The Words We Speak

Our use of language can be so powerful—and so destructive.  Over the years I have focused on how we communicate with each other, and have especially been concerned with the vitriol that has been so typical of public discussions in recent years.  I’ve also noticed how I’m not free of the emotions and dialogue that I criticize.  But recently I’ve decided to look into the ways we speak to each other and I’m curious to know what you think about my observations…

Finger-pointing

                It’s easy to be caught up in the debate of who is the nastiest in public discussion, or who does it more often.  For me, this debate misses the point.  I’ve decided that for me it’s not important who does it more or who is worse.  In today’s public discussions, vitriol is rampant in every direction.   I think a more valuable conversation is to look at the nature of these angry diatribes and ultimately ask if they are helpful and even how I contribute to them.  I’ve decided they aren’t helpful to me, and in fact they are destructive.

The Nature of Vitriolic Speech

                As I’ve studied the public speaking around me, I’ve noticed that it has certain attributes (and this list isn’t meant to be complete):  (1) Vitriolic language is punitive; it allows the speaker to attack and condescend to the people or ideas it criticizes, and therefore fools the speaker into feeling superior; (2) This type of language is lazy and careless; it allows a person to send out venom without taking responsibility for being ethical, rational or eloquent; (3) It’s often intended to stimulate outrage in the other, either to spur those who feel the same to action or to support an idea, or insult and antagonize those who don’t agree; (4) It is often irrational, lacking facts; being accurate or reasonable is secondary to telling others how the speaker feels; (5) It is dishonest; a diatribe is often (intentionally or not) simplistic, incomplete,  a myth, or can be contrived to demonize the other.  In other words, I think that vitriolic speech, in polarized times, is inappropriate and harmful.

What Can be Done

                For one thing, I’ve decided that when I speak out about my own views, I need to be sure I’m walking my own talk.  And when I’m not speaking about vitriol, but simply expressing my views on anything, I’ve tried to clarify for myself what qualities my speech could have.  This is what I’ve decided:

(1)  I want to make sure that my passion for an idea and its expression isn’t punitive or intended to hurt the other.   I think passion is valuable; (2) given limitations of space and time, I want to be as factual as I can, or else qualify what I say as opinion (3) as often as I can, I want to question my assumptions—why do I think this or that, how do I know that it’s true, is it a fair assumption to draw; (4) I want to speak and write with dignity and eloquence.  Recently I had the opportunity to read Martin Luther King’s letter from a Birmingham Jail, which you can read at

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/annotated_letter_from_birmingham/.

His letter inspired me to clarify how I can write in a powerful, passionate and eloquent manner.  I’ll never be the writer or speaker that the Rev. King was, but I can hold him up as an example of how I can communicate in the world.

A Final Thought

                Many of us have an opinion of vitriol and its expression in the world today.  Although we may not like its expression, we also can benefit from not demonizing those who speak it.  From a Zen perspective, these words are variable, unfixed, situational, and they gain their power through our responses to them; noticing our responses and consciously choosing not to empower them is a practice we can embrace.  We can also allow ourselves to identify with those who speak out from hopelessness, frustration, helplessness and anger.  And I hope that every one of us will ask ourselves how we can show our own passion and concerns about our world in helpful, eloquent and honest ways.