I think I agree with a lot of what the author is saying.
However, their article is painfully turgid. Ironically, it may therefore demonstrate the very point it's trying to make. (-8
A larger problem that I see, however, is that a great many people in the USA have a very narrowed perspective - perhaps "lazy aspiration" is a nice term for it. They only want the things they've been brought up to want: money, consumer durables, convenience, safety, liberty, a partner, children, to go to heaven when they die.
At least superficially, those are all good things. It's very easy for the proponents of the status quo to imply that anyone who thinks you ought to want something else, also thinks you should be prepared to forego some of those things.
To get an idea into such people's minds, it has to be expressed in those terms. This is why American phenomena that seem unbelievably crass to us, such as environmental campaigns wrapped up as "what car would Jesus drive?", are commonplace.
The subversives can't create themselves a language of subversion; subversion is already one of the things the people emphatically don't want. Instead, they have to subvert the language that's already in use. This may be difficult, or even impossible.
According to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis, if the powers that be devalue the American language sufficiently far, people will no longer be able to think dissident thoughts using it. 1984, here we come.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 02:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-18 04:00 pm (UTC)However, their article is painfully turgid. Ironically, it may therefore demonstrate the very point it's trying to make. (-8
A larger problem that I see, however, is that a great many people in the USA have a very narrowed perspective - perhaps "lazy aspiration" is a nice term for it. They only want the things they've been brought up to want: money, consumer durables, convenience, safety, liberty, a partner, children, to go to heaven when they die.
At least superficially, those are all good things. It's very easy for the proponents of the status quo to imply that anyone who thinks you ought to want something else, also thinks you should be prepared to forego some of those things.
To get an idea into such people's minds, it has to be expressed in those terms. This is why American phenomena that seem unbelievably crass to us, such as environmental campaigns wrapped up as "what car would Jesus drive?", are commonplace.
The subversives can't create themselves a language of subversion; subversion is already one of the things the people emphatically don't want. Instead, they have to subvert the language that's already in use. This may be difficult, or even impossible.
According to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis, if the powers that be devalue the American language sufficiently far, people will no longer be able to think dissident thoughts using it. 1984, here we come.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-08-19 12:40 am (UTC)