Language & Ecology Online Journal (2004) available from http://
www.ecoling.net/journal.html
Moving away from ecological
'political correctness'...
by
What makes Critical Discourse
Analysis critical is that it explicitly aims to challenge the discourses it
analyses. The reason for analysing racist discourse is not because it contains
particularly interesting uses of the passive voice, but in order to expose and
oppose the ideology embedded within it. Which brings us to
the thorny issue of verbal hygiene, one of the traditional ways of
attempting to challenge ideology in discourse.
The term 'verbal hygiene'
(Cameron 1995) refers to deliberate attempts to change language through
proscription of disfavoured forms and prescription of alternatives. It is easy
to think of examples in our everyday life, ranging from the mail deliverer
who brings our letters, to our former pets who have now been promoted to
companion animals.
Over the last few decades, verbal hygiene has been applied extensively to
sexism, racism, able-ism and, more recently, speciesism. Goatly (2000:278)
suggests that 'Similar campaigns might be launched ecologically.' One of the
examples he gives is the substitution of the word cancer for growth in
cases like:
The
lesson for
Using cancer
as a metaphor for growth 'draws attention to the fact that growth in an
already mature economy threatens the life-support systems of the planet'
(Goatly 200:278).
Indeed, cancer seems to be a particularly appropriate metaphor for economic
growth. However, fully fledged verbal hygiene would go beyond pointing out the
similarities between economic growth and cancer, towards proscribing the word
'growth' and prescribing 'cancer'.
The question of the
appropriateness and effectiveness of applying verbal hygiene to ecological
issues is an important one, particularly now because ecolinguistics is at an
early stage in its development. To get an idea of what the application of
verbal hygiene to ecological issues might look like, this article discusses a
major exercise in verbal hygiene conducted in the related area of speciesism
and published in the book Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (Dunayer
2001).
The central thesis of Animal
Equality is that ‘Deceptive language perpetuates speciesism, the failure to
accord nonhuman animals equal consideration and
respect’ (Dunayer 2001:1). This is backed up by hundreds of examples of the
language of those who oppress animals, including: science writers who ‘balk at
attributing emotions to nonhuman individuals’ through hedging, such as ‘she seemed
afraid’ (ibid:3), hunters who claim gut-shot nonhumans only ‘feel sick’
(ibit:47), sportfishers who ‘subdue’ rather than bludgeon fish (ibid: 65), zookeepers
who call cages ‘habitats’ (ibid:72), and vivisectors who ‘stimulate’ animals
rather than giving them electric shocks (ibid:109).
After detailed analysis of a wide
range of discourses implicated in animal oppression, Dunayer (2001:178ff) moves
beyond description to full-scale verbal hygiene, presenting a 23-page section
of style guidelines for countering speciesism. These guidelines consist of
terms and structures to use and to avoid. Thus, syntax that ‘buries nonhuman
animals inside a ... dependent clause’ should be avoided (ibid: 180), and
instead, syntax ‘that makes nonhuman animals the grammatical subject’ should be
used (p179). Likewise: beast, aquarium and dairy farmer
should be avoided and replaced with nonhuman animal, aquaprison
and cow enslaver respectively (ibid: pp.188, 191,194). Other terms which
Dunayer suggests are free-living nonhumans instead of wildlife
(ibid:189), genocide by hunting for overhunting
(ibid:190), torture a fish for play a fish (ibid:191), food-industry
captive for farm animal (ibid:193) and cattle abuser for cowboy
(ibid: 194).
These alternative phrasings
provide stark reminders of the horrors inflicted on other animals at the hands
of humans. However, there are several problems associated with verbal hygiene.
The main problem is the
conservative reaction to verbal hygiene in the form of an effective weapon
against overt attempts to change language: the charge of 'political
correctness.' As Fairclough (2003:21) points out, 'political correctness' and
being 'politically correct' are 'identifications imposed upon people by their
political opponents', providing 'a remarkably effective way of disorientating
sections of the left'.
The media frequently create
absurd examples mocking attempts to change language, such as 'vertically
challenged', 'personhole cover' (Mills 2003:89), and 'coffee without milk' -
supposedly used to avoid the racist term 'black coffee' (Fairclough 2003:25).
And along similar lines, respondents in a questionnaire about anti-speciesist
guidelines were adept in creating absurd examples. One respondent wrote 'You
mean at a fast food counter it would list "murdered bovine with brutally
massacred swine strips" when all I want is a bacon burger? What a JOKE!'. Overt attempts to change the language related to ecology
may receive a similar reception, as the following spoof suggests:
In
callous disregard for the well-being of the environment, and this one tree in
particular, he [a fireman rescuing a cat] thrust the disabled-unfriendly means
of ascent known as a "ladder" carelessly up against the tree, marring
its bark, and unfeelingly climbed it, unconcerned how his display of physical
prowess might injure the self-esteem of those differently abled (PC 2004)
A second problem is the piecemeal
way in which verbal hygienists criticise specific words or grammatical
constructions and, to paraphrase Goatly (2000:280), 'tinker' with vocabulary
and 'rejig' grammar. There is no guarantee that swapping bits of sentences for
other bits of sentences will provide a consistent and effective overall
discourse for expressing ecological issues. Anti-speciesist writing ends up
with a mixture of terms borrowed from discourses such as slavery, crime,
torture, murder and genocide, with awkward circumlocutions thrown in such as other-than-human-being
or even non-"domesticated" nonhumans. The result, when applied
strictly to texts, is a discordant discourse with conspicuous ideology. This
has already happened in areas such as sexism and racism, where, as Fairclough
(2003:25) points out, 'some (but only some)…discursive intervention smacked of
the arrogance, self-righteousness and Puritanism of an ultra-left politics, and
[has] caused widespread resentment even among people basically committed to
anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc.'
Another area of concern is that
when suggesting an alternative word, the alternative itself may have problems
associated with it. The word 'environment' is problematic because it separates
humans from everything else. We could suggest 'ecology', but as an 'ology', this
word also refers to a scientific discipline, and has the potential to connote a
distant relationship between observer and observed.
Because words are limited, all alternatives have their limitations; plurality
and awareness of limitations may be more appropriate than prescribing 'correct'
terms. The prescription of a single environmentally correct alternative closes
down the space for new alternatives, and rules out the possibility of using
'incorrect' terms in creative and effective ways.
When it comes to political
correctness, we can learn from anti-sexist campaigns, which 'have been made
problematic...because of...ridiculing of any attempts to reform or call for
change to sexist language...' (Mills 2003:90). Now, 'any anti-sexist language
campaign...has to define itself in contradistinction to what has been defined
as 'political correctness' by the media.' (ibid: 90).
Whatever direction ecolinguistics
takes in the future, it may be wise to maintain a little distance from
'political correctness'.
Note
An alternative to verbal hygiene
is poetic activism, discussed in article 3 of this magazine.
References
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene.
Dunayer, J. (2001). Animal
equality: language and liberation.
Fairclough, N. (2003). 'Political
Correctness': the politics of culture and language. Discourse & Society,
14 (1), 17-28
Goatly, Andrew. (2000) Critical reading and writing:
an introductory coursebook.
Mills, S. (2003). Caught between
sexism, anti-sexism and 'political correctness': feminist women's negations
with naming practices. Discourse & Society, 14(1), 87-110
PC (2004) Encyclopedia:
Political correctness available
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Political-correctness accessed
<close window to return>