A bluff to snuff
A symptom of the age? Beyond the doublespeak, we also have carefully loaded terms. Take this one: 'I don't believe in X'. If X is angels or aliens, I have no complaints. But X is sometimes 'sesame seeds on pizza crust' or 'same-sex marriage'. You could argue that 'I don't believe in sesame seeds on pizza crust' is just synonymous for 'I don't like sesame seeds on pizza crust'; just a new-fashioned way of saying it. I think there's more to it. I would guess that either an evil wordsmith or an unconscious one got the better of someone somewhere some time ago, and invented the farce of 'I don't believe in X'.
Here's the logic. 'I don't believe' carries more authority and weight than 'I don't like/approve of'. Lack of belief in something is meant to coincide with reasons not to believe in it. I don't believe in unicorns because I have good reasons to believe they don't exist (no geological evidence; they have not been found among present species, while most regions have been explored, etc.). On the other hand, the connotations of 'I don't like' are only that my tastes are specific and limited, as are everyone's. Someone can answer 'I don't like' with 'That's nice. I do.' So, 'I don't believe in X' connotes that there are reasons not to believe in X (even if I don't supply them), while 'I don't like X' connotes untrammeled personal choice.
And here's the new wrinkle: the use of 'I don't believe in X' in cases where X obviously exists. 'I don't believe in sesame seeds on pizza crust' then serves as a way of saying 'No to sesame seeds on pizza crust -- would it were that pizza crust didn't have sesame seeds' rather than the more humble, 'None on mine, please.' It's an invitation and recommendation to deny reality to something; to appropriate the connotation of 'I don't believe in X' (there are impersonal, everywhere-applicable reasons not to believe in X) for the purpose of globalizing a personal preference.
Maybe I'm just harping on Rhetoric Millennium 3.0 -- after all, one of the original "trivial" disciplines is allowed progress, right? But it bugs me. When language is likely to have a component of subliminal advocacy, all participants should know as much: as when a reader ventures into a debate, or into an editorial, or into a poem.
Here's the logic. 'I don't believe' carries more authority and weight than 'I don't like/approve of'. Lack of belief in something is meant to coincide with reasons not to believe in it. I don't believe in unicorns because I have good reasons to believe they don't exist (no geological evidence; they have not been found among present species, while most regions have been explored, etc.). On the other hand, the connotations of 'I don't like' are only that my tastes are specific and limited, as are everyone's. Someone can answer 'I don't like' with 'That's nice. I do.' So, 'I don't believe in X' connotes that there are reasons not to believe in X (even if I don't supply them), while 'I don't like X' connotes untrammeled personal choice.
And here's the new wrinkle: the use of 'I don't believe in X' in cases where X obviously exists. 'I don't believe in sesame seeds on pizza crust' then serves as a way of saying 'No to sesame seeds on pizza crust -- would it were that pizza crust didn't have sesame seeds' rather than the more humble, 'None on mine, please.' It's an invitation and recommendation to deny reality to something; to appropriate the connotation of 'I don't believe in X' (there are impersonal, everywhere-applicable reasons not to believe in X) for the purpose of globalizing a personal preference.
Maybe I'm just harping on Rhetoric Millennium 3.0 -- after all, one of the original "trivial" disciplines is allowed progress, right? But it bugs me. When language is likely to have a component of subliminal advocacy, all participants should know as much: as when a reader ventures into a debate, or into an editorial, or into a poem.
posted by Christopher Phelps at 6/30/2006 09:20:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home