The sentences and half-sentences I hear are like bushes with thorns and odd-shaped fruit.
I recognize the outline as that of a thought/bush, but so much of what I see/hear is
strange to me and resonates like an out of tune guitar.
A question I can't answer is: how much of this weird language is generated top-down?
How much is generated by the needs of people? How much is imposed by those
at the top of the social hierarchy? That the situation is complicated is shown by
sociolinguistic studies which have suggested that teenage women play an important role
in influencing the language of their peers.
At any rate, Chomsky seems spot on when he suggests that the term "special interests", in political discussions, is used precisely to refer to people without power......
What particularly troubled the Trilateral scholars was the “excess of democracy” during the time of troubles, the 1960s, when normally passive and apathetic parts of the population entered the political arena to advance their concerns: minorities, women, the young, the old, working people . . . in short, the population, sometimes called the “special interests.” They are to be distinguished from those whom Adam Smith called the “masters of mankind,” who are “the principal architects” of government policy and pursue their “vile maxim”: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people.” The role of the masters in the political arena is not deplored, or discussed, in the Trilateral volume, presumably because the masters represent “the national interest,” like those who applauded themselves for leading the country to war “after the utmost deliberation by the more thoughtful members of the community” had reached its “moral verdict.
Thanks to Professor Leiter for drawing my attention to this essay.
No comments:
Post a Comment