[Linganth] CDC Language ban

[Galey Modan]

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>:

> 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// Department of
> Anthropology // Georgia State University // P.O. Box 3998 // Atlanta, GA
> 30302-3998 // (404) 413-5168
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Linganth <linganth-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf
> of Eric Henry <Eric.Henry at smu.ca>
> *Date: *Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 8:06 PM
> *To: *"LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org" <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
>
> 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 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/20171222/909773fc/attachment.htm>