[Linganth] CDC Language ban

[Kerim Friedman]

The New Yorker had a great cartoon on this:

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/monday-december-18th-cdc-moron

Kerim

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 1:08 AM Galey Modan <gmodan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Linganth mailing list
> Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth
>
-- 

---
P. Kerim Friedman 傅可恩
Associate Professor
The Dept. of Ethnic Relations & Cultures
College of Indigenous Studies
National DongHwa University, TAIWAN
副教授國立東華大學族群關係與文化學系
http://kerim.oxus.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/linganth/attachments/20171223/8c5124e5/attachment.htm>