The invisible threads of rhetoric

Among all human actions, speech is very peculiar because it can convey (at least) two messages at the same time. The first message is the obvious one, the content of the words, something describing the state of your mind or a perception you have had, like "it is raining", However, like any other act, speaking is also a social signal, and a particularly rich at that: the situation where you say those words is relevant, to whom you speak, the words you use and the words you decide not to use, the tone of your voice, all of them convey different pieces of information.

The nuances vary from one language to another: in some languages like English "pale blue" and "navy blue" are just shades of the same basic color "blue" but in Italian they are two different colors: "azzurro" and "blu". Conversely, the words "safety" and "security" both translate to "seguridad" in Spanish. It is not like there is no difference among the terms, in the same way that there are visible differences among the tones of blue, but the concept encompasses both and the context provides the missing information in the same way that saying "the sky is blue" does not normally mean that it is navy blue, just that there are no clouds that it is "the usual shade of blue for the sky".

Photo: Noralanning

However, the communication of our ideas is not the only purpose of language. When we are involved in a conversation, a frequent resort to show that we are listening to the counterpart is using their own words in our response. This can lead sometimes to uncomfortable situations, for instance when the speaker uses a malapropism, a words that sounds similar but has a different meaning from what they intend to say: the listener is faced with the dilemma of correcting the malapropism (thereby breaking the conversation or even insulting the speaker) or having to bite the bullet and go along with the incorrect terminology. It is a common meme among the gaming that parents (particularly moms) are unable to tell the different types of pokemon (the "POCKEt-MONsters" from the 1996 Japanese game of the same name and its many sequels) apart from on another and name them all "Pikachu" (probably the most famous one). Karen is quite a gamer herself, so she knows the terminology, but in other families it is not unlikely that one of the parents, wanting to be convivial with their kids, asks "Have you caught many pikachus today, son?" and the child, tired of correcting them without much success will simply say "Yes, it has been a very successful hunt" instead of exploding along the lines of "I have told you a thousand times that they are called pokemon! I have been hunting pokemon and it has been kite a successful hunt, but no, I have not caught a single pikachu today!".

But going back to the mirroring the word choice, this practice can be problematic because it can establish a rhetoric that hijacks the discourse and inhibits the critical thinking. This is the kind of manipulation that populists use time and time again to great success: by repeating their words you are implicitly accepting the veracity of their judgements. When former US president Donald Trump used the expression "Drain the swamp" during the 2016 campaign he was conveying his disregard for most of the federal governmental institutions that he deemed corrupt and inefficient. There was some (mild) debate about the adequacy of the metaphor, but it was not enough to push it back, so it remained in use and every time anyone read about "the swamp" they had to choose either to meekly agree with the tag and feel revolt at the idea fetid stagnant waters or make the conscious effort of mentally contesting the concept. But staying with a measured judgment is much harder than just tagging along with the negative emotional load intended by the message. Those are the invisible threads of the rhetoric that tie us almost without our own realization.

I wanted to discuss today the power of rhetoric because I recently ran into a contradiction between my support of "know thyself" and my skepticism against the idea of "discover who you are". It has taken me quite an introspection effort to pinpoint the reasons for the different reaction, because in principle I am all for understanding your own capabilities and tastes, so as to make well-informed decisions and avoid delusions and unnecessary frustration but then it struck me that the rhetoric  is not the same. The first starts with the assumption that you are who you are (I would even extend to "who you are now" because we change all the time, but this a different topic) and as everyone you are multi-faceted, so it is in your best interest to understand your facets to find a suitable path in life that does not imply too much unnecessary suffering. 

The problem I have with the "who you are" is the implication that, beyond the obvious (you are you, of course), you are composed of different versions of you that, all together build You. The rhetoric that there different "boxes" or sets of characteristics that you can ascribe to yourself is something that I profoundly dislike. Nothing unsettles me more than being asked if I am "a dog person" because, beyond the fact that I like (some) dogs, I do not know how many things I have in common with other people who also like dogs. I understand that the dichotomy dog- vs. cat-people eases many things, but it also deletes a whole lot of nuances that are essential to me: making an accurate assessment of the people I meet is so important that I had rather make some effort than risking falling for a prejudice.

There are many shortcuts in our mind, many assumptions in our expression, many tacit agreements in our relationships, and most of the time we are not aware of them. But perhaps looking at the words we choose to say or to repeat can give us some insight into what we think, not only as individual, but also as group(s). Have a nice weekend.