As Graddol and Swan observe when compared with larger social and ideological

As graddol and swan observe when compared with larger

This preview shows page 475 - 479 out of 605 pages.

generated real change. As Graddol and Swan observe, " when compared with larger social and ideological struggles, linguistic reform may seem quite a trivial concern ," further noting "there is also the danger that effective change at this level is mistaken for real social change" (Graddol & Swan 195). The second reason is that the language we find objectionable can serve as a signal or an indicator of the corresponding objectionable reality. The third reason is that restricting language only limits the overt expressions of any objectionable reality, while leaving subtle and hence more dangerous expressions unregulated . Once we drive the objectionable idea underground it will be more difficult to identify, more difficult to root out, more difficult to counteract, and more likely to have its undesirable effect . The fourth reason is that objectionable speech can create a "backlash" effect that raises the consciousness of people Copyright © William H. Bennett 2010 Visit us at 575-751-0514 475
Image of page 475
exposed to the speech. Strossen observes that "ugly and abominable as these expressions are, they undoubtably have had the beneficial result of raising social consciousness about the underlying societal problem..." (560). Copyright © William H. Bennett 2010 Visit us at 575-751-0514 476
Image of page 476
Offensive Language Censorship reduces political analysis to justifications for prosecution Judith Butler , Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature, UC Berkeley, Performativity and Performance, Ed. Parker and Sedgwick, 1995 , p. 204 That words wound seems incontestably true, and that hateful, racist, misogynist, homophobic speech should be vehemently countered seems incontrovertibly right. But does understanding from where speech derives its power to wound alter our conception of what it might mean to counter that wounding power ? Do we accept the notion that injurious speech is attributable to a singular subject and act? If we accept such a juridical constraint on thought - the grammatical requirements of accountability - as a point of departure, what is lost from the political analysis of injury when the discourse of politics becomes fully reduced to juridical requirements ? ? Indeed, when political discourse is collapsed into juridical discourse, the meaning of political opposition runs the risk of being reduced to the act of prosecution. How is the analysis of the discursive historicity of power unwittingly restricted when the subject is presumed as the point of departure for such an analysis? A clearly theological construction, the postulation of the subject as the causal origin of the performative act is understood to generate that which it names; indeed, this divinely empowered subject is one for whom the name itself is generative. Copyright © William H. Bennett 2010 Visit us at 575-751-0514 477
Image of page 477
Academic Discourse Good (1/2) Their rejection of ‘academic theory’ is disastrous for the oppressed – it encourages a form of politics where we all already have our minds made up that policymaking can’t help us. This forecloses connections with potential allies and essentializes the experience of the oppressed.
Image of page 478
Image of page 479

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 605 pages?

  • Fall '17
  • Mr. Miller

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture