Ethos and Error: Judging Incorrectness

It is human nature to judge people for whatever types of work they produce or how they present themselves. Language is often a form of what it judged--often the written form.

It’s funny; I just had a conversation with my dance instructor less than an hour ago about how unprofessional dance websites and emails appear because the spelling, and sometimes grammar, are so bad. Often, it’s easy to see errors in documents as a form of laziness, which directly funnels into a perception of the one making the errors as unprofessional. For these reasons, judgements about errors are valid, but to an extent and in context. If a document that should be professional is riddled with errors, that reflects negatively on whomever wrote it, and rightfully so.

Alternately, one could argue that errors are no big deal if they don’t inhibit clarity. Larry Beason discusses this in his essay/study, “Ethos and Error.” For example, I am in Chicago right now at a dance event--the very event that sends out the atrocious emails that were part of the conversation I mentioned earlier. Do I find the emails annoying and unprofessional? Yes. But do they stop me from coming to the event? Nope. Somehow--and it takes some effort to do this--I must realize that there are more important things to consider about going to a dance competition than how professional and correct their emails are. However, if there were many other indicators of laziness or unprofessionalism that stained the name of the event and its directors in addition to the emails, that would be a different story.

One could argue that sometimes we are too critical and judgmental of people who do not place a high priority on correctness. That may be true, as it’s easy to be a stickler--even borderline pretentious--when it comes to making judgements of people about their writing and the errors within it. It’s another way that we find to pass judgement. Really, like anything though, it’s a matter of considering context and keeping things in healthy perspective.

Teaching of Language Speaks to Bigger Issues

One of the many ways that language is political is the way that discussion of it points to larger societal issues. This is especially true when discussing the teaching of language and the attitudes involved in how language and writing are taught.

Any strong opinion of how language should be used and taught leads to arguments about the social characteristics involved. For example, in Heather MacDonald’s essay “Writing Down Together,” she argues that “anti-authoritarian and liberationist” views, which “reflected the political culture of the time,” responded to issues of language, writing, and race in a way that “celebrated inarticulateness.” Her primary example is the “movement to legitimate black English.” Even in this short paragraph, an array of social and political issues are addressed.

First, the article alludes to the larger issue of how communication styles of minority groups are seen in different lights. Some people believe that these communicative systems are legitimate and acceptable. Others, like MacDonald, believe the exact opposite. But either view clearly acknowledges the way that societies are stratified in ways that establish a “standard” and minority variants.

But the larger issue is how strict standardization--and the teaching thereof-- “should” be. This is political in the way that it involves identification of social standards and ways that larger ruling entities make the decisions of how language should be used and taught. And further, this opens discussion into how authoritative leadership figures should be. MacDonald argues that the leaders and teachers of the time she wrote the article were “liberationists” in that they believed less in strict teaching and direction and more in guidance and encouragement of expression of ideas. She, obviously, falls on the other end of this spectrum.

All of these issues are important in the way that they apply to both language and other issues. Concerns with social class, race, teaching/leadership styles, and even parenting techniques are concepts that can be applied on personal scales all the way up to large structural organizations, and in a conversation centered in discussion about language, it is concepts such as these that are unavoidably linked and pulled in to these same types of conversations.

Political aspects of Language: "Educated" Voice

There are many aspects of languages that allude to the fact that it is political. Language cannot be detached from its social and political components, and any exploration of language's power is one that would pave the way to endless avenues of further discussion.

One example is how "educated" speech is used as a means of gaining power. There is power in the ability to appear to have a large vocabulary; using speech eloquently adds credibility to a speaker and can completely transform the way a speaker is perceived.

For example, taking a look at prominent recent political figures, say, presidents such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, it would be difficult to argue that their persuasive power would be as high without their ability to speak well. They have used their skill in articulation to appeal to people on all levels and classes and have become figures known and respected for the command of language and speaking ability they possess.

But language can also be used in this way to manipulate. Often, less educated peoples may have greater respect for someone who uses "educated" or "higher level" language simple because of what they feel it represents. This can be dangerous if the person or entity does not deserve respect otherwise and uses that command of language in a negative way. Language in a political speech, contract, or disclaimer may seem "educated" and therefore "credible," even when it may be extremely obscure.

This shows why the political power of language is important. It can be used in an array of ways, positive or negative. And to deny its power is to deny the accomplishments achieved and injustices committed with it.