When we last discussed The Role of Words, we talked about how words are symbols and tools. Symbols in that each arrangement of letters is inherently meaningless until we collectively agree to assign it a meaning. Tools in that the words themselves are neither "good" nor "bad"; it's the intent with which they're wielded that can be designated as such.
In that post, we focused on the responsibility of the person or people receiving the message. But in any type of communication, there are two parties. The recipient of the message is just one of them. The sender of the message--the speaker--is the other. As you might expect, the speaker has his/her/their own set of responsibilities.
On Thursday, 400 Rabbis reminded us of these responsibilities when they printed an open letter calling for Glenn Beck to be sanctioned and for Roger Ailes to apologize...essentially for Beck's liberal and unapologetic use of words related to the Holocaust and the stance of both that it's perfectly okay for him to speak in such a manner.
As speakers, it's our responsibility to be aware of the words we use, to understand their denotation (or definition meaning) as well as their connotation. Because unlike physical tools such as a shovel, words can't simply be washed off after every use. The residue that clings to a word each time we pull it out of the toolbox builds up over time. In a few cases--like the Holocaust--no repeated usage of the word was needed to accrete a connotation; the blood and horror of the event thoroughly encrusted the word in what should have been such an appalling connotation that no one could ever forget it.
When we speak, if we're not mindful of both the denotation and the connotation of the words we use, we could find ourselves digging into some very unpleasant places. In some cases, the speaker may be misinformed about the proper usage of a word; in some cases there may be regional differences in meaning or other source of mutual misunderstanding, or the speaker simply may not care. In the worst cases, the speaker may intend to offend. Both of the latter two are completely unacceptable. Especially when speaking to a large audience, especially when you know you have massive numbers of people hanging onto your every word, you take your responsibility as a speaker seriously, and you speak mindfully and with respect for all people, whether you agree with them or not. To do less--regardless of audience size--is unethical.
This may seem to contradict my earlier post on the role of words. It's actually not contradictory; it's complementary. In communication, both sides have responsibilities. It's the responsibility of the listener to ensure his or her understanding of the speaker's intent and to not fly off the handle at an "offensive" word when no offense was intended. It's the responsibility of the speaker to do his or her best to select words that appropriately communicate the intended message and then, when possible, to check back with the listener to ensure that the message was received as intended. If misunderstanding exists, it can be resolved then and there before real trouble erupts.
An extreme perspective on the part of either the speaker or the listener sparks friction. When the listener demonizes words that are really neutral, that's a problem. When the speaker recklessly flings around words that are clearly and obviously negatively-charged, that's a problem as well.
As with pretty much everything in life, the key is twofold: be responsible for ourselves, and maintain balance. It not as easy as it sounds, but it really is that simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment