Every cultural, political and religious movement has its own accompanying linguistics that develops as the adherents grow and strengthen both their power and identity. Linguistics serve a sociological function of giving subtle cues whether one is truly in the group or not in the group.
There is nothing new under the sun (so it is written) and I suppose this sociological tool has served some purpose since the beginning of humankind. Sound bites and shorthand cues are subtle and easier for indirect communication.
Indeed, followers of Jesus often utilize forms of Christianese or the dropping of deeper biblical understandings or scriptures within interactions. Like a sprinkling of salt, this seasoning of speech can actually serve a vital function. To the degree that whatever cultural, political or religious group’s foundation is actually on solid virtuous ground, the natural sociological function of identifying linguistics seems quite human and innocuous even though it understandably can lead to feelings of social inclusion or exclusion in various ways.
The feeling one gets, sociologically, or being included or excluded, in some ways is a valuable sociological tool (if functioning in the best sense of things). It can prompt one to go more deeply into a community that is based upon things that are truly good, right and holy in this world. For example, if we feel touched positively by a beautiful phrase of words used within Christian circles that is based in deep truths, we may in turn comfort another person in the future with the same or similar words.
But the problematic flipside comes when any cultural, political or religious movement engages in the same sociological, linguistic process to communicate, promote and otherwise proselytize ideologies not based in truth and all that is good, right and holy in this world. I think of Jesus telling the religious leaders of His day that were off base that they search high and low to find converts and then make them twice as fit for hell as they themselves are. (my paraphrase of Mathew 23:15)
__________
I briefly think of the story of the Tower of Babel where my offhand (without looking up for any specific texts–only to see that this was “700 years after the flood”) summarizing memory is that the One True God became concerned over human activity that involved a building of a tower that would touch heaven. (Doesn’t that sound like a beautiful thing? What could possibly be wrong or troubling about a tower that ‘touched heaven’?)
God was so concerned about this unified activity (which one would assume God saw its potential destructive, negative goal/impact upon humankind) that He confused their language. So they could no longer communicate with one another and keep building this thing.
I believe it says that all language was one (unified) at that point, and this story is the beginning of diversification of language. For those wanting to read the text it is found in Genesis 11:1-9. Now surely scripture contains a variety of genre and this story, like many in Genesis and elsewhere, is subject to deeper study and analysis/exegesis of its meaning. I simply mention it because of my concerns about the currently developing unified, linguistic virtue signaling of creeping WOKENESS.
__________
How do we know when we are being coerced and manipulated? Do people that engage in intentional methods of coercion, control and manipulation always speak loudly and forcefully or angrily? Is that the means by which we can identify them? Or sometimes do they get away with saying terribly off base things simply by speaking softly and with a seemingly innocent smile?
(I think of the phrase by Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly and carry a big stick.)
What about the seemingly mild-mannered person who appears to be speaking softly, yet we know something is really askew. This uncanny ability to present as calm and rational (or even morally virtuous) can be a didactic methodology that leads many a sincere person trying to listen and understand into a terrible maze of linguistic Chutes-and-Ladders and messaging obstacle course.
Add in the sometimes (possibly often) passive-aggressive technique of upspeak/uptalk in which the speaker makes a strong comment but turns voice inflection upward as though they are unsure about what they are saying or not wanting to overtly appear aggressive, but are simply and meekly “just asking a question” embedded within their deeply packed and layered, implied, strong (even aggressive) statement.
For example, imagine trying to dialogue with someone who makes some pronounced statement of “truth” or “judgement” in an indirect manner of sorts. The hearer correctly hears that this is not a question to discuss but indeed a pronouncement (with its implied moral high ground), and they are put in a no-win position. If they address the underlying statement, the speaker accuses them of defensiveness (thus implying the truth and accuracy of said statement), and might indicate they were simply “asking them a question” and giving the listener an “opportunity to grow.”
This reversal (even projection-laden) communication style understandably escalates emotive responses, while the initiator/instigator remains calm, and basically, in control of the interaction.
What if…what if there was actual a ‘playbook’ of these techniques?
__________
Language and logistics are extremely important and powerful. These days it could well be observed that one can even get a good sense of the person’s level of WOKENESS indoctrination by the way they speak.
In the past months I heard a term called virtue signaling. And I would almost bet that it is not those within the age bracket of 15 years old to possibly 40 years old that would so easily identify patterns of private and public speaking and notice indicators of virtue signalling.
Virtue signaling is a somewhat passive technique. It is the usage of certain words, phrases and concepts coupled with the style of inflections, with upspeak/uptalk and vocal fry being the most identifiable of these, that seem to be utilized (if not weaponized) to assert ones moral high ground.
Language continues its evolution throughout history and culture with seemingly slow adoption of new words or wordisms (is that a word?) coupled with the most current syntax and inflection patterns.
I’m guilty of upspeak/uptalk at times, and I’m not saying it’s entirely a bad thing. Indeed one can make quite a statement or put forth a number of things simply by splashing in a rhythm and upward inflectional tone to one’s voice.
I once read/heard somewhere that people in my age bracket who have adopted upspeak/uptalk to some degree tend to be people that either have had teenagers in their life (especially teenage girls, although I am noticing in recent times males are equally utilizing the technique) that they’ve gradually mirrored. Or, these older folks tend to be more young-minded, pliable and open to new thinking (with interest in current events and trends, for example), therefore exposing themselves and taking in younger people’s methods of speaking and expressing.
A number of years back I came across a funny YouTube by a Canadian man who poked some fun and observations concerning upspeak/uptalk and vocal fry in what he titled Uptalk, Like and Creaky Voice (Vocal Fry) (I am super guilty of using the word “like” as I try to communicate…and this is “like-ly” traceable all the way back to my own speech development as a child/teenager, for whatever reason! Speech patterns–especially those connected to emotional expressions–can be very difficult to recognize and break.) This man starts his video by saying he wants to comment on the degradation of the English language, and people my age will find his presentation amusing.
I came across another (more recent) commentary called What’s the deal with Uptalk? that came up under the search phrase uptalk vocal fry woke culture. I listened halfway through and though interesting description/comments on the phenomenon, she, like many, view the technique as communicating uncertainty/insecurity. I disagree. At least, in the context of WOKE activists for the various interconnected agendas. The woman in the video did make reference to the “variety of psychological back alleys” surrounding the usage of upspeak/uptalk (that she is not fully delving into), and it is my strong belief that this technique, along with vocal fry (in the WOKE context), is actually a high indicator of a young person who actually does consider themselves authoritative on some subject and subtly controlling the conversation and feels entitled to compliance, full agreement with their statements.
But it is subtle (and unproveable, in a sense, like all these tactics tend to be)…really really subtle. One must have their radar up for it, and for various reasons in the past several years my radar has become better attuned to this phenomenon.
I believe it is indicative of the masked/guised agenda that is gaining powerful momentum but that comes to us veiled as powerlessness and meekness. It comes to us as simply (and fearfully) asking some question (while making a statement). It seems like a setup. Because if the statement (not a question, actually) the speaker makes is addressed/critiqued, then the speaker can easily turn to using the victim card—that of being shut down or oppressed for simply asking a question. Note that then that they feel unsafe. It is somehow an unsafe environment or situation if anyone thinks critically or challenges their free speech. In fact, to do so is evidence (to them) of censorship and shutting their free speech and rights down.
Got it??
I should add the term shut down to my growing list of phrases that are often (but not always) used as communication weapons, with the head-spinning experience that the person leveling the accusation of being shut down is actually the one shutting down direct, rational, effective and honest communication.
Enter the maze of linguistic Chutes-and-Ladders and rhetorical, linguistic mumbo jumbo/psychobabble of THE WOKE.
(OK, I recognize my use of the word weapon above, which stems from somewhat adopting the term weaponization from a WOKE-ish individual at one point. See, it’s a hazy, crazy maze of use, overuse, guessing and second guessing…with new linguistics not always being categorical out-of-place….whew…so exhausting...)
__________
I have several blog pieces in process that directly or indirectly relate to language usage of THE WOKE. As we all continue our attempts to navigate the type of linguistical mazes our world is increasingly creating and utilizing to some purpose or agenda, I think it is important that we attune our ears to the giveaways that sometimes (but not always) may indicate something deeper and darker at work.
There’s been a lot of talk over the past decade about having conversations. About unpacking things. About holding space and creating safe places for these conversations. And in a lot of ways, I like these ideas. I like a good and meaningful conversation where both parties can mutually exchange ideas (or wounds, hurts, needs and perspectives) without either requiring or otherwise sanctioning the other person for holding different thoughts on some matter. The scriptures say that love covers a multitude of sins. But it seems to me that the idea of agreeing to disagree is increasingly not embraced, and mutual respect and productive dialogue in increasingly difficult to come by.
At some point we must use deeper critical thinking skills and analysis of who is attempting to own these conversations. And to recognize methods of violent weaponization of various things that comes to us masked as non-violent, non-threatening (even beautiful) presentation. In scripture, Christians are told that Satan comes to us disguised as an angel of light. That’s a lot to unpack, as contemporary language might put things. Images circulate in my mind of beautiful angels and beautiful light…but actually being in the realm of demonic darkness and horrific ugliness.
__________
Own it. This seems to be a pejorative maneuver that those in that age bracket thrust into the maze to sound as though they are on the high ground–calling others and in particular those who actually have much deeper life experience, wisdom and truer moral high ground to take responsibility for the younger person’s issues.
If that paragraph above didn’t quite make sense, welcome to the amazing maze-like Chutes-and-ladders game called WOKEISM.
The only thing that could seemingly be worse (or the next step up) in all of this is if there were actually some type of popular playbook for these techniques (and a playbook that went beyond simple linguistics).
I recently heard a phrase used in a video presentation which grabbed my attention. It somewhat reminded me of something I’ve heard but I recognized it contextually to be a different spin on the phrase/meaning of getting into ‘good trouble’ (connected with the civil rights leader John Lewis). I surely hope that the WOKE aren’t co-opting and twisting this linguistic into something very different.
That would be highly concerning and worthy of educating ourselves on. If there is a playbook of techniques familiar to many in various social movements who consider themselves WOKE, I think we should know about it.
Hmmm….more to continue at some point on all of this…
Thank You For Reading
Please Feel Free To Express Your Thoughts Below
