Language is a vital thread in the rich tapestry of culture. Some are subdued, others deeply embedded with rich metaphors. Subtle nuances in sarcasm, colloquialism and tone offer an insight into the complexities that shape part of the people who speak them. What I mean, as a somewhat jaded and cynical Brit, when I say ‘I’m fine’, is that things are probably going terribly. In China, emotive expression is notoriously absent from the practicalities of linguistics, while Spanish offers an array of delicate idioms to express ‘I miss you’, one of which literally translates to ‘I lack you’.
But language is more than a method of communication; it is a key component to being understood, not just in terms of explaining reality, but also in providing insight into the self. A speaker’s sentences are highly individualized, influenced by a desired outcome from the intended audience, but ultimately determined by something far more personal. A listener’s response similarly so, and both ultimately reveal characteristics, traits, and fundamentally, beliefs of an individual, that enable us to discover and understand each other, as well as the environments we came from while navigating our present surroundings.
It is a crucial carrier of intent, expressed through the arrangement and meaning of the words used. But meaning is now subject to interpretation rather than understanding, and the way we understand each other is being replaced with something that is steadily eroding the value and necessity of meaning. Without meaning, we cannot communicate, instead speaking endlessly into a void where no-one can hear anything but their own perspectives.
Focusing on my native tongue, English, words have been remoulded and rewritten to adapt to ever-evolving contemporary social contexts at a staggering rate. The acceleration of narrative transformation has taken place in direct correlation with the rise of social demands and movements.
Linguistically, an entire arena of vocabulary has been specialised — if not gradually weaponsied — in order to maximise expressions for the impact of threats (perceived or not) to social justice while all but entirely removing pathways to understanding, educating and forgiving. A self-assured, insistent and renewed definition of what is right and wrong has consequently arisen. Combined, they have formed an entirely new narrative, in which we can only speak in terms of marginalized and privileged.
Within that framework, words have not only changed meaning, but are beginning to lose the impact of their original — and intended — connotation. For instance, things that are just uncomfortable or unlikable now have the opportunity to be described and accepted as threatening. The spectrum of expression and association has widened to encompass a range of negative impacts, while also narrowing to prevent the existence of any other possibilities for meaning itself, since intent is cancelled. While it is certainly beneficial to have a variety of words to directly describe the very real and present array of slights and aggression, the words themselves are so reliant on the language of harm that the terms and viewpoints available to adequately discuss them have been filtered out. Ironically, they too are now deemed harmful.
As such, we have created glossaries to redefine meaning itself and developed environments of safety as protection from the potential impact of harmful language. This is not to say that there are not systemic problems within society that we should absolutely strive to change, and social groups that indeed require protection. But there is a difference between protecting those who feel afraid or threatened by being who they are and believing what they believe, and denying spaces for critical thinking, debate and social progress, since they may be considered violent and threatening on the basis of being a different opinion to that of the socially dominant movement.
Even disagreement over something completely removed from any connection to a social cause can now, through a seemingly infinite lexicon for oppression, be dubbed harmful by a person who simply disapproves. The word ‘harm’ has itself become both specific and widely applicable, enabling the conflation of things that are not actually harmful with things that genuinely are, whether intentionally and not. Since entire acts, even ideas, are now instantaneously considered harmful, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between that which requires awareness and support and that which is probably a reflection of a personal, isolated perspective, or an emotional response that has little to do with a grander cause and more to do with an individual experience.
The current debate begins with dividing between who is the aggressor and who is the victim, reaching ironic heights of an aggressor calling victim to a victim who is behaving aggressively. People no longer have the option of being wrong or changing, and in turn, our language towards one other has shifted from transformative, insightful, empathetic, to scathing, aggressive and dismissive. We are quick to magnify a fault and interpret subconscious thoughts, but to what gain?
The ultimate aim in rewriting the current social narrative is to provide focus on the smaller — literally, micro — instances of aggression through language and conversation in order to highlight a larger social pattern. But what if this creates greater alienation rather than broader unity?
Derald Wing Sue defined the concept of microaggression as,
verbal, behavioural and environmental dignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial, gender, and sexual orientation, and religious insults to the target person or group.
The difficulty with a seemingly well-defined explanation of a now all-too prevalent social concept is that it isn’t particularly well defined at all, notably since anyone deemed to be ‘micro-aggressing’ has no possible line of defense or explanation. Intent is irrelevant, and thus, so is meaning. So while attempting to define a particular type of behaviour, Sue’s definition, which has become widely regarded as universal, turns in on itself and actually becomes a subjective label of assignment, an act of morality turned personal and inescapable.
The same moral advocates for diversity and equal opportunity for self-expression can often simultaneously deny the same things to those who do not agree with their social perspective. Events are forbidden, society polarised to the extreme and entire people ‘cancelled’, as if destroying their existence somehow fixes the grander social problem or replaces prejudice with awareness in the targeted individual. Language now seems only manageable through a binary polarisation of two sides, where one is the only acceptable way and should never be challenged, and the other is entirely unacceptable and should never be heard.
Since people’s social groups both off- and on-line tend to reflect our own personal values and perspectives, it’s unlikely that any of us will directly engage with someone at length who holds an entirely opposing view. (An angry Twitter thread doesn’t count.) Disagreements, misunderstandings, even a lack of awareness, can only be addressed through constructive debate and open conversation. And while the doors for having these conversations have indeed been opened far wider than ever before through the use of the internet and social media, aggression has quickly stepped in to stand in the doorway. In essence, there is a lack of empathy — and without empathy, there can ultimately be no further development of humanity.
So while there are platforms for discussion around social issues, they are more instructional than exploratory. For the majority of people who have grown up in a socially-conscious world, a bias could be unconscious, if not totally under-explored or misunderstood. There is also human error, confusion, misplaced perspectives owing to environmental pressures or influences. And while there are ‘safe spaces’ for those who feel victimised, those who perpetuate or inadvertently create the need for such spaces have nowhere to learn how not to. They are ostracised, strung up across social media, cancelled. Rather than respectful social growth, there is an almost arrogant expectation that if an error is made, malice must have been intended; if a question is asked to understand the concerns of the oppressed, that person must therefore be an oppressor.
The entire concept of political correctness exists because we have redefined what words are permissible and what are not. And while I wholly agree that there are words that no longer have a place in a progressive, modern society, such morally expectant concepts are not only built around trigger words, but dictate the meaning of speech entirely.
Interpretations now matter more than intention, as modern morality becomes less about ethical discovery and more about perceptions of immorality.
This new approach to language and meaning utilises morality not as a means to an end, but a beginning of something potentially catastrophic for communication. While emotive and sentimental responses are an understandable by-product of decades if not centuries of social inequality and injustice, the motivation behind the dismissal of meaning has led to people being told what they mean despite not meaning that at all.
The same questions often take on different meanings according to different recipients. This in itself creates a deep-rooted irony of hyper-conscious language relative to being aware of an ‘otherness’ or the potential for ‘harm’, in order to address issues concerning those who exist in a sphere of otherness. For instance, I have been subject to questions about my background throughout my, and have lived in many different cities across the world. Asking where I, or someone else, is from, both in terms of citizenship and heritage — which are audio-visually not the same thing, for me at least — is something I am equally proud and comfortable to state and discuss. However, another ethnic minority or person of colour may indeed take offense at the question, operating under the assumption that raising questions about ‘otherness’ is intended which they perceive to only mean negative racial connotations.
The logical embodiment of words is increasingly overshadowed by an emotive interpretation that is rooted in a certainty of malice and victimhood. We have become so critical of what people may be thinking based on what we perceive them to be saying, without taking the time to think critically about what they’re actually saying. Sometimes, it could be racist, and is intended to be so. But most of the time, it probably isn’t. To assume meaning completely detracts from the purpose of language itself, and removes the possibility of discussing how the fabric of language is changing in line with our social landscape. Above all, the canvas for individual ideologies — and our understanding of wider ideologies — is far bigger than can be appreciated in a moment of reactive conviction.
People have as much of a right to be wrong, mistaken, even entirely misled as a result of surroundings, influence and upbringing, for example, as you do to tell them that they are.
More importantly, the one who speaks, asks, discusses, is the only one who can truly be certain of their meaning — and their intent should always matter. Entire swathes of society now exist perpetually seeking slights and attack without ever verifying meaning or intent, operating on language as an emotive representation of social views.
What we say is shaped by meaning, which itself is determined by intent. To entirely eliminate intent and replace it with assumption is to completely destroy language as a means of communication, connection and progress, and in turn, erode any meaning at all.
