ozarque ([info]ozarque) wrote,
@ 2007-09-19 08:32:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Linguistics; political language; ethical question; part two
Thank you for all your excellent and thoughtful comments and responses in this discussion; they're very much appreciated. And I'm so pleased. Because it seems to me that you've more than adequately answered the question (with its clarification) that was posed by [info]starcat_jewel, and there appears to be a near-consensus on these two points:


1. It's not ethical to use a story that you know is false just because you know that it will work -- whether your goal is to get a spirited discussion of an issue going, or to persuade others to change their perceptions of that issue, or both.

2. That doesn't mean you can't use the story. It just means that you have to word it in such a way that it will be easily recognized as a parable, or as some analogous hypothetical form, rather than as a factual report.

And you suggested a variety of different ways to put that second point into effect.


So suppose we start with that infamous story of The Wicked Welfare Queen, which almost everyone has agreed would be unethical to use in the form that Ronald Reagan presented it...

Generic Version

"You know what really gets to me? Makes my blood boil? I work like a dog, just trying to keep a roof over my family's head and food on our table, and I pay every last damn penny of my taxes! And what does the government do with my money? Hey... let me tell you what they do with it! They give it to a Welfare Queen that drives around in a fancy pink Cadillac, and wears a mink coat, and has $150,000.00 in her bank account.... You know what's in my bank account? Maybe enough to pay my phone bill, if I'm lucky! And you know why that is? It's because most of my money, what I make working my tail off every single day, goes to the damn Welfare Queens!"

... and we revise it to make it clear that it's not intended to be factual; like this, for example:

Revised Generic Version

"You know what really gets to me? Makes my blood boil? Hearing people tell that crazy story about a Welfare Queen that drives around in a fancy pink Cadillac and wears a mink coat and has $150,000.00 in her bank account, when they know perfectly well that there's no such person and never has been any such person!"

I think that would be just as effective as a way of getting a discussion going and would introduce the same conversation points, without introducing the ethical problems.

[I have not forgotten, however, that many of you would prefer a more elegant English register than the one I use; feel free to post alternative revisions that you'd be more comfortable with.]

(Post a new comment)


[info]jbsegal
2007-09-19 02:27 pm UTC (link)
The problem I see with the revised version above comes from one of the NPR shows over the past week (Sadly, that's all of the details I recall) where there was someone on who'd been studying how well people remember truth versus lies.

By my understanding of his presentation, people will remember that story, but will NOT remember the negation of it.
In order for it to properly memorable, I think it has to be rephrased as an all-positive statement…

Yes, I know how vague this is. Ah, for radio-tivo.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-09-19 04:58 pm UTC (link)
Your subconscious mind doesn't remember, or even understand, negations. For example, if you want to stop smoking, and you encourage yourself by repeating, "I will not smoke today", your subconscious mind picks up on "...smoke today".

The trick is to focus on what you want to accomplish, not what you want to overcome. For example, "War is over, if you want it." Even that's risky, though. It would be a surer thing without any reference to war. "Peace reigns, if you want it."

Meg Umans

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]kelsied
2007-09-19 05:23 pm UTC (link)
I'm reminded of the political campaign that called up whatever TV news program it was and thanked them for the extra air time... the news program had just run a "truth in advertising" article dissecting the campaign's advertisement piece by piece.

And here we have a perfect example of why the details aren't important. Two years later, nobody remembers them anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-09-20 06:45 am UTC (link)
(Michael Farris)

Related I think. It's not a good idea to give people negative orders (do not do X) as the negative part is often ignored.

My mother spent 3-4 months of the year travelling through the plains states (she lived in Florida). Doing a sort of folk-art pr (hard to explain here). Anyway, she dealt with a local club of some sort in each town (usually a service organization run by women or of children supervised by women) that took orders for her.

She always mailed a letter to her contact person in each town telling them "please do NOT, I repeat do NOT send the orders to me in Florida" and every year several did just that (I think always a person working with her the first time or in a club where communication wasn't optimal). They were always flustered when they realized what they'd done and had no idea how they missed the bold all caps NOT's.

Whenever I have to give instructions I try to always do so in positive terms, stressing what the person should do, not what they should not do, because .... in the case above I would have written "keep the orders with you", "keep the orders for me so you can give them to me when I arrive".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-09-20 06:49 am UTC (link)
(Michael Farris)

In the interest of credibility, I should have edited myself

"It's not a good idea to give people negative orders"

maybe

"It's a good idea to avoid giving negative orders"

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]solri
2007-09-19 02:37 pm UTC (link)
I think that's a fair point: you can tell any story, so long as it's plain that it's a story. On the other hand, it certainly diminishes the impact of the Welfare Queen story.

Incidentally, I sometimes rework stories to fit the cultural context. Here in Turkey, there are a load of funny but educational stories about Nasrettin Hoca, a Sufi figure renowned for his weird logic. I sometimes tell Zen stories, rewriting them to have Nasrettin as the main character.

(Reply to this)

[info]dpolicar
2007-09-19 03:35 pm UTC (link)
Hee! I like that approach.
I have no idea if it works or not, but it pleases me.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Response to dpolicar...
[info]ozarque
2007-09-20 01:29 pm UTC (link)
Thank you. I think it would work.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ingulf
2007-09-19 03:53 pm UTC (link)
You know, this reminds me of the story, "The Man Who Planted Trees" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees) by Jean Giono. It has exactly this problem: It is fiction, but there is nothing to indicate that it's fiction. Many people are very upset when they discover that the protagonist does not exist.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]ingulf
2007-09-19 04:14 pm UTC (link)
Err, I should point out that that wikipedia article has a spoiler for the story in it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Response to ingulf...
[info]ozarque
2007-09-19 06:07 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for that link; it's an excellent example of the ethical question we've been discussing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]kelsied
2007-09-19 05:21 pm UTC (link)
Well, except. The first story is for. The second story is against. So if I wanted to do this in support of something I cared about, I'd first have to invent a straw man, and then I'd have to debunk him... which risks unleashing the straw man I wanted to debunk into the world, in his undebunked state. Why give my opponents more ammunition?

Also, I think the second version is too complicated to succeed. How do you sound-byte a series of hems and haws and conditionals and disclaimers? I can sound-byte "Cadillac Welfare Scam-artists" in three memorable words.

Plus, you open yourself to accusations of partisanship. "Oh yeah? You're so quick to dismiss, but what proof do you have?" when it's ridiculously difficult to prove a negative. Or "So what alternative are you proposing?"

I mean, what alternative are we proposing?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]amjbarnhart
2007-09-19 05:39 pm UTC (link)
The "revised generic version" appeared, to me, to be the refutation. --To be used immediately after the "generic version." Perhaps with stress on the word "me".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]kelsied
2007-09-19 07:21 pm UTC (link)
Ah. That "to be used immediately after the 'generic version'" clarifies this significantly.

So it's a way to debunk that kind of story, rather than a replacement for that kind of story?

I'll just observe, then, that I think this is likely to backfire when it hits the real world. Because you will get people who will passionately say things like "no, but there really are people who do that!" To them, it's practically an article of faith.

The conversations generally go like this:

"What kills me are those cadillac-driving welfare jerks."
"Okay, you know that's just a story. Nobody's actually getting that much money out of welfare."
"No, there really are people who do that!"
"Do you know any firsthand?"
"No."
"Have you ever seen any yourself?"
"No."
"Then how can you be so sure?"
"Well, my brother's father-in-law's priest's son's college roommate said it was true...."

For those who recognize this for a classic "urban myth" format, you're absolutely spot on. Same dynamic EXACTLY, only people are even less willing to believe it's fake.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Response to kelsied...
[info]ozarque
2007-09-20 01:03 pm UTC (link)
"I mean, what alternative are we proposing?"

If only we had the answer to that question....

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]maevele
2007-09-19 09:45 pm UTC (link)
People have a problem with what register of English you use? That is so odd to me. I appreciate the fact that even though you have education and knowledge oozing from your pores, you still talk like people.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]vvvexation
2007-09-20 12:09 am UTC (link)
*nods vigorously*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Response to vvvexation...
[info]ozarque
2007-09-20 01:07 pm UTC (link)
And thank you as well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Response to maevele...
[info]ozarque
2007-09-20 01:06 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for the encouraging words, which are very welcome. You can't imagine how many endless hours I've spent struggling with copy editors over my determination to write my books and articles in that register.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]redhawke
2007-09-20 05:44 am UTC (link)
I've stayed out of this discussion until now (and maybe I should continue that exercise of likely prudence), but I see a problem or two with your Revised Generic Version.

First, the Generic Version has specific details of story, many of which resonate, quite honestly, because enough people have seen examples in their own life that are close enough to the GV to make it inherently plausible.

Second, the RGV merely asserts the most basic supporting "facts" without support (and in fact falls into what I consider a basic fallacy of many "progressive" arguments, namely, that it assumes that "anyone that matters simply knows the facts asserted), which means the RGV starts one step behind if it wants to convince any but the already-converted, which I take it is your goal.

Example: I live in an area that borders an area of "economic scarcity." When I shop at the nearest supermarket to me (about six blocks), about one time in two, I wind up behind someone using food stamps. This is something of an inconvenience, but it is an inconvenience I understand, and so do not tend to complain about.* However, about a month ago, I stood in the express lane behind someone running WIC checks for milk, apple juice, and bread (standard staples). I then ran my purchases through, and wound up walking out of the store directly behind this person - right to their car (which was parked next to mine) - a Lexus SUV, with a push-button remote rear-opening door - MSRP between $40,000 and $67,000. Hell, a lease on these suckers runs $600-800/month. So you can say that the "Welfare Queen" doesn't exist, but it's hard for me to take you at your word without more, given that I have seen enough to at least make it plausible. And I sincerely doubt that my experience is so far removed from the average person's that the RGV will convince anyone without concrete examples.

In short, if I were to "re-write" the GV, I might say the following:

You know what really gets to me? Makes my blood boil? The fact that the welare system, for as much as a person could game it, still provides so little for the average person who finds themselves in real need. As frustrating as it must be to see someone who's getting something they don't deserve, imagine how frustrating it must be for those who, by doing everything right, still wind up fighting just to survive, and at the same time have the average person think they're just like those cheaters. What we need to do is simplify the system so that those who really deserve it get more, not just the cheaters.

It acknowledges the weakness in one's own argument, so neutralizing it, and turns it back on the listener by taking away the "yeah, but..." reaction. FWIW.



* Though I do tend to feel a frustration when they inevitably wind up in the express lane - the one clearly marked "No WIC." It is not marked "No WIC" because the market wishes to marginalize those shoppers. It is so marked because running someone through WIC takes multiple transactions and slows the express lane to a crawl, thus defeating the purpose of the express lane. However, because the law states that the market may not discriminate in any way against WIC recipients, even though it inconveniences everyone else, the market must serve them in whatever line they choose. I suspect that this situation is also a not-uncommon experience that makes the "Welfare Queen" story more plausible for many.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]leora
2007-09-20 06:42 am UTC (link)
That person may have been cheating, but there are other possibilities. For example, the person may have been borrowing the car. The person might not even own a car and sometimes manage to borrow someone else's so they can get some groceries. People around me drive other people's cars all the time because friends are willing to lend them out when they're not using them and they don't own cars. It's also possible for someone who is very poor to have friends or family who are well off, but who aren't supporting them, or not sufficiently, but will help out in some ways, like lending a car.

I also wonder if it's possible to use someone else's food stamps for them. I'm not sure as I haven't looked into it. Another possibility is that the food stamps belong to someone who can't get out much; disability and poverty often go together. The person you saw may have been buying groceries and delivering them to someone who can't easily take care of those needs for themselves.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Response to redhawke...
[info]ozarque
2007-09-20 01:22 pm UTC (link)
I welcome any and all proposed rewrites of the GV -- the more the merrier -- and I thank you for posting yours. The only problem that I see with it is that instead of being a story it's an intricate presentation of a set of logical arguments. [Using the word "argument" here in its technical sense.] Orally, it's going to be hard to understand unless the person you're speaking to is willing to do quite a lot of hard cognitive work.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]neonchameleon
2007-09-20 12:53 pm UTC (link)
My view on the revised version is that you need to explicitly state that it is a lie at the start of the sentence. I'd therefore go for something like:

"You know what really gets to me? Makes my blood boil? Hearing people make up lies like the Welfare Queen and her fancy pink Cadillac. If I'd told a tale like that, my nan would have washed my mouth out with soapy water.


The focus IMNSHO* needs to be on the lies rather than the actual lies being told. (And I don't think that associating the act of such lying with distateful punishments used for kids will hurt).

* In My Not So Humble Opinion

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Response to neonchameleon....
[info]ozarque
2007-09-20 01:26 pm UTC (link)
You make a very good point, and I like your revision. I wonder if it doesn't maybe need just one more detail -- either the mink coat or the big bank account -- for the listeners who are too young to remember the Ronald Reagan version and haven't heard the story before.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…