The language used and heard, individually and collectively, in each of the four categories below, shapes the society.
Each is a function of people and institutions.
For everyone for whom a guiding principle of society is achieving “A More Perfect Union,” and for everyone who seeks to navigate a path in that direction, language is a critical tool in guiding that course. The selection of specific language and comprehending the specific language of others is a perpetual challenge.
First and foremost, language, in one context, serves the engagement of the full spectrum and the discourse which advances “A More Perfect Union.”
In another context, it can be counter to those objective.
At times, it seems that the result of promoting and engaging in the discourse ends up becoming entangled in discourse which is not advancing, and may even be counter to my objectives. This may even be true when the language of those with whom I collaborate does not serve in advancing the vision.
There is one current example which I share because (a) it makes the point, and (b) engaging in discourse can actually become discouraging because of this common use of language.
“We are a nation divided” is the common perception and therefore is assumed to be a given, among those in the media, politicians, academics. This sets the stage for our own interactions among those which whom we work in common to set strategies for navigating an election, a public forum or communal discourse.
How do “we” unite the divided nation?
How do “we” bridge the gap in our divided nation?
In this divided nation, to secure our rights, “we” need to overcome efforts of the opposing side of the divide.
As I am writing this, I received an email invitation to a workshop on building dialogue “focusing on the red-blue divide”
So here it is. Seeking the benefits of greater dialogue, I am tempted to join in.
Except, I have to accept several givens, implicit in this language:
- There is a divide which includes everyone and they are on the red side or the blue side.
- The arena in which there is discourse – planned or spontaneous – only takes place among people who seen themselves, OR ARE SEEN, as on the red side or blue side of the divide.
- There is a presumed fixed definition, or criteria, which designates how every participant will be, or be seen, on the red side or the blue side.
- In order to share in this discourse, you have to align yourself with the red side or the blue side.
- If you share in this discourse, you will be aligned with the red side or the blue side – forever. Unless, of course, having been assumed to be on the blue side, you defend a statement which has been characterized by someone as blue, in which case you will now be assumed to be on the red side – forever.
- You can attempt to attend as someone who does not fit the stereotype of red or blue, in which case you will classify yourself as a guest.
- You really believe that it is about the people, not the nation, and you are committed to seeking a nation in which “We The People – All The People” is a core principle
Why would a core community agency, which is non-partisan and which promotes discourse to advance the common good, establish the framework of the workshop using partisan language.
If it is your guiding principle is diminish the “partisan” and “divided” nature of the nation, would it feel like the time in this workshop would benefit your initiative.
Might you be, in the end, complicit in perpetuating a framework which images a “nation divided” – and furthers ” a people divided?”
What’s Next: One Place to Shift to the Language of SpectrumEngagement