The Language Fascist strikes again!

[sabotabby]

I just came across the term "material solidarity" in an (otherwise well-intentioned) e-mail. What they meant, I think, was "aid."

Is anyone else getting sick of the way corporatespeak, or at least the structures of corporatespeak -- euphemism, jargon, etc. -- has infiltrated activist vocabulary? All of a sudden, I'm hearing about "point-people" and "bottom-lining." (One friend remarked: "You [the Wobblies] still use 'secretary'? Why?" Because it's the most accurate description of the task. Why else?)

It actually irritates me more than "wimmin" and "persyn," fundamentally misguided though those may be. Corporatespeak is pernicious in any context because it robs the language of meaning. In the realms of business and government, this is done for very specific reasons -- to shift accountability and to obscure information. ("The functionality of the copy machine has been compromised by our Associate Coffee/Errand Assistant I." vs. "The intern broke the copier.")

So what does it mean when we do it?

I'm out of here for the night. Politicos and language geeks -- discuss.

Comments

[teapolitik.livejournal.com]

Yes. All of what you said is true. But it isn't really the phenomenon I'm describing. Subjectivity exists, of course. But abusing or scapegoating subjectivity to avoid being caught in an error is not an honest or effective way to communicate.

[see-my-glock.livejournal.com]

okay, i see what youre getting at. please excuse my error in comprehension, i was quite exhausted last night and have the flu.