[Linganth] CDC Language ban
Charles Briggs
clbriggs at berkeley.edu
Sat Jan 6 17:46:42 UTC 2018
Even if this issue has fallen out of the news cycle, it might be of
interest to see a blog post that I wrote about it, which engages both
linguistic and medical anthropology perspectives.
http://somatosphere.net/2018/01/beyond-banned-words.html
Best,
Charles
On 12/22/17 11:18 AM, Wendy Klein wrote:
> I think the Slate column by Daniel Engber fails to address an
> important issue. The selective avoidance of these specific words in
> policy documents reflects the power of the current administration and
> those on the far right to enforce a type of moral hegemony in defining
> and valuing certain people/bodies over others.
> In this environment, certain words and concepts index a threat to the
> TrumPencian agenda. By self-censoring, these officials are normalizing
> the ideological perspectives they are attempting to circumvent. I am
> reminded of Chaise LaDousa's term "uneven agency" in practices of
> interpretation and the role of language use in mediating agency.
> In moving forward, I wonder how linguistic anthropologists (including
> those with expertise on language and the law) might help in crafting
> legislation to ensure the rights of people currently being dismissed
> or invisibilized in the current political climate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wendy Klein
> Associate Professor
> Departments of Anthropology and Linguistics
> California State University, Long Beach
> 1250 Bellflower Blvd.
> Long Beach, CA 90840
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Linganth [linganth-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] on
> behalf of Galey Modan [gmodan at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 22, 2017 9:07 AM
> *To:* Steven Black
> *Cc:* LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Linganth] CDC Language ban
>
> I think it's also important in this discussion to keep in mind that
> different types of words -- concrete vs. abstract nouns -- have
> different limits in semantic flexibility, and different consequences
> if they cannot be used. The consequences of not being able to use
> "diversity" in a budget proposal are quite different than those around
> not being able to use "transgender" or "fetus".
>
> Galey
>
> 2017-12-22 8:45 GMT-05:00 Steven Black <stevepblack at gmail.com
> <mailto:stevepblack at gmail.com>>:
>
> Hi Eric and all,
>
> It /is/ a struggle over words, but obviously not just words; and
> these words and their application shape policy and practice, as
> Charles Briggs and his co-authors have demonstrated in their
> analysis of biocommunicability. Communication and health are
> co-constitutive. In comparative perspective, Susan Blum and I have
> been discussing how some of the particulars of the “ban” fit a
> much broader pattern of conservatives co-opting concepts and thus
> altering their meaning to fit their policy agenda. For instance,
> “colorblind” was once a key term in affirmative action policies,
> whereas now it is used by those who are dismantling affirmative
> action. “Religious freedom” was once central to discourses about
> allowing religious diversity and separation of church and state,
> whereas now it means not having to serve cakes to LGBTQ persons
> (among other more serious reprocussions). And in this latest ban,
> “community wishes” is central to public health/ med anth, where it
> is used to encourage culturally-sensitive public health efforts,
> but now it is being used to mean /not/ being sensitive to the
> needs and wishes of entire segments of the population—namely not
> attending to the perspectives/ needs of LGBTQ communities—but
> instead attending to the perspectives of a dwindling but powerful
> segment of far-right groups. Susan Blum, Lal Zimman, and I are
> currently working on a brief piece outlining this and other ling
> anth perspectives on the subject. Keep your eye out for it!
>
> Happy winter solstice!
>
> Steve
>
> Steven P. Black // Study Abroad in Costa Rica! Visit:
> http://www.studyabroad.gsu.edu/?go=GlobalHealthChallenges
> <http://www.studyabroad.gsu.edu/?go=GlobalHealthChallenges>//
> Department of Anthropology // Georgia State University // P.O. Box
> 3998 // Atlanta, GA 30302-3998 // (404) 413-5168
> <tel:%28404%29%20413-5168>
>
> *From: *Linganth <linganth-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:linganth-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>> on behalf of
> Eric Henry <Eric.Henry at smu.ca <mailto:Eric.Henry at smu.ca>>
> *Date: *Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 8:06 PM
> *To: *"LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org>"
> <LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Linganth] CDC Language ban
>
> Some more reporting has emerged in the last few days which seems
> to confirm the suspicion of many that the CDC ban was actually
> some more-or-less informal direction from supervisors that their
> subordinates avoid certain language in the preparation of budget
> documents lest an antagonistic congress and White House find
> reason to slash their funding.
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/12/there_is_no_ban_on_words_at_the_cdc.html
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/12/there_is_no_ban_on_words_at_the_cdc.html>
>
> There is even some indication that this is not a new phenomenon –
> that bureaucrats in the Obama administration avoided the term
> “global war on terror” in favour of “overseas contingency
> operations” and so forth.
>
> I am curious however what colleagues make of the author’s final
> argument in the linked article above, namely that the media and
> the public have chosen to focus on words as a proxy for policies
> rather than the policies themselves. That is to say, if the
> government were to pepper its websites and policy papers with
> “climate change” and “global warming,” but still withdraw from the
> Paris climate accords and fund new coal plants, would we have
> gained anything by the inclusion of those words? In some sense it
> is the same argument Republicans (and Donald Trump himself) put
> forward about Obama and Clinton not using the words “radical
> Islamic terror.” They implied that the solution to the problem was
> predicated on using the right term. This seems indicative of a
> widespread language ideology in American politics today presuming
> that if we could only use the right words, if we could only call
> things what they “really” are (like “FAKE NEWS!”), all problems
> will be solved. I’m fascinated with this idea that American
> politics has become a struggle over the meaning of words, but I’d
> be interested to hear what others – who actually live and work in
> the US – think about this.
>
> Eric Henry
>
> Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology
>
> Saint Mary’s University
>
> Halifax, NS
>
> _______________________________________________ Linganth mailing
> list Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linganth mailing list
> Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org
> <mailto:Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linganth mailing list
> Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/linganth/attachments/20180106/507b41cc/attachment.htm>
More information about the Linganth
mailing list