone is a bigger ass than Oliver.
see how bad we are? we can’t even spell our own name.
I stand defeated.
I read Frameone’s comment and two thoughts immediately came to mind. One was:
“I’m not a psychologist but I play one on TV.”
The other was a visual of Leslie Nielsen saying “And don’t call me Shirley.”
It is ridiculous for him to ascribe subconscious racist motives to Ed Morrissey’s post. He’d have to have a familiarity with Morrissey state of mind beyond that of say, Morrissey’s wife to make such a charge. Or, for that matter, Morrissey himself. He’s saying “I know what you are thinking better than you do.”
This is, to put it bluntly, absurd.
All of which are points you make far more articulately than I do, Jeff.
I think this can all be resolved by agreeing that Jeff has an articulate gay porn cock (aka the Hannitizer) that has slightly more tasty pie filling than normal because of an earlier disagreement with the lotion…
It is what it is. Words mean what they mean. Granted some words have more than one meaning and that is where context comes into play. As noted above with the exemplar “queer”. One can use that word in different contexts where as one can use the word “homosexual” in only one clear context. And some of us cannot choose the word that “most” means what we want to communicate due to our limited vocabulary. We are not all Jeff or William F. Buckley.
Ed’s statement re Mr. Steele:
Apparantly Ed is relating a personal experience regarding Mr. Steele’s speaking ability. He clearly segregates “articulate” from being a good communicator ala Reagan.
If we cannot accept “articulate” in this context to mean Expressing oneself easily in clear and effective language, when would the word be of use.
I repeat, Ed said, “Articulate” ODub added the words, “for a black man”
My head asplode
It’s a good start to getting to a victim-culture free, world, Jeff, but I’m not sure that it is the right solution.
People use language to encode separate meanings to two audiences all the time. (The discussion about the subtext to Bush’s reference to Dred Scott in the debate comes to mind.) I agree that throwing around accusations about racialist language isn’t helpful, so OW’s criticism of Ed is likely out of line.
But to the extent that the speaker is aware of the social context surrounding a word (and Marble may be the first person engaged in this type of discussion who wasn’t aware that “articulate” had a context; see Rock, Chris, On Colin Powell: Of Course He’s Articulate!), I don’t think it is too much to ask that people who aren’t racists take steps to not mimic the language of those who are.
Again, this isn’t a commentary on Captain Ed, nor is it an endorsement of knee-jerk accusations of racism. I merely disagree that conciousness of context degrades language, confuses discourse or cedes ground to the squeakiest wheels. There may be no reason to assume that everyone is a racist, but there isn’t much reason to assume that nobody is.
I was offended that this racist used the words “knowledgeable, passionate, and humorous” about a person of color. OUTRAGED! What, are all black people Eddie Murphy and humorous? Or Cornell West and knowledgeable? Or Rev. Jesse Jackson and passionate? You racists make me sick!
Obviously one can call someone articulate in a patronizing manner. One can also use the word in a manner that is not patronzing. Its not bad to be aware of, but the game of calling real or imagined slights shouldn’t require a victim eager to take offense more than it does a perpetator intending to give it.
Also, it leads to a lot of college types giving long prefaces to every statement to establish that they are not racist or whatever before taking a position. Its a waste of everyone’s time, a bore and a bad habit.
Sure. But there you are talking about common courtesy, and in certain particularly loaded instances I can see making the concession. But I don’t think we need do so in instances of irony, which is what we’re dealing with here (on the interpretive end). And in fact, using the signifier to describe blacks who are, you know, articulate when you mean just that can go along way toward rehabilitating the word and taking it back from those who’ve attempt to keep it perpetually problematized.
It is unlike this will work with such words as “nigger” (though the black culture has sought to rehabilitate that word, too, though only for members of the group) or “kike”, but the impulse shouldn’t be resisted if we wish to return language to its proper use and show that the valences that attach themselves to certain signifiers are only there when we put them there.
We own language. It doesn’t own us.
Charles: about Ed’s usage of the word, you say, ”I doubt that he is unfamiliar with the patronizing usage of “articulateâ€Â.”
Yet I’ve never heard this usage, yet I have not hidden under any rocks but in fact travel widely and read voraciously.
I’ve taken the time to look the word up in dictonary.com, wiktionary.org, and well as at Merriam Webster’s site, and your definition isn’t present. More telling, I Googled ‘articulate’ and of the first 100 links returned, not one had anything whatsoever to do with your definition.
So how does one become informed as to the various offensive meanings for common words if this information isn’t present in daily life or reference materials? How is Ed supposed to learn which meanings are taboo to you and Oliver?
So back to Jeff’s point here, your assertion that this new definition of the word ‘articulate’ to mean “patronizing” is in common use is clearly false. It’s neither common nor in much use, apparently. Therefore for you to assume that’s the meaning that Ed signified is far from a given and is in fact highly unlikely.
Really?
Guess I’m not alone.
Charles, I would buy that argument if Ed had described Steele as such, “I spoke with him and he’s so articulate!”
The Chris Rock example makes use of people using the “well spoken” description as though it’s a shock. “He was just so well spoken!” IE, “I couldn’t believe a black man could speak so well!”
But Ed did nothing more than mix in the word articulate along with other adjectives used to describe Steele favorably. I’ve known people a helluva a lot more intelligent and knowledgable than I am who for whatever reason, cannot form coherent sentences. They also take 2 mins to explain something that should only take 10 seconds.
Oliver is just stirring up shit again. He has to make sure he keeps the overflow he earned from the Kos and Atrios wing back when he decided to turn into a raving left wing lunatic. And what better way to do that then to accuse a conservative of being a racist? He probably had to stop chowing on the double-stuffed Oreos for about 10 seconds to think of it, since it’s not very original. But that kind of stuff keeps his lefty readers happy.
If words have even one hundredth of the voodoo mojo power ascribed to them by “frameone”, then the idea that Ed ought to maintain separate vocabularies for describing whites and blacks should offend us far more than separate drinking fountains.
Nowhere in the cited Chris Rock bit does he mention the word “articulate.”
Chris Rock said “well spoken” – which is not referenced in the Captain Ed passage.
Can someone explain this to me?
Perhaps I was hasty, but I doubt it. Jeff was certainly familiar with it, and it has enough cultural currency to be parodied. (This parody, FWIW, is the first thing that comes up when you Google black + articulate.)
Maybe Ed was unfamiliar with it, but I would guess that he would defend himself more like Jeff defended him than he would with “I’ve never heard that.” (Jeff’s defense has been an interesting read, so I hope people don’t think that I think Jeff is a racist now.)
Back up the van, fella. I tried to make clear that I wasn’t saying anything about Ed. I merely used the opportunity of Jeff’s post about language and meaning to engage in a discussion about language and meaning. Ed’s post was the touchstone, but I wanted very much not to cabin the discussion to his post nor to imply anything about his views. In light of your quote from my post, I think I may have fallen short, but think it still would have been a worthwhile illustrative example.
True enough. But we don’t control language either; it exists both within and beyond us. Being hypercritical ala Willis isn’t the answer, but I’m not convinced that using Scalia’s method of statutory interpretation is the answer to decoding meaning in every day speech is the answer either.
Thanks. This has been enlightening and fun.
Charles:
You assert that avoiding “code word” language of so-called racists is a reasonable approach to life. What I would like to know is when and where will it end? Do you support endless usurpation of any and all words employed by each and every flavor of putz to demonstrate their superiority?
What you propose actually enables the promotion and use of “code-words”. If people refused to acknowledge that code words were code words, they will lose their significance. By dancing around them, you draw attention and highlight the jerk-offs and elevate their slander… which is exactly what they want.
I don’t know about the rest of you morons, but the white male culture I grew up in consisted of constant put downs and reprimands. In fact, if someone was too complimentary, you knew in your bones that you had really fucked something up and were so dense that you had no idea you had done. I can’t help but conclude that walking on egg-shells around racial minorities is much much more racist than being harsh, direct, sarcastic and carefree in the use of language and expressions.
In conclusion, any modification of speech (other than refraining from common law vulgarity) in an effort to avoid using code words is the most subversive form of racism. The KKK guys make no bones about their views, but the PC smarmy slick operator flies way below the radar. Therefore, the modern “liberal” view of race and civil rights is a thin shell covering deep seated racist views fostered by the ecstasy of white supremacy.
Paul: excellent point. We must now stay abreast of every utterance of every racist, homophobe, and moron who chooses to insult anyone anywhere. We must then make note of these words and banish them forever.
That, or refuse to cede the meaning of language to those who would twist it to serve their own ends.
Hmmmmm. Tough choice.
To everyone who factchecked my Chris Rock reference, congrats on your better memory. But since the agreed-upon basic definition of “articulate” is “well spoken,” I’m not sure that I need to apologize.
And at this point what I considered an intelligent discussion about semiotics devolved into a parody of an argument. Is the slippery slope really all you see?
Ah, bullshit.
Indeed, the fact that Captain Ed never read “Blackpeopleloveus.com” is proof he is racist.
Plus the fact he said “articulate” – which was NEVER spoken by Chris Rock – means he is racist, as Rock said the words “well spoken” which means the same thing.
“For how do we act in writing? Do I desire to write the name ‘Dio’ as I choose? No, but I am taught to desire to write it as it ought to be written. What do we do in music? The same. And what in general, where there is any art or science? The same; otherwise knowledge of anything would be useless, if it were accommodated to every individual’s whims.”
–The Discourses of Epictetus, I.12
ca. 80 A.D.
I don’t understand why people are getting so mad at Charles. The fact is that the word CAN be used offensively, regardless of whether it was used that way at the Quarters. Most of the reactions are to a different person you have in mind and their arguments, not to Charles and his comments.
Horst has a point: It can also be an articulation of white racism when white liberals wet themselves over the relative unknown Obama Barack. Obama for president! Maybe someday. Its okay to be excited, but you don’t have to be so eager to show that you are upright.
Finally, we can all acknowledge the brilliance of the title of this post, even if we can’t agree on the thorny issues surrounding the concept of offensiveness.
“Guess I’m not alone. “
No, Sharp, you are not alone. It would never have occured to me that anyone would use the word articulate to mean anything but well-spoken.
If some idiot race-broker wants to append “for an …” to words that real people use then that’s their problem.
I am so sick to death of people hijacking words and language to mean what they want instead of the already clear meaning. Since I have a BS in Communication I’m certainly aware of the two schools of thought about language being “relatively” static or being an evolving structure. And I support the evolving side, but arbitrarily taking a perfectly good word and instantaneously changing it’s meaning is the kind or warped idea that you’d expect in a high school philosophy class and not in adults. Language is supposed to be used to communicate, not obfuscate. Just because you want Liberal to mean most of what Socialist is defined as doesn’t make it so. Just because you want articulate to be shorthand for “articulate for an …” doesn’t make it so. The rest of us that really want to communicate will just point and laugh at your juvenile behavior.
Sheesh.
Charles: fair enough about not making this about your views on Ed’s intent. I mistakenly lumped you in with Oliver and some of his other commenters and I apologize. The van is backed up, as they say.
But I will note something interesting about your Google search on ‘black + articulate’. The first link does go to a parody site which contains the referential clues necessary to make your point. The other 9 results (on that first page) do not, and in fact at least one seems to conflict with this new usage.
I suppose any word or phrase can be made patronizing. I’ve certainly used, “Great job!” in a disgusted (and usually humorous) tone to someone when they’ve screwed up. Who hasn’t, actually?
But I think Ed gave enough context and other signifiers in his original quote to make it clear that he was neither glad-handing, nor patronizing, nor meaning anything beyond giving simple and basic praise to another human. Ollie may not like that person, nor Ed for that matter, but his parsing of this word in this context is (to me) obviously contrived and artificial.
On that grounds, shouldn’t you agree that O-Dub’s accusation is bullshit?
A rose is a rose…which I suppose is articulate
to a racist by any other name.
TW “can” as can a rose not be a rose if the interpreter packs to much garbage? No matter, never did like the thorny sonsabitches anyhow.
I didn’t agree is because I saw no need to agree or disagree. It was besides the point in a discussion about language and usage.
I don’t know enough about Captain Ed to simply agree that he isn’t a racist. Nor do I know enough about OW to know or speculate on whether he is a race baiter. My guess? Captain Ed isn’t a racist and OW has had finer moments. Sorry to be so wishy-washy, but I read CQ rarely (though I linked to him when he was doing excellent reportage on Canada’s censorship of information about some investigation) and OW not at all, so I lack any basis to make a meaningful judgment about either of them.
But isn’t the phrase already clear meaning just more question begging?
Not to beat a dead horse, but the reason there is any debate at all is that words have multiple meanings, that people use words across these meanings with various degrees of intent and that, because the author has only limited control of how the audience will interpret them, taking some care about who might hear and what it will mean to them isn’t the worst thing in the world.
My point is I wish I could get a frozen Allah in this country. It looks tasty.
This be some articulate muthafuckin shit!
JG,
Turing word “black”!? What are you saying, that I’m “black” for an articulate guy? Is that some kind of wordist sarcasm?
HCT
Seriously, there are so many inarticulate people who insist on demonstrating the fact ad nauseum, one would think that “articulate” would soon lose racist overtones.
HCT
Here’s an even more insidious aspect to the subconcious signfication argument:
If one party is allowed to take the high ground that they know better the subconcious influences acting on the other party’s use of language, then they set themselves up as not only the arbiter of the meanings of the words but also as empowered to set the definition of the other debater. “You are obviously the racist, no matter what you believe of yourself.”
You know, I think this may be why arguing with a far lefty is like arguing with a brick wall: They have no need to listen to the other side because the other side is by definition incapable of understanding and utilizing language due to their deep-seated, unconcious, racism (sexism, classism, et al.)
Isn’t this the same fine fellow who slagged Bill at INDC for mocking him with racist language?
More on the sad episode at Ace.
How come nobody got pissed at the fact people were assuming a brotha might be behind down to the pawn shop and rent2own, and we can probably smear him if we can get his credit report?
Is it at all pertinent to this discussion that black conservatives tend to be particularly articulate? There aren’t a lot of black Sean Hannitys or O’Rileys. A lot of white guys are conservative because their dad’s are conservative, and we don’t hate our dad’s as much as other people do. Blacks tend to have arrived at a conservative position through the kinds of processes that one can be articulate about.
The word itself can’t be used offensively, but it can be used by people with offensive opinions. Or ill-informed opinions, whichever the case may be. That’s the problem that needs to be solved- taking the word off the table neither solves racist attitudes nor corrects the ill-informed opinion. Instead, it cedes territory to the concept.
How has Jesse Jackson’s speaking style been described over the years? Or Al Sharpton? Certainly not as articulate. Is it racist for me to even compare Steele to Sharpton?
Is Chris Rock’s joke really even funny or relevant anymore? I don’t agree that of course Colin Powell is well spoken. John Kerry and George Bush aren’t well spoken. Where’s the truth of the of course?
To post this for ridicule was fine but to give it the dignity inherent in a fiskworthy piece was well overwrought. It did not deserve 2 seconds of your, or my, attention.
To everyone who factchecked my Chris Rock reference, congrats on your better memory. But since the agreed-upon basic definition of “articulate†is “well spoken,†I’m not sure that I need to apologize.
Hmmm. So, since you’re now suggesting that not just “articulate” but other phrases that can be interpreted to mean “articulate” are all freighted with racism, it would appear that we must also exclude “eloquent, fluent, effective, persuasive, lucid, expressive, silver-tongued; intelligible, comprehensible, understandable.”
Similarly, of course, any reference to an african-american being inarticulate can be equally understood to be a raced “codeword” — and by this reasoning, all the phrases that can be interpreted to mean “inarticulate” would be excluded as well.
In fact, it would appear that since both “articulate” and its antonym can be interpreted to be racist, in fact nearly anything about the relative well-spokenness of an african-american would be excluded.
I’d argue, in fact, that this is the goal, overt or occult, of the people like Oliver making these arguments: not to eliminate certain words because they’re offensive, but istead simply to assert the right to control the discourse completely, and to define either praise or derogation as essentially racist, based not on what was said, but rather on what the political leanings of the interpreter are, and on the imputed political position assumed to be held by the speaker.
In other words, it’s not speaking about the racial attitudes of the speaker, it’s an assertion of the right to compell a speaker to only make those statements that are considered politically acceptable.
I don’t understand why people are getting so mad at Charles.
I haven’t noticed anyone being particularly mad at, or abusive of, Charles. We’re just pointing out that his argument blows.
I would also add that advice on the meticulously careful use of racially charged language is especially ironic coming from Mr. ‘Filthy Wolfowitz’ Willis. (’Filthy Wolfowitz’–is that like a ‘Dirty Sanchez?’
I disagree, commander0, which is why I wrote it. I think it not only points to many misconceptions about language and how it works, but it also shows how embracing those misconceptions has real-world consequences.
And what I worry about most is that most people don’t care enough about any of this to be able to combat it. Look at how thoroughly the postmodern notion of “truth” has infiltrated the news media. There are major news organs who barely even both to disguise their willingness to “frame” a story to match a pre-adopted set of assumptions.
My family’s Italian (mostly), and every time someone calls me laid-back and hard-working the fury that builds up inside me is indescribable.
Some people have a deep need to be insulted. They invent insults.
Charles says
Thanks for taking the bait. In your predictible response you refer to your earlier posts as “intelligent discussion”, employ a key buzzword “semiotics” and set up a straw man at the top of a “slippery slope”.
Unfortunately, you confuse regurgitation of nostrums (ideas you are fond of that serve as mental comfort food) as intelligent, hoping that by repeating a buzzword you prove the claim.
The slippery slope straw man in the PC speech control debate has already hit rock bottom and has started to climb out of the ditch towards normalcy.
The current debate is regarding a race-baiter who is still using Velveeta in a power-bait world.
Horst Says:
Charles Responds:
I agree: absolute bullcrap. I should have used the word cowardly instead of subversive.
“I can’t help but conclude that walking on egg-shells around racial minorities is much much more racist than being harsh, direct, sarcastic and carefree in the use of language and expressions.”
And this applies x 10 to terrorists and our collective willingness to hold them accountable for their atrocities, as we clearly would were they not ethnically “other”, regardless of whatever “freedom” they claimed to be fighting for, instead of trying to find a white man upon whom to pin blame, as if only white men matter.
BTW, there sure are lots of quotation marks in the OP – is this good for your arthritis? What does your willingness to use them say about your theory?
Oh the well spoken wagon is acoming down the street,
Oh please let it be for me…
Thanks for explaining it all, Charles. Mighty white of you to take the trouble.
Regards,
Ric
Not to be Mr. Obvious here, and I appreciate the extended discussion & debate on the matter, but “frameone” lost me at “Goldstein can’t right for shit”.
When the first words out of someone’s mouth are demonstrably false, I cease to pay attention to the rest of his screed.
You know, Goldstein, this was a very well written piece, but did you have to result to such vulgarity in the title?
Oh, wait. It says CANT! My bad.
fo’ shizzle my nizzle
Allow me to ‘articulate’, Oliver Willis is leading his ignorant helpless hoard down The Road to Serfdom.
INSTAPUNDIT = HITLER!
Just kidding. Congrats to Jeff on getting ‘lanched yet again.
But in the place of Captain Ed’s intent, Oliver inserts his own: specifically, the notion that, because “articulate†can be used pejoratively, it is valid to suggest that Captain Ed is responsible for our capability of interpeting it as such.
Oh, that’s rich. Didn’t ODork argue the *exact opposite* when Lileks made a similar comment about Oliver calling Wolfowitz “filthy?”
(http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/05/0305/031705.html)
I’ve see doorknobs with a better grasp on logic than Oliver.
Owie… big words make my head hurt.
I would never accuse Oliver Willis of being articulate. He is many things, but articulate isn’t one of them.
He is like one of those fat plush toys that you poke it’s tummy and it vibrates and cackles for a bit.
Okay, he’s articulated. But not articulate.
Personally I think that using terms like “intentionalist” and “semiotics” is inarticulate.
Free of jargon, OW has a chip on his shoulder and will figure out a way to take a racial slur from anything he doesn’t agree with.
Being black is not a defense against being called wrong.
I’ve read his blog once or twice and not gone back because he’s arrogant and hostile, and he speaks academese, which just takes more trouble to decipher than the content justifies.
Oliver Willis is black? No way!
So, is it okay if I say ODub would be a fat, filthy, ignorant A**hole even if he were white?
TW: around. How long would it take to walk around ODub?
Just tyring to parse through Jeff’s essay makes my head hurt (this is a branch of philosophy that holds no interest for me), but I want to thank Jeff for linking to the Willis article because Willis in turn links to blackpeopleloveus.com, which is a brilliant site that I forgot about.
Thanks for the memories Jeff!!
I think Charles has been very articulate in stating his case. I just think it’s bullhsit.
In seriousness:
A black woman I know used to work in broadcasting. She explained how she was offended (rightfully) by job postings that would say things along the lines of “Equal Opportunity Employer: articulate minorities encouraged to apply.” Of course in that context, the use of “articulate” implies most members of a racial minority are not articulate, in the same way that Jonah Goldberg today explains how the phrase “compassionate conservative” prejudges most conservatives to be uncompassionate.
However, unlike what Charles is arguing with respect to “articulate” and minorities, all conservatives should not take offense every time someone describes them individually as “compassionate.” [Even if there is a bleeding-heart liberal that might use “compassionate” with condescending intent, as I just used “bleeding-heart”.] There is an obvious difference in meaning (i.e., a difference in the signified attached to the signifier) when the signifier is used in the various contexts. In the context that Captain Ed used “articulate†it was a compliment assigned to an individual, not a modifier used to reverse a prejudice about members of group. When used in the former context, there is no hidden prejudice; when used in the latter there is.
Accordingly, we can put aside all this debate about which agent’s interpretation takes primacy (and the associated arguments about what lead to victim mentality), because the context of the usage shows that one of the two interpretations is objectively more reasonable and thus should take primacy.
I hadn’t the first clue that “articulate” was perjorative in any sense. I consider myself an “articulate” person. I would consider “articulate” to be a compliment in any situation.
So, this is part of the culture that sees academic accomplishments and using proper English as “trying to be white?” I was aware of that. I can see how such attitudes might develop but it doesn’t make the enablers any less evil. Anyone who tells a poor child (of any color whatsoever) that it’s a bad thing to be articulate is a bad person. If they say it from a position of education and wealth, they are pure evil.
And if Oliver or frameone or whomever expects me to feel guilty (or even worry about) using English words in ordinary ways, tough. I won’t. I gave that up a long time ago with all sorts of other unhealthy “people pleaser” habits. The fact is, that I’m not responsible for the emotional state of other people. I’m not responsible for asking how high or even jumping every time someone tells me to jump. I’m not psychic so that I can be responsible for knowing what new words have become off limits today and which ones will be off limits tomorrow.
Jeff, when you refer to ghostly signifieds haunting the Derridian signifer, are you reading Derrida as saying that the possible signifieds are necessarily spooking around the signifier, or just that signifiers (e.g. written and spoken words) are ultimately unable to remove the uncertainty as to the signified(s) to which they refer? And who cares, really, when the real point of interest is that one of the quasitranscendental labels Derrida applies to this phenomenon is: double chiasmic invagination. Surely Derrida’s gratuitous uses of sexual imagery innoculate him to some extent from your distrust of post-structuralism? At least they should.
Whew!! Wuz trippin’ around innocently lookin’ for that fancy armadillio when I tripped on something astickin’ out of the ground and fell into this here Hole! Imagine my surprise to find a room full of interesting, passionable, and articulate writers, engaged in a stimulating and thought provoking discussion. Whew again! I wuz so surprised by all the writin and athinkin’ goin’ on that I almost forgot what I came for! Where is that little fella?
Wow. I’m impressed, Jeff. I couldn’t do that sort of deconstructionism on a bet—certainly not deconstructionism of a deconstructionist.
To me, this sort of pseudo-intellectualizing has at its core an abrogation of responsibility. The basic argument is that I have no control over what my words mean; other people, who declare themselves to be cleverer than I, will decide what my words mean, regardless of what I intended to say or what I thought they meant.
This is meaningless, and morally disgusting. It is also an open invitation for people to not take responsibility for their own words.
Is it possible to say something racist unintentionally? Of course it is. But if you want to know what the speaker truly meant, it’s probably a good idea to ask.
(Alternatively, you could listen awhile, and use common sense to spot patterns. I realize that common sense isn’t that highly thought of in some quarters today.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
“unconscious intent” – sounds like something a lawyer wouls dream up.
Well Mr CEO, your medicine has cured millions, but you unconsciously intended for it to kill my client’s wife, so I’m arguing for the death penalty.
Give Oliver some pie, but keep him away from the armadillo. He might have some unconscious intent of his own.
I’m feeling like stuck.
(Obviously, it’s kryptonite to articulate.)
Daniel in Brookline
We could hire the PC police to hand out “negligent use of word with racialist quasi-meaning” citations.
A couple of serious questions for Jeff…
Iain Murray, in a post serendipitously titled HAVE WE HEARD THIS SORT OF LANGUAGE BEFORE?, quotes German social scientist Benny Peiser writing about Sir John Lawton blaming Rita on global warming:
So why did Sir John select neo-conservatives for blame? Because the term “neocon” is widely used as a derogatory code word for ‘Jews’ – and open or disguised Jew-baiting has become very popular among Little Englanders in recent years.
Is “neocon” a codeword for Jew? If it is, who made it one, since I apparently missed the memo? What responsibility does Sir John have to know that “neocon” will be interpreted by some to mean Jew?
And an unserious question… Does this mean that Mick Jagger thinks Condi Rice is a sweet Jew?
Turing word: form
“Neocon” has often been used as code for Zionist supporters / enablers and, when PNAC is invoked, for a specific set of Jews: Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al. These are the cabal of Jew infiltrators who are trying to control America for Israel’s interests, according to some folks. Just ask Gandhi next time he shows up here.
Of course, neocon doesn’t necessarily mean “Jew”—though the movement is tied to Irving Kristol—and in fact, it’s most common usage describes a place on the political spectrum (this is the way habit and convention would predict we’d interpret it, if we trusted the motives of the utterer). So to decide if it’s being used in a “coded” form, we try to estabish how the author is intending to use it. There are certain clues (proximity to “agenda” and “Zionists” and “Israel” have been useful in the past, and of course, knowing how the speaker himself has used the word in other contexts), but the bottom line is, any suggestion of what someone “meant” by something should appeal to intent; and in the example you give, it seems that the author is suggesting Sir John knew what he was doing, and so intended neocon to carry as part of it’s signified the secondary valence.
Thanks.
Turing word: choice
There are two issues in my view: whether a person intends to give offense and whether a person reasonably takes offense.
Does anyone really doubt that it is possible to reasonably take offense even if an offense was unintended? Whether the offense was intended or not seems more relevant to how much offense to take.
I am not suggesting anything about CQ, just contributing to the general dialogue. Many politicians are not especially articulate and couldn’t orate their way out of a paper bag, e.g. Harry Reid. Noting that a politician is a polished orator can be a compliment.
Willis’ outrage, not called for.
Charles sensitivity, not ridiculous.
Actually, that’s one issue. It is only reasonable to take offense if you believe the utterer intended the offense. Otherwise, at whom are you taking offense? And how is it reasonable to do so?
Wow. You really can’t write for shit.
Fortunately, no one has offered to pay Jeff in shit for his writing. Not that he would be obligated to accept it as legal tender, mind you.
Turing word: full, as in someone’s full of it.
Wow. You really can’t write for shit.
frameone,
Exceptional retort. You have proven yourself a master of articulation.
Yes. I’m full of shit but don’t forget, he’s the one that brought mime into this. And let’s also not forget, that as far as one could consider mime an expressive language, there are, indeed, inarticulate mimes. WTF else is mime school for?
I fucked you like a chicken, frameone. And I did it using my real name. So you knew who was fucking you.
Here, watch me do it again: just because there exists inarticulate mimes doesn’t mean mimes can’t be articulate. Which is presumably what happens when mimes graduate mime school.
Man. How does it feel to know I just made you my bitch again, and I did it while watching RENO 911, eating chips, and finishing up a crossword puzzle?
Cardinals —
Now come one. We all know that subconsciously Jeff is more pissed that I challenged his jargon-addled writing than my actual point.
Jeff —
Go back to my post at Oliver’s and click through my username.
No thanks. Either identify yourself here or don’t. I don’t care either way. After all, I’m not the one who got fucked like a chicken by a guy who can’t write for shit.
Does stating that a mime is inarticulate a compliment or a critique?
Maybe you guys could give us a ‘cheat sheet’ of all the redefined words that you’ve made up along the way in order to appease yourselves?
[…] (which I’ve noted is simply the natural order of things) not just idiots like Oliver Willis or the folks at Think Progress, but also Bill Kristol, the White House, and many on the right side […]
[…] than me, as well]: Tony Snow, or Captain Ed, or Larry Summers, or Bill Bennett, and on and on and on. THAT is the way I oppose such behavior, not by engaging in its bowdlerization or censorship. […]
[…] signs – a procedure that has rendered interpretation itself meaningless, given that we are battling over the “meaning” of different texts: the first created by the author as a speech act; the second created by the receiver without […]
[…] have argued for years that in accepting such an interpretative paradigm, we are allowing those for whom it is propitious […]