[Linganth] CDC Language ban

Fri Dec 22 19:18:32 UTC 2017

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// Department of Anthropology // Georgia State University // P.O. Box 3998 // Atlanta, GA 30302-3998 // (404) 413-5168<tel:(404)%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

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

_______________________________________________
Linganth mailing list
Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto: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/20171222/26f0d767/attachment.htm>