Home > ill-considered rants, writing > “Rhetoric” on the ground

“Rhetoric” on the ground

January 14, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

Among my least favourite seasons is the season of year-end lists. And the year-end lists I like least are the lists of words to be retired from the language, obnoxious expressions, and so on.

“On the ground,” a couple of years back, is a good example. This expression was all the rage for a while, among journalists telling us what was going on in Iraq. Commanders “on the ground” said this, or the situation looked different “on the ground,” or whatever. It was everywhere.

Self-appointed guardians of the language singled this one out on their year end lists, with such penetrating questions as “where else would one be? In the air?”

The problem with buzzwords is not simply overuse; it’s overuse by people who don’t really know what they mean. Buzzwords don’t start out empty and meaningless. They usually have specific, concrete meanings; then they get adopted by people who don’t quite get them, weakened, diluted, neutered. And finally, they get “retired” by the aforementioned language guardians.

“On the ground” began life with a specific, useful meaning. In the military, and in any field that relies heavily on information gleaned from maps, you have the information you get from the map, and “the ground truth,” that is, the information you get from the terrain itself. Your map may imply that, from the top of that slope, you can see the intersection, but the ground truth may be otherwise. And that’s a critical distinction, obviously, if you’re setting up an observation post.

When an officer talks about the situation on the ground, he isn’t just spouting excess verbiage. He isn’t so dumb as not to understand that there is no other place to be. There is another place to be, the first place he goes when he receives orders: on the map.

The media seems to love finding buzzwords in the military, as it gives those reports from the front lines that certain frisson. (“Frisson,” I think, was on someone’s retirement list last year.) So it was with “on the ground.”

Our language guardians, I note, love to pick on three things: news reporting, the military, and business. Deservedly so, perhaps; all three are awash in buzzwords. But there’s one place they never look.

This came to mind when considering a couple of comments at Rebecca Rosenblum’s blog, in which people confessed that they weren’t entirely sure of the meaning of “rhetoric.”

Rhetoric, sez the good old Handbook to Literature, is “the art of persuasion”, but Webster’s online dictionary is less sure; according to that source, “rhetoric” means little more than “discourse.” And this is the very meaning of “buzzword”: a word with a specialized application that has become so overused that it has lost much of its original value.

“Discourse,” perhaps, is similarly meaningless. How about “narrative?” Or “trope?”

On the ground, these words have become rather empty. We know this because we’re no longer quite sure of their meanings. I use “rhetoric” to mean “persuasive language; persuasion.” Mostly. And secondarily, “cheap talk from people who prorogue when the going gets rough” (but I digress). But I know I’m not alone in finding that I’m not always certain what’s meant when I read that word. I know what I mean; what you mean is a whole nother problem.

Clearly, people who count themselves literate have a whole class of buzzwords all their own.

The fact is, we all use buzzwords; they’re a part of the living language. That self-proclaimed literate class, those people who claim to be so sensitive to language that the mere use of “paradigm shift” provokes nausea, seem to lack an awareness of their own sloppy usage. If the authors of those lists, and all those people amused by them, were really so sensitive to language, perhaps they’d pluck the timber out of their own eyes and pass it through the buzzword buzzsaw.

Advertisements
  1. January 16, 2010 at 1:28 am

    I don’t have to think a moment about this. It is not a word, but a particular phrase, a rhetorical device, that I dislike the most. I despise it: “Don’t you think…” This is the most disingenuous piece of shit in the whole English lexicon of cheap rhetorical tricks, which is quite deep. Because of course no matter what follows it, no matter how lame, prejudicial, blunt, or just plain stupid, it is certainly NOT what the listener thinks. That is the whole point. It implies an almost pychotic level of projection on the part of the speaker…and tone and inflection don’t matter a bit. This is why it thrives in political discourse, especially if it’s televised, and where almost every inane sentence begins with it. It should be driven from the language in rags and burnt at the stake!
    TOG

  2. January 16, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Don’t you think that’s going a bit too far?

  3. January 17, 2010 at 12:25 am

    Bad phrases, and the bad habits of mind that go along with them, have been jeered out of the language many times before. Instead of starting with some politically correct point of view, and all the nonsense that goes along with it, or the stupid attacks on pop buzzwords of the moment which, I agree with you, are little more than pop cant themselves, let’s begin with something more general and far more substantial. “Don’t you think…” became especially prevalent in the nasty political discussions of the last few years in both Europe and America. That is quite revealing, and a discussion about it would be far more productive than all this hype about the latest phrase employed by ad-men.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: