Die Neue Zeit
7th December 2015, 00:29
How to do better things with words
By "modulus"
The left has historically concerned itself with language and its use, given the need to engage in agitation and propaganda. Some of our efforts in trying to improve our communication strategies are, deservedly or not, classics of the genre, such as Orwell’s Politics and the English Language. This won’t be the last attempt to intervene, and in fact its existence is largely due to previous and entirely well-intentioned attempts to shift the way the left speaks to itself and others. It will inevitably contain its own errors and excesses, but it’s a necessary part of the conversation.
This article will focus on communication not only as a means to spread our ideas to those who don’t share them, but as a way to improve them through dialogue, to learn from other comrades, and to help in building organisations.
First come some basic declarations of premises on which this article is founded. If you fundamentally disagree with them, you may reach very different conclusions. It may seem superfluous to make these disclaimers, but some of these commitments aren’t universally adhered to, as will be shown.
Commitments on the role and scope of communication
Communication is possible
Different people, of diverse conditions (class, gender…) can use language to transmit ideas to each other, not necessarily with perfect fidelity, but well enough to understand and make oneself understood. This also presupposes the existence of social facts (intersubjectivity).
Communication is desirable
We want to engage with other people both for the purposes of spreading the left’s ideas and programme, but also in order to engage in dialogue with different views, enhancing our understanding and the scope of our positions through synthesis and consensus whenever possible.
Communication is rational
Talking to others, we expect that interlocutors can justify their positions through argument, and that there are better and worse justifications for views. Consensus on the facts is possible when people communicate honestly, in spite of their potential conflicting interests.
Knowledge is shareable
Whether objective (external to persons), intersubjective (created by the relations between persons), or subjective (existing within the person), it is possible to share and to understand knowledge gained and presented by other people, even across differences in experience. This understanding doesn’t have to be complete, but sufficient to operate on.
These premises refer to communication in its primary facet of transmitting information between agents. This is not the only role of communication, however. Human communication is an embodied activity involving social agents, not merely an informational transaction between atomic ideal individuals. Expressive acts have a performative, active dimension, which is of special relevance in determining the boundaries of communities, policing acceptable behaviour, distinguishing allies from adversaries, and generally establishing the necessary prerequisites of human relations which permit and underlie dialectical commitments.3 This work is primarily focused on the informational, non-performative aspects of communication, although occasional references to non-informational concerns will be made.
Additionally, it’s important to remark that the object of this article is not to create a new orthodox language, or to package a recipe for argumentation–an infeasible project. This is not said from a reflexive hatred of orthodoxy, but from the recognition that communication is contextual, and that many different tactics are effective in different circumstances. Considerations on this article are meant to get people to reflect on their own communication style.
More: http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/modulus/2015/10/23/how-to-do-better-things-with-words
By "modulus"
The left has historically concerned itself with language and its use, given the need to engage in agitation and propaganda. Some of our efforts in trying to improve our communication strategies are, deservedly or not, classics of the genre, such as Orwell’s Politics and the English Language. This won’t be the last attempt to intervene, and in fact its existence is largely due to previous and entirely well-intentioned attempts to shift the way the left speaks to itself and others. It will inevitably contain its own errors and excesses, but it’s a necessary part of the conversation.
This article will focus on communication not only as a means to spread our ideas to those who don’t share them, but as a way to improve them through dialogue, to learn from other comrades, and to help in building organisations.
First come some basic declarations of premises on which this article is founded. If you fundamentally disagree with them, you may reach very different conclusions. It may seem superfluous to make these disclaimers, but some of these commitments aren’t universally adhered to, as will be shown.
Commitments on the role and scope of communication
Communication is possible
Different people, of diverse conditions (class, gender…) can use language to transmit ideas to each other, not necessarily with perfect fidelity, but well enough to understand and make oneself understood. This also presupposes the existence of social facts (intersubjectivity).
Communication is desirable
We want to engage with other people both for the purposes of spreading the left’s ideas and programme, but also in order to engage in dialogue with different views, enhancing our understanding and the scope of our positions through synthesis and consensus whenever possible.
Communication is rational
Talking to others, we expect that interlocutors can justify their positions through argument, and that there are better and worse justifications for views. Consensus on the facts is possible when people communicate honestly, in spite of their potential conflicting interests.
Knowledge is shareable
Whether objective (external to persons), intersubjective (created by the relations between persons), or subjective (existing within the person), it is possible to share and to understand knowledge gained and presented by other people, even across differences in experience. This understanding doesn’t have to be complete, but sufficient to operate on.
These premises refer to communication in its primary facet of transmitting information between agents. This is not the only role of communication, however. Human communication is an embodied activity involving social agents, not merely an informational transaction between atomic ideal individuals. Expressive acts have a performative, active dimension, which is of special relevance in determining the boundaries of communities, policing acceptable behaviour, distinguishing allies from adversaries, and generally establishing the necessary prerequisites of human relations which permit and underlie dialectical commitments.3 This work is primarily focused on the informational, non-performative aspects of communication, although occasional references to non-informational concerns will be made.
Additionally, it’s important to remark that the object of this article is not to create a new orthodox language, or to package a recipe for argumentation–an infeasible project. This is not said from a reflexive hatred of orthodoxy, but from the recognition that communication is contextual, and that many different tactics are effective in different circumstances. Considerations on this article are meant to get people to reflect on their own communication style.
More: http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/modulus/2015/10/23/how-to-do-better-things-with-words